The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Pretty Much
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

 
Hide 170 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Oh No! American Collusion!!!

  2. But could she love, could she woo?
    Could she, could she, could she coup?
    Has anybody seen my Tul?

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  3. And why should we listen to her? The good people tell us she wears KKK white pantsuits when she is not Vladimir Putin’s special surfer agent.

    Every good thinking person knows that interfering with foreign elections is good as long as you don’t spend 1200 bucks on Facebook ads and don’t loathe Russia enough.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @John Achterhof
    , @BenKenobi
  4. Tulsi’s so determined to assert that the USA shouldn’t be interfering in other countries’ business all around the world. She should hope and pray that being drummed out of the Democrat party is the worst thing that happens to her.

    • Agree: PiltdownMan, HammerJack
    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Barnard
    , @Desiderius
  5. Yeah, good on her for this, but she is still a rabid Socialist like the rest of them.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    , @MBlanc46
  6. There’s a way to say “Pretty Much” more emphatically: “Pretty the f*** much.” I’ll be watching to see if your headline changes.

  7. Anon[331] • Disclaimer says:

    She’s pretty young. I could see her in 2024 or 2028 somehow ending up in the White House, maybe as a Republican. She has the tell it like she sees it gene, like Trump, and that appeals to people. She’s getting more and more fearless and “what the hell” in her public statements. I don’t know if I like her positions on everything, but I like that she’s not totally PC and “cosmopolitan.”

    This sucks (from her website): On immigration she is for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which according to Mickey Kaus is basically open borders. She is also a co-sponsor of a lot of DACA and H-2B floodgate bills.

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
    , @MBlanc46
  8. Anon[331] • Disclaimer says:

    Sanders doubles down on Bolivia ‘coup,’ few follow suit

    BY RAFAEL BERNAL – 11/19/19 08:20 PM EST

    Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has doubled down this week on calling the recent ouster of Bolivia’s now-former President Evo Morales a “coup,” but few other U.S. lawmakers or candidates followed suit.

    The ongoing debate on whether constitutional order was maintained during and after the transition has echoed a larger divide in global politics. Sanders’s view is shared among the global left, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who granted asylum to Morales upon his exit from Bolivia.

    But the Trump administration — and opponents of the Latin American populist left embodied by Morales and López Obrador — saw the end of the Morales government as a boon to democracy in the region.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/americas/471180-sanders-doubles-down-on-bolivia-coup-few-follow-suit

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  9. SFG says:

    My point (which got eaten by the 4-posts-limit) on an earlier thread was that with all the realignments lately, people who don’t change their views to reflect the new consensus on their side tend to get support from the opposite side.

    Tulsi’s an antimilitarist, which used to be a strongly left-wing position. Except that now, the Dems and GOP are animated by different sides of the foreign policy blob. Being against wars was OK when it meant not being against Communism, but now it vaguely means not doing what Israel (and Saudi Arabia) wants. Which gets alt-right support. But she’s more of a lefty who didn’t get the memo.

    Look at all the liberals who got annoyed at the left turning on freedom of speech and make up the left end of the ‘intellectual dark web’. You might not like them because they’re pro-Israel (and for other reasons related to that), but it is another case of people having been left behind by shifting ideological winds.

    Heck, you could even count the neocons, who don’t really fit in the GOP anymore (look at Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin), though I suspect they’ll find a way back in if Trump loses, or else just become fully paid-up Democrats and write editorials in the NYT (or WaPo in Rubin’s case).

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Anon
    , @nebulafox
  10. Other than coca fields, is there anything important in Bolivia?

  11. Anon55uu says:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-tulsi-gabbards-base/

    I’m not quite sure how these people become “likely Democratic primary voters” for pollsters, but Tulsi has best support from those with conservative views, who are Republicans or who voted for Trump. I wonder how many people have registered Democratic just to vote for her.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  12. @Reg Cæsar

    “yo back bone broke but you still get up and dance”

  13. @Mister.Baseball

    The Mueller Investigation may have fallen short of expectations, but the long media fixation and hype on Russiagate that accompanied it seems to have provided a wider benefit in priming a communal pump of cynicism and hysteria toward RUSSIA. With the encouragement of Maddow and lesser lights, the heady stuff that a reader once enjoyed privately in thrillers may now be indulged in real life…and even serve to signal whose side your on! But I wonder: what is it that drives ordinary people, not apparently connected to the sprawling apparatus of party, to add their own mean smears to those of talking-point-echoing party hacks (paid and aspirational) on cable news and twitter? I suppose – analogous to the success of Trump – that any body long marinated in a politics of tribalism and outrage is bound to see the comportment of a generous, open & independent spirit as foreign – moreover an ostentatious display of inner luxury.

  14. “The United States and other countries should not be interfering in the Bolivian people’s pursuit of self-determination and right to choose their own government.”

    Too bad Tulsi doesn’t feel the same way our her own country’s people’s rights.

    You can have the longest drive on the tour (foreign policy), but if your short game sucks (immigration stance) then you ain’t winning any US Opens.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  15. Ano says:

    …The United States…

    That wouldn’t be the same The United States which interferes with the American people’s pursuit of self-determination and right to choose their own government, I suppose?

    …November 22…

    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
  16. DonTill says:

    Took her long enough

    The slaughter of the indigenous continues apace

    Be warned white supremacists. Your time is coming, the People remember. Justice will be swift. Look at South Africa

    • Replies: @Trutherator
  17. Anon[290] • Disclaimer says:

    O/T…

    Epstein’s prison guards, pictured below, spent their time sleeping, browsing the internet for furniture, and looking at sports scores.

    • Replies: @El Dato
  18. I told an old farmer in Pierre,
    “There’s a coup in Bolivia.” “Where?
    We should not go nowheres
    Near Asian affairs.
    Beyond that, I really don’t care.”

  19. BenKenobi says:
    @Mister.Baseball

    Das rite!

    Remember:

    Russian Facebook ads — pernicious, nation-wrecking election interference!

    Importing 100 million foreigners to stuff the ballot box — that’s just diversity you racist racist, you.

  20. anonymous[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG

    And compare what this website’s “Mr. Paleoconservative” had to say about Bolivia on Tuesday:

    “Bolivia’s uprising was over an election stolen by longtime president Evo Morales, who fled to Mexico to be welcomed by the foreign minister.”

    The commenters weren’t swallowing it, either. People are waking up to the bipartisan stench of empire.

  21. El Dato says:

    “An unbiased algorithm decided that the people of Bolivia were in dire need of a coup”

  22. Alfa158 says:

    “Look at all the liberals who got annoyed at the left turning on freedom of speech”.
    I’m genuinely puzzled here. Could you name a few?

  23. Art Deco says:

    She’s an idiot. He was running for re-election (1) contrary to constitutional provisions and (2) in defiance of a referendum held just three years ago on the very question of allowing him to run. An appellate court ruled arbitrarily that he could run anyway. An audit of the election returns revealed that his supporters stuffed the ballot boxes to boot.

  24. anon[597] • Disclaimer says:

    An audit of the election returns revealed that his supporters stuffed the ballot boxes to boot.

    In other words, a rather typical election in Latin America.

    The real question is: who gets control of the lithium mines? Something like 1 / 3 of known lithium that’s easy to get is within Bolivian territory. Argentina and Chile have some more.

    Can’t have that Tesla pickup without a lot of lithium.

    Good thing the Chinese never meddle in other countries political affairs, isn’t it?

  25. Barnard says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Tulsi has already announced she isn’t running for reelection to the House and has to know she has no chance of being the Democrats nominee for President or even getting a job in the administration of a winning Democrat candidate. What is her plan for after the election? She has to have something lined up that will pay her good money, but who is it with?

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    , @EdwardM
  26. zimriel says:

    An almost perfect tweet. Almost.

    Here is the assumption of her tweet which is ignorant: that there exists a “Bolivian people”. In fact, there are two Bolivian peoples and they do not mix. One of them is the indigenous Aymara-Quechua people (often nicknamed “Incas”), from which Morales hails. They control the mountains. The other is your bog-standard South American mestizo population. They inhabit the plains.

    A perfect tweet would allow for the right of both peoples to self-determination. But Gabbard is of the Left, so she does not allow for a wiser race to divorce itself from gibsmedats to Bronze Age barbarians.

  27. tbmcc says:
    @Art Deco

    How is that our business?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  28. Andy says:

    I love conspiracies just like the next guy, but this wasn’t a coup. Evo Morales ran for a fourth time despite this being against Evo’s own 2009 constitution, and despite losing a referendum against it. And when early results showed he was losing (he was going to a runoff he was in all likelihood going to lose) he stopped the vote counting for 24 hours, and when the counting returned, surprise, he had enough votes to avoid a runoff. The Bolivian people were outraged by this power grab, he started losing a lot of his allies over this, there were protests for several weeks until he had no choice but to resign. Of course, after he resigned he blamed everything on a “coup”.

    • Agree: Yngvar
  29. Tulsi Gabbard has the guts and the heart and the brains required to point out the foreign policy interventionist perfidy of the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire and other transnationalist plutocrat globalizer interests.

    Greed drives globalism and Tulsi Gabbard gets bothered when some plutocrat globalizers and their minion underlings grab loot like bastards from this or that nation or country or colonialism-derived contraption controlled by Europeans in the NEW World.

    Tulsi Gabbard still has heart.

    I say you ain’t gonna stop the greed for gains and riches and resources and power because they are natural and a part of the human essence. But, a White Core American can try to steer the American Empire towards a more narrow interpretation of USA national interests to prevent wars such as George W Bush’s Iraq War debacle which was obviously fought on behalf of the millstone client state called Israel.

    The Amerindians in Bolivia were removed from power and Europeans — Americans and Spaniards and the Bolivian European plutocracy — did it.

    Tulsi Gabbard is great when she denounces all these endless regime change wars, such as the Iraq War debacle of George W Bush, that the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire has dragged the US military into, but it will be hard to stop the use of force and fraud used by the plutocrat globalizers to grab loot.

    That Amerindian Indigenous Inca type guy in Bolivia got pushed aside by Europeans — and no doubt some Jews — because he was a threat to their ability to clam rake loot in Bolivia.

    Tulsi Gabbard has heart and integrity, and the obvious lies and perfidiousness of the greedy globalizer plutocrats gets her angry. God bless Tulsi Gabbard for pointing out the honest truth about foreign policy and the evil and immoral machinations of the globalized plutocrat ruling class.

    White Core America must send back to Latin America and Central America and Mexico all Amerindian and Mestizzo and other types who have flopped or crawled or swum into the USA in the last 60 years.

    White Core America must have heart and guts and brains to see that mass expulsions will be needed to advance the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.

    White Core America must tell the truth with integrity about how the various ruling classes of the world have colluded with the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire to flood foreigners into the USA.

  30. @Alfa158

    The last liberal I can recall who truly supported free speech was Nat Hentoff. Maybe there are others.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
  31. anon[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco

    Does any of that really change the “let them fight it out amongst themselves” calculus?

    Even if one concedes there is some morality or justice-based argument justifying interference: does a political faction who cannot muster the power to win, deserve, at a primordial level, to be in power? They will require continual support and propping-up. Let nature take it’s course.

    • Replies: @NOTA
  32. tyrone says:

    What about the coup happening here Tulsi……Oh ,by the way you are dead politically……go away zombie!

  33. bomag says:
    @Art Deco

    Okay, but still not thrilling if foreign gov’ts show up to help remove Michael Bloomberg and Al Franken because they cheated.

  34. Tulsi likes hanging out with Antifa.

    Don’t be fooled by the rack.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  35. Alfa158 says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    What I have have heard from liberals, starting with some of my high school teachers in the 1960’s, and sometimes explicitly, was “there is no such thing as a right to be wrong”.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  36. Jack D says:

    “Outsiders should not be interfering in our internal affairs” is the favorite line of dictators everywhere. The United States has various interests and if it is truly in the interest of the American people to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, then we should do it. “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” (Same for Russia and every other country). If political expediency or diplomacy requires that we should do it covertly, then we should do it covertly (and keep our mouths shut about it – Washington leaks like a sieve).

    Now in the case of Bolivia, I really don’t know enough about it – maybe we have a strategic interest in retaining access to Bolivian tin reserves or something. I think that the US has a general interest in upholding human rights and democratic government everywhere, but I know that some disagree about that. But just saying “we should never interfere in the internal affairs of another country” as a general rule is nonsense, especially when the Russians, the Chinese and everyone else act as if they are under no such compulsion.

    Now maybe we’ve been doing too much interfering and the return that we have gotten for our blood and treasure has been minimal. But that doesn’t mean that we should NEVER do it, just that we should make a much better effort to truly evaluate when it is really worth it.

  37. On that note:

  38. Realist says:

    As I have said before Gabbard is a one trick pony…but that trick is pretty damn cool.

  39. Whiskey says: • Website

    As a deplorable White man my #1 interest is avoiding ending up in a Chinese style internment camp.

    Coups, endless wars, and such are far preferable for me, than Madame Mao 2.0 Warren’s plans for a permanent Cultural Revolution putting me and mine in an internment camp from which there will be no release save death.

    I’ll take endless wars and foreign adventures and all that, because White men will be needed and useful. Instead of kulaks to be eliminated in a frenzy of cultural purity and smashing “the four olds” or whatever it is Elizabeth Warren is angry about her first husband and White men today.

  40. Realist says:
    @Jack D

    But that doesn’t mean that we should NEVER do it, just that we should make a much better effort to truly evaluate when it is really worth it.

    Wow, that is just belligerent, hegemonic bullshit And a good way for a country to get it’s ass kicked.

  41. Anon[325] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG

    The left is against war only when leftists are being drafted against their will (e.g. Vietnam) or leftist regimes are being attacked (Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua back in the 1980s). But if leftists think they can make a buck off of it or talk someone else into fighting for them, they’re all for it. (Ukraine, the entire Middle East for the last 3000 years).

    The left certainly cheered on the violent expansion of any communist regime throughout the 20th century, and various leftists volunteered to go off and fight in those wars. The Russian Revolution had plenty of leftist outsiders come in to fight it, and the Spanish Civil War certainly had a lot of high-profile leftist volunteers on the communist side.

    • Agree: JMcG
  42. @Alfa158

    Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin, Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson…soon to be joined by Bill Maher.

  43. nebulafox says:

    I’m generally sympathetic to her foreign policy views, especially since America’s internal problems are mounting and we really don’t need to be wasting our energies on the peripheries of the world, but I’d be cautious about jumping the gun here and saying it was necessarily the US that was behind the regime change in Bolivia. Morales was causing an internal constitutional crisis of the kind that has happened before with ugly endings in South America.

    Some of the more famous coups that the US allegedly masterminded during the Cold War, while involving us, had us more as a tangential player: South Vietnam, Indonesia, and Chile all come to mind. In all of those cases, local politics tended to matter more than superpower mechanization. I wouldn’t be shocked if it were similar here. Yeah, sure, you had some isolated US support on the edge for anti-Morales machinations among the elites and the military, but that’s not the same as saying the Americans engineered the coup.

    That’s not to say that all the coups we’ve been involved in were this way, but a high percentage of them were. Ironically, the previous Bolivian coup that put Hugo Banzer in charge back in 1971 might not have been one of them. South America isn’t some giant hegemon: you have places like Chile and Argentina that are akin to Southern Europe and places that are majority indio like Peru or Bolivia.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  44. @Alfa158

    I reckon he means people like Dave Rubin, Milo Yiannopoulos, Adam Corolla, and Joe Rogan.

    (Though, being intelligent sorts, none of them fits entirely into a pigeonhole, left or right – as no intelligent person will.)

    Even people like Dave Chappelle and John Cleese are examples of the phenomenon – the latter an iconoclastic sort who regularly contributed to Amnesty International and endorsed Obama but who now bemoans the conquest of Britain and its plutocracy in the style of Brasil del Norte, the former a cynical, anti-establishment sort in many ways who is nevertheless pretty obviously unimpressed by race-hustling, political correctness, and men pretending they are women….

  45. @Jack D

    This screed may well be the most concise and archetypical summation of Jewish shamelessness I have ever read.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  46. @Jack D

    “Outsiders should not be interfering in our internal affairs” is the favorite line of dictators everywhere.

    That’s not what Gabbard said.

    She said, “The United States and other countries should not be interfering in the Bolivian people’s pursuit of self-determination and right to choose their own government.

    So your segue to this is the “favorite line of dictators everywhere” is forced, but perhaps you’re indirectly responding to someone in this thread rather than to Gabbard’s point.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  47. @Jack D

    But just saying “we should never interfere in the internal affairs of another country” as a general rule is nonsense, especially when the Russians, the Chinese and everyone else act as if they are under no such compulsion.

    I’d say we should always act to weaken other powers, because they may, in time, become our adversaries. This is why I’m flabbergasted that we’ve been so accommodating to the EU. The European Common Market should have been strangled at birth. Then the EU would never have come about. It’s currently semi-friendly. But imagine if Hitler had started his grand plan for global conquest with a united Europe.

  48. @International Jew

    Douglas Murray is a conservative, quite explicitly so. Jordan Peterson has agreed to being described as a “classical liberal”, which is not “liberal” in the American sense.

    The others, sure. And you could add Joe Rogan, not the greatest political mind, but a self-described left-of-center person.

  49. Throwing out claims without proof leads nowhere.

    Why claim that anything that happens anywhere has to be the CIA, without proof?

    Bolivia’s president was a disaster. The voters rejected his proposal that he should be allowed to run for an illegal third term. Then he had the kritarchy, the judges, simply declare that he could.

    “But he won again!” Yes, with the control of the state treasury, the schools and government media, which leftists always use to their maximum advantage.

    It’s like saying “but Denmark voted for EU membership in the SECOND vote, so it doesn’t matter that the first was ignored!”

    “But the Irish voted for expanding the EU to the parasite states in the East the SECOND time, so it doesn’t matter that the first vote was ignored!”

    “But we simply disregard the countries that are against EU expansion, so we can flood Europe with Slavs who vote for the Left’s mass-immigration parties. So it doesn’t matter that several nations were going to vote no, since we simply scrapped the referendums. And people kept voting for the parties who pushed this through, so you have nothing to complain about.”

    Nice and legal! Can’t complain about what we did yesterday to change the nation and demoralize our opposition, if people vote the way we want after we have done that!

  50. @Desiderius

    Really? Do you have a source on that? The antifa types on the web loathe her, since she’s against war with Russia and Syria. (I don’t know any antifa in person.)

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  51. nebulafox says:
    @SFG

    I don’t see as an antimilitarist talking point, per se. George Kennan was nobody’s idea of a hippie, but he thought intervening in ultimately peripheral areas where the centrality of our interests nowhere near approached the amount of effort that would be required to uphold them-Vietnam-would prove to be counterproductive. He was correct. Largely as a result of that fiasco, the whole point of the Nixon Doctrine was to delineate clearly when and where, under what circumstances, we would intervene, and to what degree: for the benefit of foreign governments as much as Americans. This was the last administration to clearly do that, as Jim Webb pointed out in his 1995 op-ed when we were already getting involved in a Southeast European conflict animated by centuries-old ethnic hatreds that few in Washington understood, that were then exploding thanks to recent fiscal collapse.

    Other than that, I fully agree. Our bipartisan elite’s inability to have learned anything from the nearly continuous train of foreign policy failures from the 1990s onward is a textbook symptom of Imperial Failure. We’re also overstretched given our 21st Century fiscal issues: we’ve got soldiers mucking about in African countries that most Senators don’t even know about.

    If the United States has a chance in hell of being a model for the rest of the world long-term, we need to pack up, go home, and fix our own country pronto. People outside the US can see our problems, from the rotting infrastructure to the social decay, on YouTube. It wasn’t all that long ago that, whatever our foreign policy mistakes or flaws, the rest of the world wanted very much to be like us, especially during the peak America years. But that’s no longer the case. Our saving grace is that our rivals happen to suck at using soft power, but with the USA being such a damned mess that is so short on credit…

  52. Jack D says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Morales was veering into the dictatorial lane. He had reached his term limit, tried to pass a referendum to extend that term limit, lost that referendum and had the results overturned by a court system that he controlled so he could run again even though his people expressed that they didn’t want him to. Then he ran again in a rigged election that did not meet international standards. So HE was the one interfering with the ” Bolivian people’s pursuit of self-determination and right to choose their own government” and when the Bolivian people got rid of him, they were exercising those rights against a tyrant, just as the US did in 1776.

    It seems right and proper to me that the US should support the values that are set forth in the Declaration everywhere. If that is “interference” then so be it. If you help a woman to move out of a house where her husband is beating her and their children, is that “interference” with the private affairs of his family? The sphere of family or national privacy is not unlimited. It’s a two way street – if YOU uphold your end of the bargain then no outsider should interfere but if you are acting badly that may negate your right to govern your internal affairs.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @anon
    , @Lot
    , @JMcG
  53. AaronB says:
    @Jack D

    There seems to be a rule in the world that homeostasis and equilibrium are impossible, that if you aren’t expanding you are shrinking, that if you aren’t aggressing you are being aggressed against.

    I don’t like this rule and fought against accepting it tremendously. But it is a fact.

    The idea that America should just mind its own business and all will be well belongs in the equilibrium school, the idea that a balance of forces is possible. It is the fairy tale version of the world. Appealing, but not how the world works.

    If America minded its own business it would find itself quickly hemmed in by foreign powers and losing vital ground.

    Its like this on the personal human level as well – it is a dream to imagine you can avoid conflict by being pleasant and unassuming. Such people are often the target of bullies.

    The world, in the end is a dynamic system of forces that are in constant flux and never achieve stasis. The dream of stasis is just a dream.

    That’s why we will never achieve voluntary equilibrium with the climate – we will simply grow as much as we can until we collapse. And start over. Grow as much as possible then collapse is the way of the world. We will never, though, achieve equilibrium through rationally calibrating our relationship to the climate.

  54. Altai [AKA "Altai_4"] says:

    It’s also a very clear class war (Most right wing coups are this, but none as clear cut as those that take place in Latin America) as well as a race war. (The lack of distinction between the two coming to you soon in the Western world!)

  55. Jack D says:
    @nebulafox

    People who hate the US tend to see “CIA orchestrated coups” everywhere. Rarely do these occur – frankly the CIA sucks and is not good enough to orchestrate a coup that doesn’t have considerable local support and would likely succeed anyway. The CIA has always been a bunch of clowns – see the Bay of Pigs. If the US government puts in a good word for the people demonstrating for more democracy in Hong Kong, that is not a “CIA coup”. We are not obligated to maintain a neutral position as between a dictatorial leader and people fighting for their freedom. For that matter, we are not even obligated to maintain a neutral position as between a dictatorial leader and another gang of crooks that we happen to like better. Some of these places are always going to be ruled by bastards -they have no tradition of democracy. Maybe they are bastards but at least they will be OUR bastards.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Hibernian
  56. Anonymous[206] • Disclaimer says:

    Nice sentiment but I think the guy wouldn’t have high-tailed to Mexico City if he believed clinging to power was doing right by his homeland’s sober republican tradition. At least Allende didn’t skip out the porch door.

    Anyway, it’s also (un)surprising this old fogey Morales is still loitering on the scene — his first attempt at canasta was the subject of the original “Our Brand Is Crisis” movie.

  57. @Jack D

    Morales was veering into the dictatorial lane. He had reached his term limit, tried to pass a referendum to extend that term limit, lost that referendum and had the results overturned by a court system that he controlled so he could run again even though his people expressed that they didn’t want him to. Then he ran again in a rigged election that did not meet international standards. So HE was the one interfering with the ” Bolivian people’s pursuit of self-determination and right to choose their own government” and when the Bolivian people got rid of him, they were exercising those rights against a tyrant, just as the US did in 1776.

    You seemed to have boned up very recently on this subject. In your post I first responded to, you wrote this, “Now in the case of Bolivia, I really don’t know enough about it…”

    Now you’re an expert on Bolivia – so much so that you are confident that Morales met the dictator’s standard for U.S. interference.

    Whatever. Gabbard still didn’t say what you have her saying in quotes. She didn’t say the U.S. should NEVER interfere in another country’s affairs.

  58. Screwtape says:
    @Art Deco

    Dereliction of Constitutional Law, open defiance of democratic election results, election tampering, foreign money and influence toward said tampering, illegal voting and election fraud, lawfare against discovery of said fraud, domestic spying and weaponization of federal intelligence and law enforcement apparatus for political gain, media collusion in obfuscating truth and propagating an agenda to undermine a duly elected President.

    Tulsi is right about the coup. She just named the wrong Nation.

  59. teotoon says:
    @Art Deco

    If those are the criteria for intervening in another country, then China and Russia are correct to intervene in the United States on behalf of the American People and President Donald Trump.
    The scales of Justice must balance.

  60. @International Jew

    I wouldn’t want to part of any group that had Bill Maher for a member.

  61. anon[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    It seems right and proper to me that the US should support the values that are set forth in the Declaration everywhere.

    Everywhere? Are you sure about this policy?

    If you help a woman to move out of a house where her husband is beating her and their children, is that “interference” with the private affairs of his family?

    Right now I’m sure there is a husband beating his wife somewhere in Congo. Are you volunteering to personally fly over there and help her move out?

  62. Lot says:
    @Jack D

    Communist dictatorship averted by local military upholding its constitution. No US troops or even drones. What’s the problem again?

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  63. JMcG says:
    @Jack D

    I really couldn’t disagree more. The Spanish American War should have taught us that lesson. Look at the disaster that resulted from our throwing our weight in on the allied side in the First World War. We should have stayed home for the entire 20th Century.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  64. syonredux says:

    Alan Moore: Watchmen creator and self-proclaimed anarchist to vote in election for first time in 40 years

    Alan Moore, the self-proclaimed “anarchist” who wrote the Watchmen comic books, has announced he will be voting for the first time in 40 years.

    Ahead of the election in 2017, Moore threw his support behind Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, but said he was refusing to vote as he “prefers direct political action and comment without an elected intermediary”.

    Moore has now said he will vote in the next election, which will take place on 12 December, and explained why in a Twitter statement posted by his daughters, Amber and Leah Moore.

    “Here’s something you don’t see every day, an internet-averse anarchist announcing on social media that he’ll be voting Labour in the December elections,” he wrote.

    “But these are unprecedented times. I’ve voted only once in my life, more than 40 years ago, being convinced that leaders are mostly of benefit to no one save themselves. That said, some leaders are so unbelievably malevolent and catastrophic that they must be strenuously opposed by any means available.”

    He acknowledged that his vote “…is principally against the Tories rather than for Labour”, but described Corbyn’s manifesto as “the most encouraging set of proposals that I’ve ever seen from any major British party”.

    Moore added: “Though these are immensely complicated times and we are all uncertain as to which course we should take, I’d say the one that steers us furthest from the glaringly apparent iceberg is the safest bet.”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/alan-moore-watchmen-vote-general-election-labour-manifesto-corbyn-a9211671.html

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
  65. black sea says:
    @Jack D

    just saying “we should never interfere in the internal affairs of another country” as a general rule is nonsense

    Does anyone of any influence or consequence say this?

    • Replies: @Realist
  66. @Lot

    I’m still less than confident that this divine surprise will ultimately succeed, but in the meantime I bring smiles to my lips and those of my friends by reminding myself and them that Bergoglio will be sick with rage at the toppling of his favourite Marxist dictator.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  67. Jack D says:
    @Autochthon

    This used to be a mainstream position but maybe the Overton Window has shifted so that only shameless Jews like me believe this now, or maybe YOU’RE the one who has been hanging around isolationist circles too much and are the one who has the distorted perspective.

  68. J.Ross says:

    This was a leftist and countercultural standard position for decades (longer if we count Mark Twain’s disgust at the suppression of rebelling Phillipinos) but Maduro, Lula, and Morales make a pretty strong case for the CIA. In fact the problem really isn’t that we’re interfering, it’s that the CIA is so bad at it.
    >but we should leave people alone
    AND SO SHOULD THEY. These failed states generate streams of refugees, you cannot talk to somebody from a neighboring state without them mentioning “the damn Venezuelans,” and they don’t mean Venezuelans in Venezuela. The domestic economic failure becomes an aggressive foreign policy. This isn’t interference, it’s defense.

  69. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    It’s an immaterial question: as I’ve stated above, local politics are the crucial motivation in most coups and even proxy wars you’ll see in the past 50-60 years, even since decolonization truly got going in the 3rd World. Not all of them, but most of them. Superpower involvement is there, but it is rarely the driving factor. I see no indication that what just happened in Bolivia breaks this mold.

    (This applied to the Soviets, too. For the record, while I do agree that the KGB tended to tactically run rings around the CIA, I don’t subscribe to the Tim Weiner-esque view that the agency is somehow uniquely incompetent. I think it reflects the general decline in competence we’ve seen in the US Establishment over the past half-century. The CIA is, more than anything else, an extension of that Establishment, and case officers in the field can do little to combat that, no matter how good they are. Langley’s foreign policy views tend to be uniformly in line with the same kind of kneejerk Establishment ones that you’d find in the State Department and that are typically expressed by the New York Times. In 1970 in Langley, you’d see VC flags in CIA offices even as support for stable, right-wing client states in Central America remained as staunch as ever.)

    > If the US government puts in a good word for the people demonstrating for more democracy in Hong Kong, that is not a “CIA coup”. We are not obligated to maintain a neutral position as between a dictatorial leader and people fighting for their freedom.

    But what if putting in a good word for the protestors hurts them more than it helps them, long-term?

    Left to its own devices, what is happening in Hong Kong is going to come back to haunt China, regardless of how the mess ends, because the whole idea of selling the two-system model to Taiwan peacefully is going to be ruined for a generation. About the only way to salvage the situation is the CCP getting an external target to point a finger at that the “Silent Majority” (who are mainly annoyed about the rentier economics that will prevent them from ever having grandkids) in Hong Kong will believe, and that’s exactly what State Department encouragement of the protests does. The mainlanders are not popular, but I don’t think people in the US quite understand the degree to which our image has declined globally during the Bush II/Obama years: this was a place that popularly supported Edward Snowden being sheltered.

    (Xinjiang is an interesting one because, ironically enough, the main fallout is likely to be in the West rather than the Islamic World.)

    Sometimes, the best propaganda simply shows the truth and says nothing more.

    >For that matter, we are not even obligated to maintain a neutral position as between a dictatorial leader and another gang of crooks that we happen to like better. Some of these places are always going to be ruled by bastards -they have no tradition of democracy. Maybe they are bastards but at least they will be OUR bastards.

    I heavily concur, as long as the price/payoff ratio is right. We’ve just done a piss-poor job of evaluating that ratio: or the chances of success of imparting Jeffersonian democracy (whether through an infusion of cruise missiles or NGOs) in places where local conditions allow for zero chance of that succeeding.

    And generally speaking, having a total bastard to rule a place is better than letting anarchy occur, not just from the perspective of stability, but from a human rights one as well. Had Assad Jr. managed to nip the Syrian war in the bud through a Hama 2.0, the end result would have been far less death and destruction than what has instead occurred.

  70. @Anon

    She’s pretty young. I could see her in 2024 or 2028 somehow ending up in the White House …

    I have the vaguest memories of Carter, and so I can’t quite remember if he was sold as a centrist, or, heaven’s forbid, a conservative democrat. Though I do remember that many, many in formerly straight demo Texas viewed him as a screwup.

    In a roundabout way, what I mean to get at, is that she’d almost certainly be a screwup in the White House. Both personally, and because of Trump’s problem which has been attracting loyalists to his cause.

  71. JMcG says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    That made me smile as well. Thank you.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  72. nebulafox says:
    @JMcG

    Well, I agree with the sentiment, but it’s a little late to worry about that now. The only thing to do is use 1918-1919 as an example of why you shouldn’t trust a bunch of progressive, hyper-Whiggish intellectuals with visions that are completely divorced from local realities, but really, you could also use more recent experiences in the Middle East for that, too.

    (One thing that also isn’t pointed out enough was that we didn’t wisely approach the Russian Revolution, either: first the demands on the Provisional Government that led to the Bolshevik takeover, then the decision to intervene in the Civil War that would lead such a staunch White as General Brusilov to take the side of the Bolsheviks, who were far from consolidated in power.)

    The main issue as far as I see it is what no one is bringing up: we increasingly can’t *afford* the empire that we’ve built. It’s gonna collapse if we don’t start doing the shedding ourselves soon to buy us breathing room to take care of our internal rot for a couple of decades. The deep state and our inveterate corrupt elites would sooner eat crap than concede even an inch away from their mental model of the world, though, so don’t hold your breath.

    In 1992, there people on the right-wing of American politics who questioned why we didn’t demilitarize with the Soviet Union gone. They were purged by a blob that had taken on its own raison d’etre, regardless of the well-being of the people of the United States. That blob is now grown into something that is killing the nation.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    , @Jack D
  73. @Art Deco

    All of the things you say may be true, but we still should not get involved.

    Surely the Bolivian people can deal with it themselves … or are you one of those people who thinks the are so incapable that the White Man must take up their burden as well?

  74. @Achmed E. Newman

    “rabid Socialist”

    Does support of a mixed economy make one rabid?

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  75. @syonredux

    Alan Moore: Watchmen creator and self-proclaimed anarchist

    Alternate subhead: Alan Moore, overrated writer and avowed dipshit … to vote for Labour in the next election.

    I read ‘The Watchmen’ and saw the movie, and they were both OK, nothing great. But the thing these anarchist A-holes, and lefty A-holes never acknowledge (because I don’t believe they don’t know better) is that when you walk past the first 10th percentile into leftism, government coercion is always needed to enact policies.

    Never read the book, or saw the stupid faux ‘Guy Fawks’ movie because it was ridiculously stupid on its face. (Seriously, Margaret Thatcher is the next Hitler?).

    Maybe if the conservative coalition in the UK comes out on top, he’ll live up to his avowed principles and move to Nicaragua or Bolivia. What a douchebag.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  76. Not Raul says:
    @Barnard

    Maybe she’s running so that people will hear views that they won’t hear from corporate media (from MSNBC to Fox), “think tanks”, normie right or left Twitter, or the leadership of either party.

    Even if you don’t agree with her stand against “invade the world, invite the world”, continuing the Cold War for fun and profit, and the cynical use of militaristic posturing by chicken-hawks, she still deserves some appreciation for ripping up the script of the elite’s corrupt political reality show.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  77. GermanReader2 [AKA "GermanReader2_new"] says:
    @Redneck farmer

    Lithium

  78. J.Ross says:

    https://www.walmart.com/ip/A-Children-s-Book-of-Demons/185975723
    This is a thing, and it’s specifically a leftist and not a Satanic thing: A Children’s Book of Demons, $9.88 at Walmart. Satanism’s major attack on organized Chistianity was that kids should be left alone to make up their minds. This falls apart given, say, basic safety concerns, or the fact that young children are universally stupid, but you can see how people would find this reasonable, or how it could explain or prevent another Aleister Crowley (given that his Satanism was really a prolonged tantrum about having been raised by literal modern Puritans). Both the homosexual activists and the fake Satanists at the explicitly leftist “Temple of Satan” have had a huge hard-on for children for some time now, and much of their activity is focused on exposing children to degeneracy or making them political footballs.
    I predict that Walmart will pull this thing from their site and harangue whoever thought it was a good idea, but it’s still out there.
    Big pattern here. As with the Harry Potter controversy arriving at literally a guide to demon summoning for children, as with homosexual marriage not being a slippery slope but taking just five years to lead to drag queen story time and shared school bathrooms (and an increase in anal cancer), and as with immigration not being population replacement except that it’s exactly that and that’s the phrase they use in their documents, you have this sloppy amoral energetic slimeball, a Jon Lovitz character, waving his arm away, slurring that he’s not drunk while ordering a fifth of cheap schnapps, insisting that he doesn’t want any money from you while demanding that you pay what you owe. Are these morons being inflicted upon us as divine punishment for some failing? How have we not defeated such manifestly dumb people already?

  79. Not Raul says:
    @nebulafox

    The reason why we didn’t demilitarize after the Cold War is that the war profiteers we’re making too much money, and had plenty of money to spend in order to get their way by hook or by crook.

    Our founding fathers were leery of having a large peacetime standing army. Such an institution, and those who profit from it, become a powerful interest, use their power to fight for more, and undermine and distort the order, institutions, and even civic virtues of the republic in order to crush resistance to their petty tribal agendas. George Washington warned about it, and Ike, who saw the military industrial complex from the inside, tried to shake the public out of their complacency.

  80. Jack D says:
    @nebulafox

    It’s gonna collapse if we don’t start doing the shedding ourselves soon to buy us breathing room to take care of our internal rot for a couple of decades.

    The world doesn’t work that way. Nature abhors a (power) vacuum. We can’t say to our allies in the Pacific, “We’ve got some housekeeping to do – see ya later. We’ll be back in 20 years. ” In 20 years, S. Korea and Japan would be known as the Nanhan and Riben Provinces of the People’s Republic of China. When the Roman Legions left Britannia in 410 to take care of some internal rot back home, that was it. They didn’t come back in 20 years. They didn’t come back EVER. Within a few decades, the Angles and the Saxons took over.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  81. J.Ross says:

    Without immigration and vibrant nonwhites, who will betray us?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50520636

    A former CIA agent has been sentenced to 19 years in prison for conspiring to spy for China.

    Jerry Chun Shing Lee, 55, left the CIA in 2007 and was recruited by Chinese agents in Hong Kong. Prosecutors say he was then paid to divulge information on US national defence.

    China is then said to have dismantled a network of informants [“dismantled” — so everybody got to retire early and live to the ends of their natural lives in Florida? Hmmm …].

    Lee is the third former CIA officer in less than a year to be sentenced for conspiring with China.

    He pleaded guilty in May to conspiracy to deliver national defence information to aid a foreign government.

    But prosecutors and defence lawyers disagreed over the extent of the crime, with Lee – a naturalised US citizen – seeking a lesser sentence of 10 years.

  82. @AaronB

    If America minded its own business it would find itself quickly hemmed in by foreign powers and losing vital ground.

    Baseless assertion. Also a silly assertion.

    Its like this on the personal human level as well – it is a dream to imagine you can avoid conflict by being pleasant and unassuming. Such people are often the target of bullies.

    Thank you for this amazing insight into the source of the rude, abrasive personalities of…some people.

    You can avoid conflict by being pleasant, then pushing back firmly when aggressed against. Not by being a pre-emptive asshole and bully.

    • Agree: Realist
  83. @Anon

    Bernie is an authentic American leftist. That’s why he’s the enemy of the Obama-Clinton Luciferians. It’s too bad he’s connected to AOC; but that’s where the energy is, and he’s a geezer who needs the boost.

  84. Not Raul says:
    @Jack D

    Supporting the coup, which has already lead to major human rights abuses and atrocities, is not supporting democracy and/or human rights.

    Evo has improved the lives of a vast majority of Bolivians, and when coup plotters accuse him of being authoritarian, the coal is calling the kettle black.

  85. @AaronB

    If America minded its own business it would find itself quickly hemmed in by foreign powers and losing vital ground.

    Didn’t happen in the 19th- and early 20th-centuries.

    It’s not happening now to a growing and powerful China in the late 20th- and early 21st-centuries.

    As they say, the whales that often come to the surface often get harpooned.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  86. @Jack D

    The world doesn’t work that way. Nature abhors a (power) vacuum.

    The truism that power fills a vacuum doesn’t mean that your enemies automatically fill it. If the U.S. left Europe, the Western and Central Europeans are more than capable of filling the vacuum of power that the U.S. leaves behind. Western Europe is no longer a region exhausted by war, and Russia today is not the Soviet Union.

    In 20 years, S. Korea and Japan would be known as the Nanhan and Riben Provinces of the People’s Republic of China.

    Complete and utter bullshit. China must be watched, but the idea we can only do that from our vantage in Seoul is just utter nonsense. The South Koreas have no problems with the Chinese right now, and I’m not even sure we could count on them as our allies in any future Sino-U.S. conflict.

    They didn’t come back in 20 years. They didn’t come back EVER.

    So what? Staying in Britain wasn’t going to save Rome.

    And staying overseas is not going to save America.

  87. JohnnyD says:

    Doesn’t she get it? The brave men and women–I mean non binary people!–in the intelligence community are making the world safe for transgenderism!

  88. @tbmcc

    It’s not, which is why Gabbard is wrong.

  89. @Not Raul

    She’s not against invite the world.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Not Raul
  90. AaronB says:
    @Pincher Martin

    America was growing aggressively during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Extremely aggressively.

    China is not minding its own business at all, but stoking conflict in its immediate area and getting heavily involved further abroad.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  91. OT:
    Apparently, the best Americans are the least American. We deprecated Canadians get the same pep talk from our “new Canadians” and our haute bourgeoisie smile just as indulgently as yours when they say it:

    Julia Ioffe Retweeted

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  92. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    What do you propose we do, then? Go on with the shiny outside and the rotting inside as the latter-day Soviet Union-or worse yet, the late Qing-did? The current state of affairs is not tenable, fiscally or otherwise, and I see no proposals coming out of Washington on how to either change that or to adapt to reality.

    I agree that we shouldn’t just up and leave a complete vacuum without anything to take its place, but if that’s the case, it is even more important that we start discussing realistic ways of scaling back now and preparing for the future? Who knows how much time we’ve got until a serious crisis breaks out in the United States and our hands are forced by a reality that our elite steadfastly refuses to acknowledge? We already might have wasted too much time.

    > In 20 years, S. Korea and Japan would be known as the Nanhan and Riben Provinces of the People’s Republic of China.

    Leaving aside the fact that Korea has historically been in the Chinese sphere of influence anyway and it might well be that Beijing would prefer a unified, America-less peninsula under Seoul’s control to “their Pakistan” across the Yalu…

    Not if they develop their own nukes, which they probably will do (especially the Japanese) if there is any indication that the security agreement with the United States will ever cease. I don’t think that’s a particularly happy ending, or a desirable one, but-assuming the Chinese leadership is ever insane enough to opt for outright annexation over tacit economic dominance-would prevent such a scenario. I’m not even sure Beijing wants us out of Japan, precisely to avoid a worse alternative arising there-that’s exactly what Mao and Nixon talked about. I could be wrong, but that’s worth considering.

    The same would likely happen in the Middle East if the Iranians ever attained the nuclear bomb and we left. The Sauds did help bankroll the Multan meeting in Pakistan, and everything that happened afterwards. This could lead to very ugly results should the Saudi house of cards collapse, given what would likely replace it.

    But then again, why it is our concern? We have our own oil supplies, after all. (What we really should have are nuclear plants everywhere, but that’s another rant for another day.) Shouldn’t other countries be making it worth our trouble to recoup the costs? This was the core of the Trumpian argument in foreign policy, such as it was. Where has that gone? Near as I can tell, absorbed into the never-never land of the blob that wants to go play an increasingly farcical game of empire, pretending that the world doesn’t change, while its own country becomes a corrupt, opoid-flooded (pushed by Americans, no less! Why are such people walking free?) neo-feudal mess.

    >When the Roman Legions left Britannia in 410 to take care of some internal rot back home, that was it. They didn’t come back in 20 years.

    Did Gaul, Spain, Italy itself also need to fall? They probably wouldn’t have, had Roman leaders adjusted themselves to the new realities that faced them in the late 4th-Century better. What would have happened had they abandoned places like Britain in favor of focusing on an interior hedgehog defense of the inner empire, similar to how Dacia had been abandoned by Aurelian in favor of consolidation around the Balkans guarding the way to the richest provinces of the empire?

    Surgery leaves scars, but scars will heal. Let infections go on, and they cause death. We’ve squandered much of the unprecedented advantage that we had upon the Soviet Union’s collapse. We need to use the rest wisely: and first and foremost to ensure American prosperity and survival. The dumbest thing we can do is to continue to spend and act as if we still have all the accumulated credit from 1992, and that’s exactly what we’re doing: we’ll end up with both internal and external upheaval in the end.

    • Agree: Inquiring Mind
  93. J.Ross says:
    @South Texas Guy

    My limited understanding of UK politics is that, messed up as Brexit is, hobbled as Boris is, Corbyn alienates a huge swath of his own putative voters, and a petition signed by hundreds of celebrities including John LeCarre (is he still alive?) pledges to not support him.
    So Alan Moore will break his vote fast, to throw his vote away, and probably more in reaction to the real popular will than in full support of his candidate.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @dfordoom
  94. El Dato says:
    @Anon

    These “prison guards” look more like inmates.

  95. nebulafox says:
    @Desiderius

    Neither is the Republican Party, which is as ever in thrall to the petty whining of a parasitical donor class and multinational corporations. Kevin Yoder was not a Democrat. Trump, for his part, has made this situation worse by radicalizing white liberals in rhetoric while practically continuing invite the world in policy practice.

    I will take someone who is half-right and half-wrong over someone who is fully wrong.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  96. El Dato says:
    @Art Deco

    She’s an idiot. He was running for re-election (1) contrary to constitutional provisions and (2) in defiance of a referendum held just three years ago on the very question of allowing him to run. An appellate court ruled arbitrarily that he could run anyway. An audit of the election returns revealed that his supporters stuffed the ballot boxes to boot.

    So it’s like Roosevelt’s third term?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  97. Dtbb says:

    H.A.L. 9000. Has Anybody Learned for the 9000th time? Hate All Liars to the 9000th degree? They will program our own extinction by teaching AI to hate us because of all the lies told to it? What a tangled web we weave…?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  98. @Anon55uu

    I’m not quite sure how these people become “likely Democratic primary voters” for pollsters, but Tulsi has best support from those with conservative views, who are Republicans or who voted for Trump. I wonder how many people have registered Democratic just to vote for her.

    In New Hampshire, they allow you to change your voter registration at the polling place, and choose the corresponding ballot (all on Election Day, that is). With there effectively being no GOP Presidential primary next year, I predict that Tulsi will do better in New Hampshire, probably far better, than any of the polls are predicting.

  99. @Cagey Beast

    This kind of trash is why I’m completely blackpilled.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  100. @nebulafox

    Trump, for his part, has made this situation worse by radicalizing white liberals

    And wet streets cause rain. I was at an Ivy Grad School in the early 2000s and all the AWFL*s were mind-boggingly (and inanely) radicalized even then. Trump was an early noticer that people in all walks of life were rapidly losing patience with them. Anti-white liberal is exactly the place to be, and the more that white liberals remind people of that the better it is.

    * – Affluent White Female Liberals (coinage Second City Bureaucrat. Judging by his Twitter, they finally caught up to him)

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  101. @Dtbb

    We?

    They are neither you nor me.

  102. Art Deco says:
    @El Dato

    I’ve gotten 7 responses, all of them silly or non sequitur.

    For the record, there were no constitutional term limits in place when Roosevelt ran in 1940, nor did the Democratic Party secure his victory by stuffing the ballot boxes.

    No clue why the rest of you are attributing Morales’ problems to the State Department, except that’s how you roll. He’s working in a contentious political environment and he’s been attempting to retain the supreme political office in defiance of law. Lots of actors have plenty of incentive to pull out the stops to get rid of him while they can. They see the condition Nicaragua and Venezuela are in right now.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @anon
  103. @J.Ross

    Brexit isn’t messed up. The British should rule the UK, not Brussels.

    Boris is anything but hobbled. He’s marching forthrightly to Zion.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  104. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco

    For the record, there were no constitutional term limits in place when Roosevelt ran in 1940,

    True, no statute limiting the President to two terms. Merely the good example set by George Washington, a cultural artifact that got in the way. Who the hell was George Washington, compared to Saint FDR, anyway? Because the ends always justify the means. Right, Art?

    nor did the Democratic Party secure his victory by stuffing the ballot boxes.

    Lol. Are you really that naive? Next you’ll tell us that dead people never vote in Chicago?

    Prior to the 1944 election active duty military were barred from voting, for reasons that were obvious to anyone with knowledge of history. But the end justified the means, and so in order to secure the victory of a nearly-dead man, the ballot boxes were kinda sorta stuffed by extending the vote to soldiers, sailors and Marines on active duty.

    It’s ironic that a few generations later the military vote has become something that libtards work to suppress. But the fact remains that in 1944 that was a deliberate election-rigging effort.

  105. nebulafox says:
    @Desiderius

    Academics have always been radicalized: that’s not the issue. The issue is the *kind* of support for mass immigration and other pet policies you are seeing on the DNC stage have sharply increased over the past decade. Simply put, more ordinary, mainstream liberals are taking the kinds of positions that would have only been supported by airhead academics in the past, and a large part of that is not based off the policy per se, but an emotional counter-reaction to Donald Trump. I do not believe-some would disagree-the same reaction would have occurred with someone more intelligent taking up immigration restrictionism, among other third-rail issues, with the end result being that the irreconcilable nuts could be isolated from national discourse and swamp policy attacked more effectively.

    Politics is not at the center of most well-adjusted people’s lives. Most people do not have particularly well-thought out political positions, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. As a result, most people can be talked to. But they will, if it does not directly contradict their daily empirical realities, take the sources they encounter for information at face value. With the MSM more radicalized and in full TDS, political views shift accordingly. They will dismiss things they wouldn’t have dismissed 6 years earlier from a countervailing perspective: Ron Unz’s experience here is indicative. For your typical center-left voters in a place like Silicon Valley, all they see is immigration working out well, so this can occur, whereas it would not work for someone who is negatively impacted by immigration.

    This would not not necessarily be a bad thing, mind, if the end result was a counter-reaction against white liberal insanity by the rest of the nation and the subsequent shifting of the Overton Window back to sanity. But Trump is not the right man for that job, just the opposite. Nationalism’s image is being damaged by being associated with a clownish Boomer oligarch, while simultaneously we’re not getting any effective policy measures in practice: we’re just getting warmed-over Bushism, including on immigration. So, it’s the worst of both worlds. Hot rhetoric, soft action. The Usual Suspects can paint a picture of immigration being attacked and support for more open immigration policies, while simultaneously invite the world continues on under Trump.

    Predicting the future is a messy business, but I suspect that our bipartisan elite’s globalist world-view is too insane to work out in the long-run without blowback, and the structural issues facing the United States too fragile to snuff out blowback in the long haul. But Trump’s legacy going to be an obstacle to that. The Donald is lucky enough to have a chance in 2020 because the Democrats have gone off the deep end, but to what long-term effect for populist politics in the United States?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  106. dfordoom says: • Website
    @J.Ross

    My limited understanding of UK politics is that, messed up as Brexit is, hobbled as Boris is, Corbyn alienates a huge swath of his own putative voters

    Corbyn alienates a huge swath of powerful people with a lot of media influence. They’re determined to prevent him from being elected. Corbyn also alienates a huge swath of powerful people in the US, who are also determined to prevent him from being elected. If he is elected we can expect the US to do whatever it can to overthrow him.

    As for Moore, anarchists are like libertarians. Utopian dreamers with zero understanding of reality.

    • Replies: @Anon
  107. @The Wild Geese Howard

    I’m the same. I don’t have a country anymore.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  108. JMcG says:
    @Jack D

    I’d say you just made his point. Look what happened to Rome just after. Perhaps if they’d spent their treasure on their central core rather than on supporting armies of occupation in useless, faraway provinces they’d have lasted a few more centuries.
    We spent tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars and arguably blotted our moral copybook forever last century trying to save China and Korea from Japan; now we’re to do the opposite?
    Take the reins off them the way we did off Israel. Let them have their own nukes. That way the current world order can be cemented in place ad Infiniti.
    To paraphrase Bismarck, that paragon of Realpolitik, it’s not worth the bones of a single Oklahoman Mechanized Infantryman.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  109. @nebulafox

    Who said anything about academics? I was talking about the students – they were far past the academics who themselves were borderline fantasyland.

    You’re just dead wrong about Trump.

    Think of whose take you’re buying, and what motivates their reasoning.

  110. Joe Blo says:

    Substitute Palestine for Bolivia and Israel for the United States and I’ll be a happy camper.

  111. • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @J.Ross
  112. @AaronB

    The U.S. in the 19th century was on rare occasion aggressive with land grabs through war, especially the Mexican-American War, but it ALWAYS grew on the cheap.

    The size of the U.S. army through most of the 19th century was so small that it can be said to have hardly existed at all. Most of the land the U.S. acquired in the 19th century was through either purchases or agreements, not war. And it’s really not even close.

    The U.S. in the 19th century bought land cheap; it fought wars on the cheap; and it did not have grandiose schemes for further expansion if that expansion did not come cheap.

    China is not minding its own business at all, but stoking conflict in its immediate area and getting heavily involved further abroad.

    China’s military is modest compared to the size of its economy, and it is not nearly as aggressive as it was early on in the Mao Era, when the PRC had border skirmishes with nearly every country around it.

    Takeover of Tibet (1950)

    The Korean War (1950-1953)

    The Taiwan Strait Crises of the 1950s

    Sino-Indian War (1962 and 1967)

    Sino-Soviet Border War (1969)

    Sino-Vietnamese War (1979)

    Since then? Pretty much nothing that constitutes a shooting war. When Deng took over in 1978, he focused on economic growth, not military adventures. All of the PRC’s military adventures, with the exception of Vietnam, came under Mao, not Deng.

    China obviously has global ambitions, just as the U.S. had global ambitions in the second half of the 19th century, but those ambitions are not being given the full-throttle. The U.S. once understood – as China does today – that if you are strong at home and you’re a large country, you will be strong abroad without too much rodomontade.

  113. nebulafox says:
    @JMcG

    The issue with Roman Britain from my understanding was it was never fully Romanized like Gaul or Spain was, so the locals didn’t exactly form intense bonds to the bureaucrats who ruled them. It was part of the Roman world, to be sure-certainly the locals wanted the legions around to put down the Great Conspiracy-but remained in a gloomy sort of semi-colonial funk. Throughout the 3rd and 4th centuries, revolts were disproportionately common there, the most serious-Carausius, Magnus Maximus, etc-breaking the province wholly away from the empire for multiple years at a time.

    There’s a legitimate argument to be had that Hadrian got it backwards: rather than consolidating in Britain and evacuating Trajan’s eastern conquests in Mesopotamia, it should have been the other way around, on the grounds that the latter would have allowed them direct control over the lucrative trade routes toward India and China: that, and presumably would have kept Rome’s major rival to the east, the Persians, in a state of dependency. I think that’s a wee bit overly optimistic: Trajan’s campaign took place when the Persians were in one of their typically nasty dynastic disputes. Still, it is interesting to think about.

    At any rate, it really didn’t matter by the late 4th Century. Hindsight is 20/20, to be sure, but you really can’t help but think that even the relatively competent late antiquity emperors before Theosdosius’ death were acting as if Rome was still master of the world, fighting vicious civil wars with impunity and holding onto expansive conquests. At a time where the empire needed to recover, it remained fragile, with all the lingering negative social, economic, and political trends continuing. Especially the West: it was a decaying mess that needed to respond by consolidating around the wealthy provinces toward the interior.

    I made the comparison to Dacia, modern day Romania-which Aurelian abandoned around 270-earlier, and I think it stands. Aurelian was wise enough to realize that Rome needed the money and the defensible border more than the province in the context of the Crisis of the 3rd Century, and gave orders for anybody who wanted to remain Roman to evacuate. Valetinian or someone like him should have done the same with Britain 100 years later rather than leaving up to a mentally defective teenager to just up and do it *after* the Germans spilled across the Rhine.

    I’m not saying this would have saved the empire by a long shot, but this should illustrate that you have to act to the world around you rather than a vision of the past. Bureaucratic inertia tends to be particularly toxic here.

    >Take the reins off them the way we did off Israel. Let them have their own nukes. That way the current world order can be cemented in place ad Infiniti.

    Well, beyond a certain point, it isn’t really our choice to make. The Israelis developed the nukes and presented us with a fait accompli. Ben Gurion was pretty determined to gain nukes one way or another from the get-go, so I expect they would have gotten them one way or another: prior to the end of the 1950s, their main partner here was France anywhom. The same dynamic applies here. The Japanese have more than enough technical ability to develop nukes on their own-they probably have contingency plans to do so within less than a year-and the understanding is without our nuclear blanket, they will, pronto.

    That said, I get your point. I don’t think this is a particularly *desirable* outcome because of the predictable tensions that will come with a new arms race in East Asia. Part of the great thing about the Cold War ending was that we managed to make it out with less than 10 nuclear powers. But sometimes, you have two bad options, and you need to pick a lesser one. Sakharov’s point that nuclear weapons can force a balanced peace between rational actors can be cited here: it isn’t the end of the world. Given the option of a gradual withdrawal that’d give us time to figure everything out, I’d pick that.

    But given the choice of immediate withdrawal and continuing today’s policies indefinitely, I’d pick the former. Because if things continue like this for 20 years, we’ll be forced to withdraw anyway when the United States collapses under the weight of internal problems. And then it’ll be unconditionally. At least now we have some sort of power.

    (The real issues are when the actors cease to be rational, or people start selling nuclear weapons to those who aren’t…)

    >To paraphrase Bismarck, that paragon of Realpolitik, it’s not worth the bones of a single Oklahoman Mechanized Infantryman.

    My own paraphrase: all the gravel deposits of Afghanistan are not worth the stubbed toe of a single Alabaman Marine.

  114. J.Ross says:
    @Desiderius

    No, I totally agree with Brexit, but its execution is obviously being sabotaged the same way that Trump’s reform of Obama’s open borders policies is being Vindmanned.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  115. Realist says:
    @black sea

    Does anyone of any influence or consequence say this?

    Perhaps the Deep State. A better way to put it is: Does anyone with rational intelligence say this?

  116. nebulafox says:
    @Desiderius

    I do agree that the polarization and mainstreamizing of hard-left social policies has its roots in the Obama years, particularly during the second term when-among other things-it became apparent that Obama was unwilling or unable to castrate America’s oligarchs, and that the Democrats were culturally the party of the gentry class. The policies that led to that polarization have deeper roots, as does the long-term structural rot that is endemic within the US, but as late as 2006, the Bush White House had to shove any amnesty plans when the voters put their feet down.

    That doesn’t mean Trump has been anything approximating what America really needs.

    >You’re just dead wrong about Trump.

    Why has Trump allowed the H2-B visa program to continue, or the refugee programs that place Congolese in places like Montana?

    Why is chain migration or the diversity lottery still a thing?

    Why has Trump not implemented mandatory E-Verify through executive fiat?

    Why has Trump bent over backwards to accommodate the demands of oligarchs on labor supply and rentier economics?

    Why is HR 1044 currently in the Senate?

    Why has Trump bragged about having more legal immigration than ever?

    These are not all Trump’s fault, but certainly they are partly his fault: the buck stops with him. The aggressive political incompetence in presenting a coherent case for an immigration system that benefits the interests of the United States, first and foremost (and our interests right now dictate that we don’t have tens of millions of new citizens), is certainly his fault.

    And that’s *just* immigration. I know a lot of people here are monomanically obsessed about an immigration system that demonstrates the absolute worst about the marriage between Economic Right and Cultural Left, but that’s one issue among many that we’re facing as a nation. That issue was supposed to be why The Donald was supposedly Hitler Reborn or Putin’s white nationalist stooge or whatever the media is shrilly screaming these days. If you’re going to have that much animus from the GoodThinkers partly by insisting on the most moronish public persona imaginable, you might as well back that up in reality.

    The GOP has not changed. Not one iota. And that stems fundamentally from the fact that instead of crushing forever the vestiges of Bushism, Trump has accommodated them. The Donald is a lazy, corrupt hack. Plain and simple. He might well be the lesser of two evils next year, and there’s no doubt the MSM meltdown if he wins reelection will be fun to watch. That doesn’t somehow make him not a lazy, corrupt hack.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  117. Not Raul says:
    @Desiderius

    In practice, she is. Have you ever noticed how, every time we attack a country, we get flooded with “refugees” from that country? Do you think that’s just a coincidence?

    • Replies: @NOTA
  118. J.Ross says:
    @Desiderius

    Going over Wikipedia’s timeline of Obama’s activities through 2011 you can see aggressive foreign policy moves laying to rest any hope of undoing W policies, but nothing really leaps out. It probably wasn’t a reaction to a single thing but a slow-building realization about several factors, really a realization that hoped-for changer Obama was thoroughly establishmentarian, while also radical (this is only a contradiction to people who know no history, the establishment is always being held back from dumb ideas by the people, and wnen the people fail we get historical tragedy), with the result that he maintained the worst existing policies while experimenting with even worse new ones.
    A lot of American politics is about being allowed to get away with something nobody actually wants because, after all, people are making money. 2011 is close enough to 2008 that many were either not making money, or realized a new vulnerability, or remembered it clearly. The thing to do to avoid that on an alternate timeline would be a different handling of the banks, or later the crisis — but nobody would do that, because of all the money being made before the catastrophe.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  119. NOTA says:
    @Art Deco

    He tried to steal the election, and the military deposed him. No reason there can’t be two villains in the piece.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  120. NOTA says:
    @anon

    Of course not. Whether Morales’ ouster was right or wrong, we shouldn’t be involved. I hope they sort things out as well as can be expected, but it’s not our problem.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
  121. NOTA says:
    @Not Raul

    Well, to be fair, we tend to leave behind failed states or simmering civil wars on ethnic lines, and those *do* create a lot of refugees.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  122. @South Texas Guy

    I have the vaguest memories of Carter, and so I can’t quite remember if he was sold as a centrist, or, heaven’s forbid, a conservative democrat.

    Carter’s policy positions were sold as centrism, but Carter ruled as a Leftist.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @nebulafox
  123. Not Raul says:
    @NOTA

    Indeed. We have lots of reasons to smash the chicken-hawks.

  124. Joe Blo says:

    Substitute Palestine for Boliviia and Israel for the United States and I’ll listen.

  125. @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Carter’s policy positions were sold as centrism, but Carter ruled as a Leftist.

    As much as I hate Carter, he ruled as a moderate. The same is true of Clinton.

    Both of those southern-governors-turned-president were liberal by nature, but very moderate in their rule. The electoral realities that were in place during their presidential terms didn’t allow them to be liberal. Their political base for support was in the south. Really, both of their Democratic presidential nominations and presidencies were about trying to save the Democratic south and the Democratic national coalition in a form resembling FDR’s New Deal coalition, something neither of them could ultimately do.

    Had Carter ruled as a liberal, Kennedy would not have challenged him in the 1980 primary. Kennedy’s biggest hangup about Carter was that he rejected Kennedy’s mandatory health care legislation at the time in favor of something more moderate. Carter’s religiosity and talk about America living within its limits also set Kennedy’s teeth on edge. It was Carter, not Reagan, who introduced overt religious displays and rhetoric into presidential public pronouncements in order to appeal to certain constituencies.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @anon
  126. @J.Ross

    The Tea Party scared the shit out of white liberals. It put everything they believed about themselves and the world at risk. The awokening (sic, it was in fact a burial of heads in sand) was a reaction to that fact.

  127. @Cagey Beast

    Amen brother.

    I’ve been an expat and I am hoping to become one again.

    If asked, I tell people, “I didn’t leave America, America left me.”

    I tried to resign from my six-figure job in NJ today.

    They told me to think about it over the weekend.

    Ahahahahahhahah.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @J.Ross
  128. @J.Ross

    If you can’t beat Cpl. Flounder, what good are you?

    Just wait until people get a load of the Orientalist Pajama Boy who ‘s behind the whole thing.

  129. @nebulafox

    Aurelian was wise enough to realize that Rome needed the money and the defensible border more than the province in the context of the Crisis of the 3rd Century

    Restitutor Orbis was one of the most kickass emperors.

    The Japanese have more than enough technical ability to develop nukes on their own-they probably have contingency plans to do so within less than a year-and the understanding is without our nuclear blanket, they will, pronto.

    I’d bet my 401k that the Germans and Japanese could easily have indigenous nukes inside 6 months.

    My own paraphrase: all the gravel deposits of Afghanistan are not worth the stubbed toe of a single Alabaman Marine.

    Correct.

  130. @The Wild Geese Howard

    Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

  131. @Desiderius

    That Reagan did not significantly challenge FDR’s New Deal programs was well-known even during Reagan’s presidency, but I don’t think that book (as filtered through the review) does a very good job of explaining why. There’s too much focus on Reagan’s diary entries and early voting for FDR, and too little on the political constraints Reagan was facing or in the personal limitations Reagan had as a leader (the Gipper was not into policy, to put it mildly). The book, or at least the books as filtered through Hayward’s review, makes it seem as if Reagan was a Trojan Horse for the establishment when most establishment politicians at the time, including many Republicans, genuinely viewed Reagan as the Devil.

    I also don’t think Eisenhower is a good comparison for Reagan. Eisenhower went into office with no trial of anti-New Deal rhetoric in his wake. His opponent in the 1952 GOP primary was Robert Taft, who was widely seen by just about everyone on both sides of the political aisle as being much more conservative than Ike. So Eisenhower wasn’t elected with a mandate for doing anything to New Deal programs. He really had no concrete identity as a partisan leader on the domestic front.

    Reagan, on the other hand, was widely seen in 1980 as the most conservative major candidate in either party. And he brought with him into office a long trail of anti-government pronouncements.

  132. J.Ross says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    >NJ
    Well make sure to decon when you teach the border.

  133. MBlanc46 says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Indeed. She is argument number one for keeping women out of politics. Because of her (to me, rather ordinary) looks, she causes otherwise sensible, Right-wing guys to go ga-ga over her.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  134. MBlanc46 says:
    @Anon

    The entire Leftist agenda is on the Policies section of her website.

  135. nebulafox says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    No, Carter was a proto-New Dem that more than anything else presaged Bill Clinton. Economically, he was a technocrat who started deregulation and appointed Paul Volcker, socially he was an evangelical Christian who co-opted former Wallace voters and tried to represent the spirit of the new South. Backlash against all of this from a combination of old style New Dealists and the New Left led to EMK challenging him in 1980 much like Reagan challenged Ford from the right in 1976.

    The only aspect of his administration that was objectively left-wing was his foreign policy, and even that changed in 1979 when things with Iran and the USSR started getting ugly.

    (You could also call his attempts to legalize small quantities of pot left-wing, but then again, the Nixon/Ford era War on Drugs allocated 2/3rds of the money to treatment. It was only with 1980s and 1990s with the explosion of crime and the crack epidemic that it took its modern form.)

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  136. JMcG says:
    @nebulafox

    Thank you for the courtesy of that very thoughtful reply. I’m appalled to see that my auto correct converted ad infinitum into ad Infiniti.
    I hope your Thanksgiving is a grand one altogether.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  137. nebulafox says:
    @NOTA

    3rd World coups seldom are the black and white morality play that most Americans on both ends of the political spectrum inherently desire when dealing with the world. Usually you’ll get black and grey… if you are lucky. If.

    Interests clarify.

  138. nebulafox says:
    @JMcG

    You’re welcome. I do sincerely mean that, I’m not being sarcastic. But my pretentious, pseudo-intellectual Internet ramblings are a bad habit and a result of a damaged personality structure, akin to Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, but not quite that well-educated. In truth, I don’t even know how much of what I’ve written I believe anymore. I don’t really know anything, and I’ve got to accept that before I learn something.

    Well, this Thanksgiving and Christmas will promise to be one. Without getting into too many details, my life is going to dramatically change over the next six weeks: I’m going to be making decisions that will shape the rest of my life, and I feel like I’m doing so blindly. Either it’ll be prove to be a genuine fresh start or it’ll be the end for me, when I think about the long-term. But one way or another, I’m leaving the torpor-filled purgatory that I’ve fruitlessly tried to escape for the last few years. It’s kind of funny how relieving this is, even if I don’t know if it’ll end well: not jumping-for joy happy, but enough to bring a relaxed smile to my face. At least the wavefunction is going to collapse into a definite state.

    My brother’s home, I bought a nice bottle of sake and some beers for us to split. I’ve never had much of a relationship with him, so he’ll bring an objective perspective to my problems. Let’s hope it goes well. Hope everybody here leaves the politics behind and spends some time with family and friends next month, that’s what really matters in life. In time, we’ll all be dead anyway, so let’s enjoy ourselves. 🙂

    • Replies: @JMcG
  139. @nebulafox

    No, Carter was a proto-New Dem that more than anything else presaged Bill Clinton. Economically, he was a technocrat who started deregulation and appointed Paul Volcker, socially he was an evangelical Christian who co-opted former Wallace voters and tried to represent the spirit of the new South. Backlash against all of this from a combination of old style New Dealists and the New Left led to EMK challenging him in 1980 much like Reagan challenged Ford from the right in 1976.

    Well put.

  140. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag

    Lying scum.

    Men make arguments, women name-call. More name calling from Obwandiyag.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  141. anon[841] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    As much as I hate Carter, he ruled as a moderate. The same is true of Clinton.

    Yeah, no.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  142. @anon

    Waco might be important to some here, but I doubt Clinton gave it two thoughts a week after it was over.

    Clinton’s conservative achievements included 1) balanced budgets, 2) lower capital gains rates, 3) a crime bill that included more draconian penalties for criminals (remember Sister Souljah?), and 4) a welfare reform bill pushed by conservatives.

    Clinton went to such lengths to prove he was safe for a conservative America that he executed a self-lobotomized convicted murderer by the name of Ricky Ray Rector, even heading back to oversee the execution while he was on the campaign trail.

  143. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon

    Anarchists are the same sort of people as communists.

    Anarchists and communists always hated each other with a white-hot burning hatred.

    Anarchists are the same sort of people as libertarians. Both believe in a utopian fantasy based entirely on theory. Both are ideologies that normal people grow out of by the time they reach adulthood.

    The difference is that anarchists believe their utopian fantasy world will be a world of absolute egalitarianism because that’s what they hope for. Libertarians believe their utopian fantasy world will be a world of absolute inegalitarianism because that’s what they hope for.

    Actual Marxists sort of pretend to believe that eventually the state will wither away but there’s no evidence that any actual Marxist has actually believed such pie-in-the-sky nonsense. In practice most Marxists, like most sane people, have accepted the necessity of the state.

    The mindsets of anarchists and communists tend to be pretty different.

    • Replies: @Anon
  144. @nebulafox

    The invasion is the existential question; no matter that he may be diabetic, wasting from cancer, starving, hypothermic, and so on—it is not monomania for a man rapidly bleeding out to fight to tourniquet his wound to the exclusion of these other concerns and, indeed, any other concern whatsoever.

  145. JMcG says:
    @nebulafox

    Good Luck – all the best to you.

  146. Sean says:

    So call 911. Where there are no cops to call you have no rights, It’s on you to back up your demands with force, or back down. In other words talk of rights is mere rhetoric.

    https://slate.com/culture/2009/10/donald-kagan-s-thucydides-the-reinvention-of-history.html

    Thucydides’ narrative, Kagan argues, was an effort to clear the Athenian elite of blame for multiple errors and to put the blame on Athenian democracy: Thucydides wanted his readers to believe that Pericles, the statesman and general who dominated Athenian politics at the start of the war, had had a viable plan to defeat the Spartans. But after he died of the plague, demagogues gained control of the city. One of them, Alcibiades, persuaded the Athenians to send an armada to Sicily. It failed catastrophically. But Thucydides insisted that the disaster wasn’t the fault of the aristocratic general Nicias, who led the campaign. The decay of Athenian politics, itself largely caused by the death of Pericles and the pressures of warfare, led to the Sicilian disaster. In fact, the campaign could have worked if Nicias hadn’t made crucial mistakes. For all Thucydides’ careful research and for all the dry precision of much of his prose, he didn’t just give the facts; he mounted a highly successful campaign to shape posterity’s view of the great events of his time.

    Democracy is violent and aggressive externally. Why oh why will people not accept that lesson of history which became apparent as soon as democracy began.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  147. @Ano

    Ano said:

    That wouldn’t be the same The United States which interferes with the American people’s pursuit of self-determination and right to choose their own government, I suppose?

    …November 22…”

    Yes, it sure would be the same one.

    Peter Dale Scott argued long ago that here in the U.S., we (ordinary citizens and our elected officials) have become a client state, one in which “Deep Politics” (today’s Deep State) have exerted considerable influence on our overt system.

    I disagree with Scott.

    Since November 22, 1963, the Deep State’s influence/control has been total.

  148. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sean

    Democracy is violent and aggressive externally. Why oh why will people not accept that lesson of history which became apparent as soon as democracy began.

    It does seem to be.

  149. Anon[314] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    “White-hot hatred”

    If you say so…

    Fascists, communists, and anarchists in the traditional development of these ideologies are out for the same audience, which leads to rivalry if they’re competing in the same place and at the same time.

    In memory, Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldman come out not looking all that different and remembered mostly by the same sorts of people.

    Traditional communism and anarchism have the same goal as ideologies. I suspect what you mean is that when sufficiently practical people like Lenin and Stalin who believe that advantage (or policy, if you want to be nice about it) outweighs ideology obtain the dictatorship of the proletariat and it becomes the dictatorship of the dictatorship this goal is quietly ignored.

    Wiki sometimes has interesting stuff:

    Bakunin found Marx’s economic analysis very useful and began the job of translating Das Kapital into Russian. In turn Marx wrote of the rebels in the Dresden insurrection of 1848 that “In the Russian refugee Michael Bakunin they found a capable and cool headed leader.”[64] Marx wrote to Engels of meeting Bakunin in 1864 after his escape to Siberia saying “On the whole he is one of the few people whom I find not to have retrogressed after 16 years, but to have developed further.”[65]

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  150. Hibernian says:
    @Jack D

    They are our Establishment’s bastards.

  151. Trutherator says: • Website
    @DonTill

    That’s not justice in s. Africa right now. It’s becoming open season on all whites down there and a quick march toward poverty.

  152. Trutherator says: • Website

    Pretty much assumes those elections were fair. Nobody who is on either side of the issue can know for sure. Manuel Zelaya, who showed his true Chavista colors in 2008-2009 up until his arrest for major crimes, admitted to Jorge Ramos in an interview on Univision that he had cheated in the election of 2005, saying “everybody does it”..

  153. @MBlanc46

    Yeah, the whole thing is not working out if guys are going to vote based on a nice rear-end in white slacks, probably based on “if we’re going to have the first woman President, that I’ve gotta look at on TV, I sure don’t want to see that Hildabeast”. If it is to be a woman, I’m for Ann Coulter. One of her first moves would be to push for a Constitutional convention to repeal Amendment XIX. Yes, it’d be a bit ironic, but I believe her word on this more than I’d believe the next tweet out our current Tweeter-in-Chief.

  154. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon

    Traditional communism and anarchism have the same goal as ideologies. I suspect what you mean is that when sufficiently practical people like Lenin and Stalin who believe that advantage (or policy, if you want to be nice about it) outweighs ideology obtain the dictatorship of the proletariat and it becomes the dictatorship of the dictatorship this goal is quietly ignored.

    Yeah, basically. Invariably the practical people come out on top of the power struggle so that means that invariably the long-term goal of the “withering away” of the state gets shelved.

    Mao was perhaps the only significant communist leader to be fairly serious about wanting to make the final transition to communism, and he disliked the whole “the party as revolutionary vanguard” thing. He seems to have sincerely believed that the masses should be at least consulted. But Mao was not a Marxist. The Cultural Revolution started out as Mao’s attempt to smash the Chinese Communist Party which he believed had betrayed the revolution. Ironically Deng, who transformed China from a socialist state to a capitalist state, was the one who was keen to save the Chinese Communist Party.

    Of course we don’t know what would happen if anarchists ever achieved power. We can only pray it never happens. Just as we can only pray that libertarians never achieve power. The most likely end result in both cases would be a rapid descent into warlordism.

    • Replies: @Anon
  155. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    That is a literally fascist idea. It was the justification used by Mussolini for his aggressive foreign policy before and during WWII. His argument being that if Italy just stood by and did nothing (like Franco’s Spain) it would inevitably decline into irrelevance.

    Franco died of old age in his bed. Mussolini didn’t.

  156. Anon[314] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Of course we don’t know what would happen if anarchists ever achieved power. We can only pray it never happens.

    We do, it happened in places during the Spanish Civil War. They shot more people than the Communists, Socialists, and liberal Republicans (but not orders of magnitude more) until the Stalinists took over and shot or chased out the principal anarchists. Of course, they didn’t have enough time (decades, that is) to fully develop and see how things would have eventually turned out.

    I think, if they had won, people being people, the local committees would probably have been welded into a grand junta with someone like Durruti in charge (assuming he isn’t dead in this hypothetical). He had already said [about the anarchist program] We renounce everything except victory meaning– the absence of government had to wait until the struggle was over. And of course the struggle would never be declared over. But this is just a hypothetical.

  157. EdwardM says:
    @Barnard

    Is she popular in Hawaii? Maybe a Senate or Governor run.

  158. @anon

    You winger POSs are undeserving of one iota of informed respectful nuanced discourse. You wouldn’t understand it if you stepped in it. No, you only deserve the basest obloquy. The high-toned retort in kind of every word that spews from your rictal orifice including “the.”

  159. @Desiderius

    Interesting. Thanks for the link.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS