RSS
Here’s my first speech in over ten years:
Steve Sailer at the VDARE 2023 Conference: “The Secret History Of The 21st Century”
“Did Black Lives Matter Get All Those Black Lives Murdered? Yes. Yes, It Did.” – @Steve_Sailer https://t.co/IB7bj1NcCZ pic.twitter.com/rAKh9b9ZGT
— VDARE (@vdare) June 27, 2023
A few notes:
Here’s the manuscript text of my speech, although I improvised a little.
On the video after my speech, there’s a Q and A session.
That’s free speech lawyer Fred Kelly playing “Minstrel Boy” on the bagpipes as my intro music while I got stuck behind the waitstaff in getting to the podium in this sold out dining room. Here are the most famous movie versions of the song:
I’m not quite as pallid as the lighting makes me look.
Anybody know how to post this video on Youtube and other sites?
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
This goes for Trump, Hillary, and any number of other political figures. Everyone conceives of politics as team sports, and it’s always our guy vs the other team’s guy. Nobody learns,or wants to.
Let’s not do this.
Perhaps Afghanistan has some nice date groves. Perhaps Somalia has nice beachfront. But if we aren’t coming to chase the riff-raff out and grab it for ourselves … then lets not waste a single American life there.
Instead, let’s stay the hell out of their patch and keep them the hell out of ours.
The Minstrel Boy? Kind of inauspicious. Isn’t it? Maybe next time something a little peppier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVeSKwM--1M
Cheeky lurkers, now’s your chance!
and yes, the episode has a "Clockwork Orange-ish" sub plot.Replies: @MEH 0910
It was a pleasure to finally meet you in person. I hope we can both attend future vdare meetups.
Such as confining any subsequent embargoes to weak opponents such as Cuba and Great Leap-era China. Oh, and Iraq.
Promise to fund our way to “universal” health care by making immigrants– all immigrants– pay for it. Margaret Thatcher took almost 100% of my first week’s pay in London as an “emergency tax”, and I was just there on a six-month student-exchange visa. Taking the equivalent of a full-year’s salary for a million immigrants a year would pay for a lot. Of course, there wouldn’t be a million under such a scheme. And those already here would have greater bargaining power.
Has any other book answered its title question right below it on the cover?
Punctuation would have helped: ¿Qué pasó?
- Japan wasn't getting anywhere in the war against China in 1940 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939–1940_Winter_Offensive). They doubled down like degenerate gamblers and invaded Indochina after the defeat of France, that's what triggered the US embargo.
- Mao launched GLF as a gambit against the Soviets. The US embargo was at best marginally related to the famines
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/economic-cold-war-americas-embargo-against-china-and-the-sino-soviet-alliance-1949-1963
In any case, Japan's primary projected adversary in WWII was Russia, not the US and only did not culminate so by the nearest-run thingRichard Sorge and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941
http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/commentary/pdf/commentary249e.pdfReplies: @Reg Cæsar
Glad you got the opportunity! Could use less reading off the screen though 🙂 Hopefully the video gets viral on Twitter.
The tune from The Man Who Would be King is the melody of The Minstrel Boy but with the lyrics of Reginald Heber’s The Son of God Goes Forth to War. The lyrics were re-worked by Kipling for his novella.
The melody of The Minstrel Boy is in fact the Irish melody The Moreen which was made famous by Thomas Moore.
The lyrics from Joe Strummer’s version on Black Hawk Down are the original Moore lyrics which it is my understanding were written as a response to the Uprising of 1798.
The Minstrel Boy, a popular Irish folk song, was a tribute to Moore’s Trinity friends who died during the Irish Rebellion of 1798. The song was adapted and revived during the American Civil War and also during World War I.
Funny and ironic how the tune is misused by both movies, and by you.
"The minstrel boy to the war is gone
In the ranks of death you'll find him"
Then is it the Minstrel Boy at all ?
Talking of Black Hawk Down, it appears that a fair number of foreign special forces were eating pizza in Kramatorsk 20 minutes before a missile struck it. You may recall a NYE dinner for Russian troops in Donetsk was similarly struck, killed a lot of troops and seriously injured a senior Kremlin guy.
https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1673812620430782465
https://ie.ambafrance.org/-Year-of-the-French-1068-
The 1798 rebellion was memorialized by RTE in the 1981 TV series The Year of the French:
https://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/0809/807932-the-year-of-the-french/Replies: @Steve Sailer
You tend “to notice” certain things. Others no.
More on reparations. Why not give them to everyone? Maybe everyone in the world?
The Trouble With Reparations for Redlining
Most people who lived in areas where the FHA refused to insure mortgages were white.
The Trouble With Reparations for Redlining
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trouble-with-reparations-for-redlining-fha-mortgages-discrimination-housing-race-f767a2b1
Meanwhile in Turkey.
https://twitter.com/25_yyaziyor/status/1672967267145900032?t=6i6yCNIYAq_CxlA4XHClOw&s=19
Or, should I say, given the context, is backside spanked?
You would think Brimelow would remember who the two major candidates were in Presidential elections 2000-present. Given that his primary business is in the political sphere.
Brimelow’s redness is more noteworthy.
Iraqi cousin marriages :
So why don’t a large portion of Iraqis have Habsburg jawlines? When well over a fourth of marriages are first cousins, and another fourth are second cousins, shouldn’t Habsburg jawlines be the norm?
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81j9azTNTXL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg
Punctuation would have helped: ¿Qué pasó?Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @NotAnonymousHere
To be fair,
– Japan wasn’t getting anywhere in the war against China in 1940 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939–1940_Winter_Offensive). They doubled down like degenerate gamblers and invaded Indochina after the defeat of France, that’s what triggered the US embargo.
– Mao launched GLF as a gambit against the Soviets. The US embargo was at best marginally related to the famines
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/economic-cold-war-americas-embargo-against-china-and-the-sino-soviet-alliance-1949-1963
In any case, Japan’s primary projected adversary in WWII was Russia, not the US and only did not culminate so by the nearest-run thing
Richard Sorge and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941
http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/commentary/pdf/commentary249e.pdf
Of course, Cuba found another way to retaliate-- empty her prisons in our direction.Replies: @Franz, @Paul Jolliffe
Sure enough, here we have Tucker Carlson repeating Sailer’s anti-Zelensky diatribes. Why did you turn him against Our Glorious Democracy?
Sometimes I'd like Steve to be a little less conventional in his thinking. But at least he is honest and self-aware about where he is coming from.He starts out accepting the conventional wisdom but is willing to notice and point out contradictions and hypocrisies in that wisdom when they are glaringly obvious. He's basically a non-ideological, small "c" conservative whose default position is to trust authority unless a high threshold of evidence proves it's wrong. That's okay. But it puts him a little out-of-step with people who believe that history (especially recent history) calls for a more skeptical approach.Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
- Japan wasn't getting anywhere in the war against China in 1940 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939–1940_Winter_Offensive). They doubled down like degenerate gamblers and invaded Indochina after the defeat of France, that's what triggered the US embargo.
- Mao launched GLF as a gambit against the Soviets. The US embargo was at best marginally related to the famines
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/economic-cold-war-americas-embargo-against-china-and-the-sino-soviet-alliance-1949-1963
In any case, Japan's primary projected adversary in WWII was Russia, not the US and only did not culminate so by the nearest-run thingRichard Sorge and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941
http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/commentary/pdf/commentary249e.pdfReplies: @Reg Cæsar
The point was that our embargo, coupled with Lend-Lease, showed our neutrality to be a fraud, and angered a country strong enough to retaliate. China could not, at least until their A-bomb.
Of course, Cuba found another way to retaliate– empty her prisons in our direction.
Of course our neutrality was a fraud.
FDR intended to get us into WWII all along. Deliberately provoking Japan to attack first was part of his strategy.
Don’t take my word for it- that’s what Secretary of State Henry Stimson repeatedly wrote in his own diary after a number of cabinet meetings in the latter half of 1941:
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,792673,00.html
Goodbye, France.
OT. He was innocent, you see; he didn’t rape her, he only beat her to the brink of death.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/nyregion/nyc-council-election-bronx-da-queens.html
Interesting that this guy was living in Georgia and came back to NY solely to run for this seat. No word on how he supports himself.
These elections had a low turnout; candidates with listed jobs were all from the public sector.
OT:
Ohtani, the best baseball player of all time, just played one of the best games of all time today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiytkIXTkAo
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/37925744/shohei-ohtani-homers-twice-strikes-10-angels-win-vs-white-sox
Of course, Cuba found another way to retaliate-- empty her prisons in our direction.Replies: @Franz, @Paul Jolliffe
Only because Jimmy Carter was president and the good foreign policy wonks left with Nixon.
The last Republican president who could be even somewhat labeled a small government conservative was Ronald Reagan and that was over thirty years ago. Once you abandon a belief in small government as one of your guiding principles there is really nothing to put the brakes on getting involved in costly and pointless foreign wars and equally costly and pointless attempts at home to bring blacks and Hispanics up to the same level as whites to achieve economic equality.
A case could be made that the intellectual split among conservatives, rather than happening under the second Bush, happened under the first one. Under Reagan, former Democrat foreign policy hawks moved over into the Republican party. This group, usually called neocons, had little interest in cutting government spending. They wanted to make the Republican party the vehicle for a more aggressive foreign policy.
Reagan himself resisted this. When neocons like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz fumed that Reagan wasn’t taking an aggressive enough stance towards the Soviet Union, he continued to believe that the Soviet Union had adopted an unworkable economic system, Marxism, and would eventually collapse on its own. He was right. When Bush followed him, the neocons finally started to get their way. The result was disastrous, with almost continuous foreign and domestic policy interventions since then that were costly and ended up failing. The traditional conservatives have been struggling since the early nineties to regain control of the Republican party, starting with the Buchanan primary run in 1992 and the “Culture War Speech” at the Republican convention. The neocon dominated Republican party practically merged with the Democrats to form the current Washington uniparty that is running the country into the ground.
==
Those associated with the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, the Committee on the Present Danger, and the Committee for the Free World who did enter the Republican Party did so during the period running from 1972 to 1985, not during the 1st Bush Administration. (An exception here was Charles Krauthammer, who entered the Republican Party ca. 1995, during the Clinton years). They did so for a variety of reasons, not just foreign policy considerations. Irving Kristol never fumed that Reagan was insufficiently aggressive abroad. He was actually an advocate of withdrawal from NATO and so advocated before the end of the Cold War. From 1965 to 1985, Kristol's publications concerned domestic policy. The foreign policy journal he founded (The National Interest) to the extent it had an editorial line was more in tune with Kissingerian approaches to foreign policy. Martin Peretz and Norman Podhoretz did object to the approach of the Reagan and Bush administrations to certain issues; their complaint was not that the administrations were 'insufficiently bellicose' generally. Peretz, btw, was a loyal Democrat bar his support for William Weld in Massachusetts. Both men were more antagonistic to the 1st Bush Administration than to the Reagan Administration on foreign policy questions.
==
There were, btw, no 'intellectual splits' in the Republican Party in 1992. There was a coterie of opinion journalists who objected to certain courses of actions. They had few if any counterparts among federal office holders. (Well, there was Ron Paul). Pat Buchanan fared comparatively well in the 1996 Republican presidential campaign, but that was during the Clinton years and nothing comparable has been repeated since. Ron Paul's Liberty Caucus had about seven members ca. 2007, four of whom declined to support his presidential campaign.
==
The problem with soi-disant 'small government conservatives' is that their stock in trade is a mess of scattershot complaints, many of which are petty or ill-considered. One exception is William Voegeli, who isn't averse to being twee, either.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Mark G., @Corpse Tooth
A case could be made that the intellectual split among conservatives, rather than happening under the second Bush, happened under the first one. Under Reagan, former Democrat foreign policy hawks moved over into the Republican party. This group, usually called neocons, had little interest in cutting government spending. They wanted to make the Republican party the vehicle for a more aggressive foreign policy.
Reagan himself resisted this. When neocons like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz fumed that Reagan wasn't taking an aggressive enough stance towards the Soviet Union, he continued to believe that the Soviet Union had adopted an unworkable economic system, Marxism, and would eventually collapse on its own. He was right. When Bush followed him, the neocons finally started to get their way. The result was disastrous, with almost continuous foreign and domestic policy interventions since then that were costly and ended up failing. The traditional conservatives have been struggling since the early nineties to regain control of the Republican party, starting with the Buchanan primary run in 1992 and the "Culture War Speech" at the Republican convention. The neocon dominated Republican party practically merged with the Democrats to form the current Washington uniparty that is running the country into the ground.Replies: @Colin Wright, @Art Deco
You’re missing a three-letter word there.
The geat indeed Helen Andrews article mentioned by Peter Brimelow about Steve Sailer in the magazine Compound can be read via a link presented by the fabulous website Peak Stupidity, which is run and written by frequent Unz-review commenter Achmed E. Neumann.
Google – – Peak Stupidity Adam Smith Helen Andrews Steve Sailer. – Good luck!
What did I get wrong?Replies: @dieter kief
https://ferrebeekeeper.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/beowulf_geats_001.jpg
Grendel's mom was the first "Karen"!Replies: @Muggles
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1673856877841764352Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Pixo, @Hypnotoad666
Oh. So – Fox News is supporting this destruction of the constitutional democratic state and is going down and the iSteve-diluter Tucker Carlson is going up, up, up… (TC Sounds not too diluted here, I’d like to add.)
If it doesn’t have the lyrics
“The minstrel boy to the war is gone
In the ranks of death you’ll find him”
Then is it the Minstrel Boy at all ?
Talking of Black Hawk Down, it appears that a fair number of foreign special forces were eating pizza in Kramatorsk 20 minutes before a missile struck it. You may recall a NYE dinner for Russian troops in Donetsk was similarly struck, killed a lot of troops and seriously injured a senior Kremlin guy.
https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1673812620430782465
Ohtani, the best baseball player of all time, just played one of the best games of all time today.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @res
Ohtani, eh?
This is a duplicate post. Ron Unz published Sailer’s speech last week on the front page of TUR. Why wouldn’t Steve just link to that publication? Oh wait, no moderation control.
OT — By way of Ellis Items, Jennifer Zeng in the Jerusalem Post interviews multiple Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers who definitively state that the Fauci virus was intended from the beginning to be a bioweapon by the Chinese government and that they were specifically researching how to infect humans with it.
https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/article-748002
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1673833701908660224Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
https://rmx.news/trending/nearly-half-of-french-food-aid-recipients-are-migrants-90-of-these-come-from-africa/
Henry Kissinger was employed by the Ford Administration. There were number of disasters during the Nixon and Ford Administration, though you wouldn’t necessarily attribute them to Nixon’s wonks.
-------
Here is the Wuhan article archived. For some reason archiving J-Post articles takes forty years.
https://archive.ph/7Tl7T
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/nyregion/nyc-council-election-bronx-da-queens.htmlReplies: @bomag
Thanks.
Interesting that this guy was living in Georgia and came back to NY solely to run for this seat. No word on how he supports himself.
These elections had a low turnout; candidates with listed jobs were all from the public sector.
This reply baffles me. It’s not controversial that Carter was a foreign policy catastrophe.
——-
Here is the Wuhan article archived. For some reason archiving J-Post articles takes forty years.
https://archive.ph/7Tl7T
A case could be made that the intellectual split among conservatives, rather than happening under the second Bush, happened under the first one. Under Reagan, former Democrat foreign policy hawks moved over into the Republican party. This group, usually called neocons, had little interest in cutting government spending. They wanted to make the Republican party the vehicle for a more aggressive foreign policy.
Reagan himself resisted this. When neocons like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz fumed that Reagan wasn't taking an aggressive enough stance towards the Soviet Union, he continued to believe that the Soviet Union had adopted an unworkable economic system, Marxism, and would eventually collapse on its own. He was right. When Bush followed him, the neocons finally started to get their way. The result was disastrous, with almost continuous foreign and domestic policy interventions since then that were costly and ended up failing. The traditional conservatives have been struggling since the early nineties to regain control of the Republican party, starting with the Buchanan primary run in 1992 and the "Culture War Speech" at the Republican convention. The neocon dominated Republican party practically merged with the Democrats to form the current Washington uniparty that is running the country into the ground.Replies: @Colin Wright, @Art Deco
This is largely a fantasy. Some people associated with the Committee on the Present Danger and the Committee for the Free World formally entered the Republican Party and some did not. The ones who did not (e.g. Ben Wattenberg, Penn Kemble, and James Woolsey) continued to associate with Democratic politicians and some of them offered (FWIW) and endorsement of Bill Clinton and held positions in Democratic administration.
==
Those associated with the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, the Committee on the Present Danger, and the Committee for the Free World who did enter the Republican Party did so during the period running from 1972 to 1985, not during the 1st Bush Administration. (An exception here was Charles Krauthammer, who entered the Republican Party ca. 1995, during the Clinton years). They did so for a variety of reasons, not just foreign policy considerations. Irving Kristol never fumed that Reagan was insufficiently aggressive abroad. He was actually an advocate of withdrawal from NATO and so advocated before the end of the Cold War. From 1965 to 1985, Kristol’s publications concerned domestic policy. The foreign policy journal he founded (The National Interest) to the extent it had an editorial line was more in tune with Kissingerian approaches to foreign policy. Martin Peretz and Norman Podhoretz did object to the approach of the Reagan and Bush administrations to certain issues; their complaint was not that the administrations were ‘insufficiently bellicose’ generally. Peretz, btw, was a loyal Democrat bar his support for William Weld in Massachusetts. Both men were more antagonistic to the 1st Bush Administration than to the Reagan Administration on foreign policy questions.
==
There were, btw, no ‘intellectual splits’ in the Republican Party in 1992. There was a coterie of opinion journalists who objected to certain courses of actions. They had few if any counterparts among federal office holders. (Well, there was Ron Paul). Pat Buchanan fared comparatively well in the 1996 Republican presidential campaign, but that was during the Clinton years and nothing comparable has been repeated since. Ron Paul’s Liberty Caucus had about seven members ca. 2007, four of whom declined to support his presidential campaign.
==
The problem with soi-disant ‘small government conservatives’ is that their stock in trade is a mess of scattershot complaints, many of which are petty or ill-considered. One exception is William Voegeli, who isn’t averse to being twee, either.
Well yeah: after all, you'd have to have a genuine, respectable intellectualism to start out with, before you could have a bona fide intellectual split.
Disputes between Caveman Unk and Caveman Grunk over who gets the leg bone don't really count.Replies: @Art Deco
This got Reagan into trouble with the neocons early on. They took to the oped pages to lament “The Muddle in Foreign Policy” (Irving Kristol) and chronicle the “Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy” (Norman Podhoretz)."
https://www.cato.org/commentary/reagan-was-no-neoconReplies: @Art Deco, @Bill Jones
==
Those associated with the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, the Committee on the Present Danger, and the Committee for the Free World who did enter the Republican Party did so during the period running from 1972 to 1985, not during the 1st Bush Administration. (An exception here was Charles Krauthammer, who entered the Republican Party ca. 1995, during the Clinton years). They did so for a variety of reasons, not just foreign policy considerations. Irving Kristol never fumed that Reagan was insufficiently aggressive abroad. He was actually an advocate of withdrawal from NATO and so advocated before the end of the Cold War. From 1965 to 1985, Kristol's publications concerned domestic policy. The foreign policy journal he founded (The National Interest) to the extent it had an editorial line was more in tune with Kissingerian approaches to foreign policy. Martin Peretz and Norman Podhoretz did object to the approach of the Reagan and Bush administrations to certain issues; their complaint was not that the administrations were 'insufficiently bellicose' generally. Peretz, btw, was a loyal Democrat bar his support for William Weld in Massachusetts. Both men were more antagonistic to the 1st Bush Administration than to the Reagan Administration on foreign policy questions.
==
There were, btw, no 'intellectual splits' in the Republican Party in 1992. There was a coterie of opinion journalists who objected to certain courses of actions. They had few if any counterparts among federal office holders. (Well, there was Ron Paul). Pat Buchanan fared comparatively well in the 1996 Republican presidential campaign, but that was during the Clinton years and nothing comparable has been repeated since. Ron Paul's Liberty Caucus had about seven members ca. 2007, four of whom declined to support his presidential campaign.
==
The problem with soi-disant 'small government conservatives' is that their stock in trade is a mess of scattershot complaints, many of which are petty or ill-considered. One exception is William Voegeli, who isn't averse to being twee, either.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Mark G., @Corpse Tooth
“There were, btw, no ‘intellectual splits’ in the Republican Party in 1992.”
Well yeah: after all, you’d have to have a genuine, respectable intellectualism to start out with, before you could have a bona fide intellectual split.
Disputes between Caveman Unk and Caveman Grunk over who gets the leg bone don’t really count.
==
No one's taking their cues from you. For a reason.
Of course, Cuba found another way to retaliate-- empty her prisons in our direction.Replies: @Franz, @Paul Jolliffe
Reg,
Of course our neutrality was a fraud.
FDR intended to get us into WWII all along. Deliberately provoking Japan to attack first was part of his strategy.
Don’t take my word for it- that’s what Secretary of State Henry Stimson repeatedly wrote in his own diary after a number of cabinet meetings in the latter half of 1941:
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,792673,00.html
==
Those associated with the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, the Committee on the Present Danger, and the Committee for the Free World who did enter the Republican Party did so during the period running from 1972 to 1985, not during the 1st Bush Administration. (An exception here was Charles Krauthammer, who entered the Republican Party ca. 1995, during the Clinton years). They did so for a variety of reasons, not just foreign policy considerations. Irving Kristol never fumed that Reagan was insufficiently aggressive abroad. He was actually an advocate of withdrawal from NATO and so advocated before the end of the Cold War. From 1965 to 1985, Kristol's publications concerned domestic policy. The foreign policy journal he founded (The National Interest) to the extent it had an editorial line was more in tune with Kissingerian approaches to foreign policy. Martin Peretz and Norman Podhoretz did object to the approach of the Reagan and Bush administrations to certain issues; their complaint was not that the administrations were 'insufficiently bellicose' generally. Peretz, btw, was a loyal Democrat bar his support for William Weld in Massachusetts. Both men were more antagonistic to the 1st Bush Administration than to the Reagan Administration on foreign policy questions.
==
There were, btw, no 'intellectual splits' in the Republican Party in 1992. There was a coterie of opinion journalists who objected to certain courses of actions. They had few if any counterparts among federal office holders. (Well, there was Ron Paul). Pat Buchanan fared comparatively well in the 1996 Republican presidential campaign, but that was during the Clinton years and nothing comparable has been repeated since. Ron Paul's Liberty Caucus had about seven members ca. 2007, four of whom declined to support his presidential campaign.
==
The problem with soi-disant 'small government conservatives' is that their stock in trade is a mess of scattershot complaints, many of which are petty or ill-considered. One exception is William Voegeli, who isn't averse to being twee, either.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Mark G., @Corpse Tooth
“Reagan had a genuine horror of nuclear weapons, and wanted them abolished. He called mutually assured destruction “the craziest thing I ever heard of.” His three military interventions — Grenada, Lebanon and Libya — were “limited operations of short duration,” and he carefully avoided direct confrontation with the Soviets.
This got Reagan into trouble with the neocons early on. They took to the oped pages to lament “The Muddle in Foreign Policy” (Irving Kristol) and chronicle the “Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy” (Norman Podhoretz).”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/reagan-was-no-neocon
https://youtu.be/AYELAu9hqdUReplies: @John Henry, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Coemgen, @Prester John
Pep? I’ll give you Pep!
Steve is like a doctor who tells you what disease you have and then walks out of the room without giving any advice on how to treat the disease.
Google - - Peak Stupidity Adam Smith Helen Andrews Steve Sailer. - Good luck!Replies: @Sam, @Reg Cæsar, @Tono Bungay
I really wanted to read that article but neither googling didn’t work “Peak Stupidity Adam Smith Helen Andrews Steve Sailer” nor using “site:https://www.peakstupidity.com+Steve Sailer” worked.
What did I get wrong?
The off-white suit was a faux-pas.
This got Reagan into trouble with the neocons early on. They took to the oped pages to lament “The Muddle in Foreign Policy” (Irving Kristol) and chronicle the “Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy” (Norman Podhoretz)."
https://www.cato.org/commentary/reagan-was-no-neoconReplies: @Art Deco, @Bill Jones
None of it got Reagan ‘into trouble’ with “the neocons” or anyone else. You can’t seem to distinguish episodic complaints from general antagonism.
That would be your specialty throughout history.
I understand you are a neocon who is hostile to the traditional American policy of noninterventionism. As the article I linked to says, for the neocons it's always 1939 and there is always some existential threat that requires we continue to spend almost a trillion dollars a year on our bloated military.
I'm sorry to break the news, but there isn't going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won't be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.Replies: @Jack D, @Art Deco, @Mike Tre
What a laugh! The illegal alien population was estimated to be around 30 million well before Biden took office. The figure given of an additional 2 million that he has allowed in is less than half of other estimates I’ve seen. Perhaps there’s no way to arrive at an accurate number.
What about the 20th Century? Steve, the MOUs don’t qualify.
> Anybody know how to post this video on Youtube and other sites?
Yes, you just have to sign up for an account for each one. Right now dissident right people typically upload to Odysee and Bitchute, and YouTube if they’re allowed.
Are you looking to do a Zoom call screenshare where someone walks you through it or something? I could do that and likely dozens of other people here would too.
https://youtu.be/AYELAu9hqdUReplies: @John Henry, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Coemgen, @Prester John
The Mince Troll Boy would be a good iSteve handle.
Cheeky lurkers, now’s your chance!
Google - - Peak Stupidity Adam Smith Helen Andrews Steve Sailer. - Good luck!Replies: @Sam, @Reg Cæsar, @Tono Bungay
We could use more Geats today. Where is our Beowulf?
Grendel’s mom was the first “Karen”!
I think this trio of gentlemen will be on the next Democrat presidential poster, underneath will be the caption:
"Vote Democrat! These are your GOP alternatives!"
Biden constantly warns of these Red State politicians and voters. His nightmares are replete with them...Replies: @Reg Cæsar
“ You can’t seem to distinguish episodic complaints from general antagonism.”
That would be your specialty throughout history.
2023 marks the 225th anniversary of the 1798 rebellion known as The Year of the French:
https://ie.ambafrance.org/-Year-of-the-French-1068-
The 1798 rebellion was memorialized by RTE in the 1981 TV series The Year of the French:
https://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/0809/807932-the-year-of-the-french/
Great speech Steve. You hit on most of the major points and topics that you discuss here, along with getting some Sailerisms out there. I could tell it was your first major speech in 10 years because your delivery was a little stilted. Hopefully you get more opportunities for speeches to hone your delivery. And, I personally could have done with a little golf course architecture thrown in, but I guess you were under a time constraint.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1673856877841764352Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Pixo, @Hypnotoad666
The way his voice cracks like a pubescent teenager is really hard to listen to. It becomes a lot more distracting when it is just him speaking for an extended period rather than a back and forth interview or 3-minute scripted and edited TV segment.
A video of your talk wouldn’t last 3 hours on Youtube. Someone would alert their “Trust and Safety Team” to its presence and have it banned because, as you say about VDARE, you are, you know, Evil.
Ohtani, the best baseball player of all time, just played one of the best games of all time today.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @res
Impressive. Thanks.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/37925744/shohei-ohtani-homers-twice-strikes-10-angels-win-vs-white-sox
Secret history in long words: Traditionally, antidisestablishmentarianism has been given as the longest word in English, though it isn’t. It is still of import, however. Technically, the UK is a theocracy and the US not, with the “baby Brits” of the Anglosphere uncharacteristically following the Yanks on this one point.
The longest word in French has changed, but it is also political. Just in from French Quora:
I’ve never figured out how to link to a Quora answer, but the author is one Acanthe Deblas should you wish to commenter ce contenu and can navigate Quora. I assume from the florid name that Acanthe is a femme.
Anticonstitutionally hasn’t been used on Unz.com (Steve, you can be the first!), but must appear somewhere in English, other than in dictionaries. Can anyone think of a use for intergovernmentalizations? Would that be within states, or between them? There’s another UK/US difference for you.
Google - - Peak Stupidity Adam Smith Helen Andrews Steve Sailer. - Good luck!Replies: @Sam, @Reg Cæsar, @Tono Bungay
Thanks, but can’t find it even with your hint. do you have the link?
https://tinyurl.com/av435jt3
O/T. Brief video. Recently a USCG helicopter rescue swimmer and supporting crew saved a German Shepherd that slid down a cliff to the rocks and surf far below. (Make that, the idiot owner allowed the dog to slide down.) There is currently a debate whether cutters should carry cruise missiles. Of course they should not. This is a task for Navy ships and for planes. Cutters should not be warships. They have other things to do. Ask the rescued dog what she thinks.
Anticonstitutionally hasn't been used on Unz.com (Steve, you can be the first!), but must appear somewhere in English, other than in dictionaries. Can anyone think of a use for intergovernmentalizations? Would that be within states, or between them? There's another UK/US difference for you.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Bill Jones
You are of course forgetting the so-called “hundred-letter-thunder-word” which signals changes in Finnegans Wake. But there seems to be a lot of Gravity’s Rainbow-hate in dese here parts, can’t imagine what they’d say about the Wake.
Anticonstitutionally hasn't been used on Unz.com (Steve, you can be the first!), but must appear somewhere in English, other than in dictionaries. Can anyone think of a use for intergovernmentalizations? Would that be within states, or between them? There's another UK/US difference for you.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Bill Jones
That came as bit of a surprise. Anticonstitutionally would seem a perfect fit for the Pennsylvania Governor and Courts meddling in the 2020 elections.
Perhaps any previous wielder split it into two component parts.
==
Those associated with the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, the Committee on the Present Danger, and the Committee for the Free World who did enter the Republican Party did so during the period running from 1972 to 1985, not during the 1st Bush Administration. (An exception here was Charles Krauthammer, who entered the Republican Party ca. 1995, during the Clinton years). They did so for a variety of reasons, not just foreign policy considerations. Irving Kristol never fumed that Reagan was insufficiently aggressive abroad. He was actually an advocate of withdrawal from NATO and so advocated before the end of the Cold War. From 1965 to 1985, Kristol's publications concerned domestic policy. The foreign policy journal he founded (The National Interest) to the extent it had an editorial line was more in tune with Kissingerian approaches to foreign policy. Martin Peretz and Norman Podhoretz did object to the approach of the Reagan and Bush administrations to certain issues; their complaint was not that the administrations were 'insufficiently bellicose' generally. Peretz, btw, was a loyal Democrat bar his support for William Weld in Massachusetts. Both men were more antagonistic to the 1st Bush Administration than to the Reagan Administration on foreign policy questions.
==
There were, btw, no 'intellectual splits' in the Republican Party in 1992. There was a coterie of opinion journalists who objected to certain courses of actions. They had few if any counterparts among federal office holders. (Well, there was Ron Paul). Pat Buchanan fared comparatively well in the 1996 Republican presidential campaign, but that was during the Clinton years and nothing comparable has been repeated since. Ron Paul's Liberty Caucus had about seven members ca. 2007, four of whom declined to support his presidential campaign.
==
The problem with soi-disant 'small government conservatives' is that their stock in trade is a mess of scattershot complaints, many of which are petty or ill-considered. One exception is William Voegeli, who isn't averse to being twee, either.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Mark G., @Corpse Tooth
CPD, like its later iteration PNAC, was a neoconservative ie Zionist MIC lobby. The crowning achievement of the PNAC operatives was, of course, the mysterious 9/11 incident.
This got Reagan into trouble with the neocons early on. They took to the oped pages to lament “The Muddle in Foreign Policy” (Irving Kristol) and chronicle the “Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy” (Norman Podhoretz)."
https://www.cato.org/commentary/reagan-was-no-neoconReplies: @Art Deco, @Bill Jones
You really shouldn’t use “Neocon” for Podhoretz, Kristol et al. It was merely a convenient skin suit for that time. Call them what they are: a Bronze Age Death Cult.
An expensive waste of manpower and air asset. All of our military branches have been infected by the woke virus. Add doggyphilia to the list of the Coast Guard’s symptoms. Soon, the doggy stripe will be added to the Rainbow flag.
The only "non-woke" activity the US Military ever engaged in was the frontier wars. Otherwise, it has always been a force for liberalization, under a centralizing federal government. That "conservatives", as they like to call themselves, are very pro-military is due to their lack of intellectual self-awareness, and their knuckle-dragging love of things that go boom!
I wasn’t the one who said that. I put quotes around it to show someone else said it and then even provided the link to the original article. I do happen to agree with the author, though.
I understand you are a neocon who is hostile to the traditional American policy of noninterventionism. As the article I linked to says, for the neocons it’s always 1939 and there is always some existential threat that requires we continue to spend almost a trillion dollars a year on our bloated military.
I’m sorry to break the news, but there isn’t going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won’t be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.
==
There is no such thing as a 'neocon'. It's an epithet invented by people who know nothing. The term 'neoconservative' was promoted by Peter Steinfels to describe a collection of academics and opinion journalists who dissented from the regnant viewpoint in the chattering classes and had generally been liberals and leftoids earlier in their career. None of the three people Steinfels profiled in his book were primarily concerned with foreign policy in formulating their dissent. They had associates who had c complaints about foreign policy, but these were complaints about functionally pacifist and pro-Soviet strands of thinking in the chatterati ca. 1977 and amounted to a defense of the strand which was dominant in both parties from 1949 to 1968. (Reagan didn't have any systematic objection to Cold War foreign policy). People like Kristol and Podhoretz ceased to be a distinct segment in Republican discourse 30 years ago.
==
The 'traditional American policy of nonintervention' scarcely exists outside your imagination. It was simply an adaptation to a particular set of circumstances, not some categorical imperative. The interwar governments weren't run by Paulbots and they made use of instruments which disappeared in the post-war world. The dramatic change in the quality of the post-war political landscape generated policy changes. The sort of 'non-interventionist' bushwah you fancy had completely disappeared from Congress and the academy by 1959 and Ron Paul et al have never succeeded in reviving it except among minor political sects. There's a reason for that.
==
I’m sorry to break the news, but there isn’t going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won’t be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.
==
Your problem is that you manufacture caricatures which you fancy are faithful depictions. The ratio of military spending to domestic product is as low as it has been since 1940, around 0.038. About 13% of our troops are deployed abroad; that's also as low as it has been since 1940. The military is dreadfully malgoverned and soldiers and sailors are treated shamefully, but that has little to do with budgetary allocations. Of course, we never acted as 'world policeman'. The bulk of our manpower deployed abroad was Germany, Japan, and Korea, none of which have seen open warfare in the last 70 years.
==
The person who told you there was a 'sixty-trillion dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare' is using an accounting method that doesn't belong in a poker game. Putting Social Security on an actuarially sound basis is not some insuperable task nor does it require doing anything complicated. It does require doing things which make costs transparent and disappoint people in explicit ways. It's an issue completely irrelevant to that of crafting foreign policy and provisioning the military. The only way it is relevant is in regard to two rather stratospheric observation: that there's an upper limit on social and economic tolerance for redistribution and that you can ultimately only consume what you produce. (Social Security spending has historically hardly exceeded 5% of gross domestic product). Addressing problems with Medicare are part of a larger problem in financing medical care which are more complicated but also reparable.
==
And, no, the immigrant populations will not be 'needing' a larger welfare state. The degree of redistribution in a society is ultimately discretionary. The vast bulk of expenditure of this nature is spent on medical care, long-term care, schooling, and cash for the elderly and disabled. Young immigrant populations aren't big clients of any of these programs.
==
As for our public sector borrowing, that's a function of our politicians being irresponsible sh!ts. Our propensity to spend on the military is half what it was in 1948, when the federal budget was balanced.Replies: @Jack D, @Mark G., @Tom Grey, @PhysicistDave
I understand you are a neocon who is hostile to the traditional American policy of noninterventionism. As the article I linked to says, for the neocons it's always 1939 and there is always some existential threat that requires we continue to spend almost a trillion dollars a year on our bloated military.
I'm sorry to break the news, but there isn't going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won't be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.Replies: @Jack D, @Art Deco, @Mike Tre
What kind of tradition is it if we haven’t observed it for more than a century (WWI) at least?
In fact it was NEVER a tradition – when Washington kvetched that we shouldn’t have foreign entanglements in his farewell address, the reason that he was kvetching was that it was already an issue. If it wasn’t an issue to begin with, he wouldn’t have brought it up in the first place.
Even if it was a “tradition”, the Founders understood that times change and that living men cannot be ruled by the traditions of the dead. You should not discard traditions lightly because they exist for a reason but sometimes conditions change and you have no choice. When Washington wrote, American was surrounded by oceanic moats that took weeks to cross. Now we live in a connected world – when there is an attempted coup in Moscow we don’t read about it a month later, we watch it unfold in real time and an ICBM launched from Russian territory can hit Washington (the city not the man) in 30 minutes.
The only thing more expensive than playing the world’s policeman is NOT playing policeman and having the current system of world trade and dollarization break down. We have the wolf by the ear – even if we can’t hold on forever we don’t dare let go. In the long run, we are all dead.
I'm surprised you're now dabbling in economics. The truth is we'd have an economy ordered some way if it wasn't ordered the way it is currently. And currently it functions like a pyramid scheme that will go belly up once the economies improve and wages increase in the countries currently being exploited. Eventually, there being no third world left, the US, et al, would mechanize the low-skilled jobs.
I'm curious. Do you get paid by word or by comment for your propaganda?Replies: @Jack D
Britain ended the slave trade through baldfaced white supremacism. We no longer have that luxury.Keeping the see lanes free and open is a legitimate goal, preferably in concert with other seafaring nations. Who controls Mackinder's "World Island" is of far less concern. The Germans bet on Mackinder, and failed. Now the Chinese are attempting the same with the Silk Road. Hint: the Road is as obsolete as the Erie Canal in the post-Vasco world. Perhaps still good for a backup.
https://iges.ba/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CD2B0EDE-84E3-4417-AE15-1725C412F4C2.png
As for "dollarization", let's paraphrase Churchill: the latter-day Joachimsthaler is the worst choice for a reserve currency... except for all the others.Replies: @Jack D, @Bardon Kaldian
Cheers!
☮
“The only thing more expensive than playing the world’s policeman is NOT playing policeman and having the current system of world trade and dollarization break down.”
I’m surprised you’re now dabbling in economics. The truth is we’d have an economy ordered some way if it wasn’t ordered the way it is currently. And currently it functions like a pyramid scheme that will go belly up once the economies improve and wages increase in the countries currently being exploited. Eventually, there being no third world left, the US, et al, would mechanize the low-skilled jobs.
I’m curious. Do you get paid by word or by comment for your propaganda?
And transitions are hard and risky. People here have pointed out that life expectancy in Russia fell 15 years when they transitioned from Communism to oligarchy. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know. If you think that think that things couldn't possible be worse than they are now, you are wrong. They can ALWAYS be worse.
Maybe someday we will run out of 3rd world countries in which to make cheap shit for us but that will be a while. There is a lot of potential left in parts of Asia outside of China and when that is done you have all of Africa (if anyone can figure out how to get Africans to work outside of slave labor).
All things must past but I think that we could milk a good few decades more out of the post WWII system which has been berry berry good to America. I don't want this party to end.
Cheers!
☮Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Nicholas Stix
Thanks, most kind.
Any chance you could choose a still of me (rather than of PB) to be the “face” of the video? (I don’t know the terminology.)
https://i.ibb.co/CPtQrW3/Screenshot-Sailer-Video.png
I'd imagine I could (somehow) put a still of you as the “face” (youtube calls it a thumbnail, I just looked it up). I'll see what I can do to lock that in.
(Any feedback from other commenters about what thumbnail you see on your end is much appreciated.)
Hope you have a great day!
☮
So, I figured out how the youtube thumbnail works. If there is a different thumbnail you would prefer to be the “face” of the video, just let me know and I'll upload it. Also, if there is anything you'd like me to add to the description (links or whatever) I can do that too.
Cheers!
☮
https://ferrebeekeeper.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/beowulf_geats_001.jpg
Grendel's mom was the first "Karen"!Replies: @Muggles
Great graphic.
I think this trio of gentlemen will be on the next Democrat presidential poster, underneath will be the caption:
“Vote Democrat! These are your GOP alternatives!”
Biden constantly warns of these Red State politicians and voters. His nightmares are replete with them…
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoFEV4VXgAISGND.jpg
I understand you are a neocon who is hostile to the traditional American policy of noninterventionism. As the article I linked to says, for the neocons it's always 1939 and there is always some existential threat that requires we continue to spend almost a trillion dollars a year on our bloated military.
I'm sorry to break the news, but there isn't going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won't be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.Replies: @Jack D, @Art Deco, @Mike Tre
I understand you are a neocon who is hostile to the traditional American policy of noninterventionism. As the article I linked to says, for the neocons it’s always 1939 and there is always some existential threat that requires we continue to spend almost a trillion dollars a year on our bloated military.
==
There is no such thing as a ‘neocon’. It’s an epithet invented by people who know nothing. The term ‘neoconservative’ was promoted by Peter Steinfels to describe a collection of academics and opinion journalists who dissented from the regnant viewpoint in the chattering classes and had generally been liberals and leftoids earlier in their career. None of the three people Steinfels profiled in his book were primarily concerned with foreign policy in formulating their dissent. They had associates who had c complaints about foreign policy, but these were complaints about functionally pacifist and pro-Soviet strands of thinking in the chatterati ca. 1977 and amounted to a defense of the strand which was dominant in both parties from 1949 to 1968. (Reagan didn’t have any systematic objection to Cold War foreign policy). People like Kristol and Podhoretz ceased to be a distinct segment in Republican discourse 30 years ago.
==
The ‘traditional American policy of nonintervention’ scarcely exists outside your imagination. It was simply an adaptation to a particular set of circumstances, not some categorical imperative. The interwar governments weren’t run by Paulbots and they made use of instruments which disappeared in the post-war world. The dramatic change in the quality of the post-war political landscape generated policy changes. The sort of ‘non-interventionist’ bushwah you fancy had completely disappeared from Congress and the academy by 1959 and Ron Paul et al have never succeeded in reviving it except among minor political sects. There’s a reason for that.
==
I’m sorry to break the news, but there isn’t going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won’t be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.
==
Your problem is that you manufacture caricatures which you fancy are faithful depictions. The ratio of military spending to domestic product is as low as it has been since 1940, around 0.038. About 13% of our troops are deployed abroad; that’s also as low as it has been since 1940. The military is dreadfully malgoverned and soldiers and sailors are treated shamefully, but that has little to do with budgetary allocations. Of course, we never acted as ‘world policeman’. The bulk of our manpower deployed abroad was Germany, Japan, and Korea, none of which have seen open warfare in the last 70 years.
==
The person who told you there was a ‘sixty-trillion dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare’ is using an accounting method that doesn’t belong in a poker game. Putting Social Security on an actuarially sound basis is not some insuperable task nor does it require doing anything complicated. It does require doing things which make costs transparent and disappoint people in explicit ways. It’s an issue completely irrelevant to that of crafting foreign policy and provisioning the military. The only way it is relevant is in regard to two rather stratospheric observation: that there’s an upper limit on social and economic tolerance for redistribution and that you can ultimately only consume what you produce. (Social Security spending has historically hardly exceeded 5% of gross domestic product). Addressing problems with Medicare are part of a larger problem in financing medical care which are more complicated but also reparable.
==
And, no, the immigrant populations will not be ‘needing’ a larger welfare state. The degree of redistribution in a society is ultimately discretionary. The vast bulk of expenditure of this nature is spent on medical care, long-term care, schooling, and cash for the elderly and disabled. Young immigrant populations aren’t big clients of any of these programs.
==
As for our public sector borrowing, that’s a function of our politicians being irresponsible sh!ts. Our propensity to spend on the military is half what it was in 1948, when the federal budget was balanced.
The fly in the ointment is that someday young immigrant populations are going to be old immigrant populations.
In 1940 the U.S. was 90% white. Among the current working age population, only around half are whites of European descent. The half that aren't white receive more in government benefits for them and their families than they pay in taxes. Among the half of the working age population that is white, half of those are white females. They receive about as much in government benefits as they pay in taxes so are revenue neutral.
That means the 25% of the working age population that are white males are going to be paying the taxes. Increasing numbers of them are going to be opting out of being tax cows for the welfare-warfare state. Projections showing our future fiscal problems are easily solvable rely on unrealistic estimates about what future tax revenues are going to be. Socialism always fails in the end because people are only productive when they can keep the fruits of their labor. White males are not going to work hard in the future so they can pay taxes to support a large welfare state for nonwhites and to keep the money flowing to the military-industrial complex for its endless wars. People who disagree with this really have their heads stuck in the sand.Replies: @Art Deco
There was indeed a traditional American foreign policy, clearly enunciated by Washington, Jefferson, J. Q. Adams, et al., that involved non-intervention in the affairs of nations outside of the Western Hemisphere. It is not imaginary. Except for the brief aberration from 1898 to 1918, it simply was the American foreign policy. Until 1939.
Guys like you have some weird sexual fetish about proving you are real men by having America wave its thing around all over the planet.
No other country does this.
Try counting all the times that China or Russia has attacked, invaded, conquered, or bombed other countries since 1945. And then do the same for the USA -- you will lose count.
This is not normal; this is not sane.
It really is some weird kind of sexual dysphoria that produces this. Normal, sane human beings do not need for their country to do this.
There is something deeply and horribly wrong with neocons like you.Replies: @Art Deco, @Prester John, @Reg Cæsar
You’re very welcome, Mr. Sailer. Interestingly, on my end the “face” of the video (I don’t know the terminology either) is a still of you. Here’s a screenshot…
I’d imagine I could (somehow) put a still of you as the “face” (youtube calls it a thumbnail, I just looked it up). I’ll see what I can do to lock that in.
(Any feedback from other commenters about what thumbnail you see on your end is much appreciated.)
Hope you have a great day!
☮
Problem is, any moral authority to do so– assuming we had any to begin with– has been forfeited big-time. Billy Carter is one thing, Hunter Biden quite another.
Britain ended the slave trade through baldfaced white supremacism. We no longer have that luxury.
Keeping the see lanes free and open is a legitimate goal, preferably in concert with other seafaring nations. Who controls Mackinder’s “World Island” is of far less concern. The Germans bet on Mackinder, and failed. Now the Chinese are attempting the same with the Silk Road. Hint: the Road is as obsolete as the Erie Canal in the post-Vasco world. Perhaps still good for a backup.
As for “dollarization”, let’s paraphrase Churchill: the latter-day Joachimsthaler is the worst choice for a reserve currency… except for all the others.
I think this trio of gentlemen will be on the next Democrat presidential poster, underneath will be the caption:
"Vote Democrat! These are your GOP alternatives!"
Biden constantly warns of these Red State politicians and voters. His nightmares are replete with them...Replies: @Reg Cæsar
LSU pitcher Riley Cooper could pose for the one on the right.
Britain ended the slave trade through baldfaced white supremacism. We no longer have that luxury.Keeping the see lanes free and open is a legitimate goal, preferably in concert with other seafaring nations. Who controls Mackinder's "World Island" is of far less concern. The Germans bet on Mackinder, and failed. Now the Chinese are attempting the same with the Silk Road. Hint: the Road is as obsolete as the Erie Canal in the post-Vasco world. Perhaps still good for a backup.
https://iges.ba/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CD2B0EDE-84E3-4417-AE15-1725C412F4C2.png
As for "dollarization", let's paraphrase Churchill: the latter-day Joachimsthaler is the worst choice for a reserve currency... except for all the others.Replies: @Jack D, @Bardon Kaldian
America’s moral authority doesn’t depend on the existence of a Hunter Biden. It depends on whether we can GET RID of Hunter Biden and the Big Guy. Even if we can’t, moral authority can be restored in the long run. Of course the way that we are headed I have no confidence that it will, but potentially it could.
Ocean freight is always going to be cheaper than land freight. You can put up to 25,000 containers on a single cargo ship (with 1 employee per thousand containers) vs. 400 on a train and the ocean road is free.
“‘We’re Coming For Your Children’ chant at NYC Drag March elicits outrage, but activists say it’s taken out of context”
NBC – “it’s only words, what are those suburban straights worried about?”
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/nbc-out-proud/re-coming-children-chant-nyc-drag-march-elicits-outrage-activists-say-rcna91341
https://i.ibb.co/Kyk0m98/disney1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/rsL8H3M/disney2.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/0MVykJR/disney3.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/d4dXfF2/disney4.jpg
==
There is no such thing as a 'neocon'. It's an epithet invented by people who know nothing. The term 'neoconservative' was promoted by Peter Steinfels to describe a collection of academics and opinion journalists who dissented from the regnant viewpoint in the chattering classes and had generally been liberals and leftoids earlier in their career. None of the three people Steinfels profiled in his book were primarily concerned with foreign policy in formulating their dissent. They had associates who had c complaints about foreign policy, but these were complaints about functionally pacifist and pro-Soviet strands of thinking in the chatterati ca. 1977 and amounted to a defense of the strand which was dominant in both parties from 1949 to 1968. (Reagan didn't have any systematic objection to Cold War foreign policy). People like Kristol and Podhoretz ceased to be a distinct segment in Republican discourse 30 years ago.
==
The 'traditional American policy of nonintervention' scarcely exists outside your imagination. It was simply an adaptation to a particular set of circumstances, not some categorical imperative. The interwar governments weren't run by Paulbots and they made use of instruments which disappeared in the post-war world. The dramatic change in the quality of the post-war political landscape generated policy changes. The sort of 'non-interventionist' bushwah you fancy had completely disappeared from Congress and the academy by 1959 and Ron Paul et al have never succeeded in reviving it except among minor political sects. There's a reason for that.
==
I’m sorry to break the news, but there isn’t going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won’t be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.
==
Your problem is that you manufacture caricatures which you fancy are faithful depictions. The ratio of military spending to domestic product is as low as it has been since 1940, around 0.038. About 13% of our troops are deployed abroad; that's also as low as it has been since 1940. The military is dreadfully malgoverned and soldiers and sailors are treated shamefully, but that has little to do with budgetary allocations. Of course, we never acted as 'world policeman'. The bulk of our manpower deployed abroad was Germany, Japan, and Korea, none of which have seen open warfare in the last 70 years.
==
The person who told you there was a 'sixty-trillion dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare' is using an accounting method that doesn't belong in a poker game. Putting Social Security on an actuarially sound basis is not some insuperable task nor does it require doing anything complicated. It does require doing things which make costs transparent and disappoint people in explicit ways. It's an issue completely irrelevant to that of crafting foreign policy and provisioning the military. The only way it is relevant is in regard to two rather stratospheric observation: that there's an upper limit on social and economic tolerance for redistribution and that you can ultimately only consume what you produce. (Social Security spending has historically hardly exceeded 5% of gross domestic product). Addressing problems with Medicare are part of a larger problem in financing medical care which are more complicated but also reparable.
==
And, no, the immigrant populations will not be 'needing' a larger welfare state. The degree of redistribution in a society is ultimately discretionary. The vast bulk of expenditure of this nature is spent on medical care, long-term care, schooling, and cash for the elderly and disabled. Young immigrant populations aren't big clients of any of these programs.
==
As for our public sector borrowing, that's a function of our politicians being irresponsible sh!ts. Our propensity to spend on the military is half what it was in 1948, when the federal budget was balanced.Replies: @Jack D, @Mark G., @Tom Grey, @PhysicistDave
OTOH, old white guys who like to complain about immigrants ARE, but they don’t like to mention that boomers like themselves are the real burden on government.
The fly in the ointment is that someday young immigrant populations are going to be old immigrant populations.
I had it flagged for hate speech. Haha.
==
There is no such thing as a 'neocon'. It's an epithet invented by people who know nothing. The term 'neoconservative' was promoted by Peter Steinfels to describe a collection of academics and opinion journalists who dissented from the regnant viewpoint in the chattering classes and had generally been liberals and leftoids earlier in their career. None of the three people Steinfels profiled in his book were primarily concerned with foreign policy in formulating their dissent. They had associates who had c complaints about foreign policy, but these were complaints about functionally pacifist and pro-Soviet strands of thinking in the chatterati ca. 1977 and amounted to a defense of the strand which was dominant in both parties from 1949 to 1968. (Reagan didn't have any systematic objection to Cold War foreign policy). People like Kristol and Podhoretz ceased to be a distinct segment in Republican discourse 30 years ago.
==
The 'traditional American policy of nonintervention' scarcely exists outside your imagination. It was simply an adaptation to a particular set of circumstances, not some categorical imperative. The interwar governments weren't run by Paulbots and they made use of instruments which disappeared in the post-war world. The dramatic change in the quality of the post-war political landscape generated policy changes. The sort of 'non-interventionist' bushwah you fancy had completely disappeared from Congress and the academy by 1959 and Ron Paul et al have never succeeded in reviving it except among minor political sects. There's a reason for that.
==
I’m sorry to break the news, but there isn’t going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won’t be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.
==
Your problem is that you manufacture caricatures which you fancy are faithful depictions. The ratio of military spending to domestic product is as low as it has been since 1940, around 0.038. About 13% of our troops are deployed abroad; that's also as low as it has been since 1940. The military is dreadfully malgoverned and soldiers and sailors are treated shamefully, but that has little to do with budgetary allocations. Of course, we never acted as 'world policeman'. The bulk of our manpower deployed abroad was Germany, Japan, and Korea, none of which have seen open warfare in the last 70 years.
==
The person who told you there was a 'sixty-trillion dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare' is using an accounting method that doesn't belong in a poker game. Putting Social Security on an actuarially sound basis is not some insuperable task nor does it require doing anything complicated. It does require doing things which make costs transparent and disappoint people in explicit ways. It's an issue completely irrelevant to that of crafting foreign policy and provisioning the military. The only way it is relevant is in regard to two rather stratospheric observation: that there's an upper limit on social and economic tolerance for redistribution and that you can ultimately only consume what you produce. (Social Security spending has historically hardly exceeded 5% of gross domestic product). Addressing problems with Medicare are part of a larger problem in financing medical care which are more complicated but also reparable.
==
And, no, the immigrant populations will not be 'needing' a larger welfare state. The degree of redistribution in a society is ultimately discretionary. The vast bulk of expenditure of this nature is spent on medical care, long-term care, schooling, and cash for the elderly and disabled. Young immigrant populations aren't big clients of any of these programs.
==
As for our public sector borrowing, that's a function of our politicians being irresponsible sh!ts. Our propensity to spend on the military is half what it was in 1948, when the federal budget was balanced.Replies: @Jack D, @Mark G., @Tom Grey, @PhysicistDave
This isn’t 1940. In 1940 America was the leading industrial power on the planet. Our manufacturing base has been shrinking for decades. We’ve been replaced by China. Our small towns across the country with their closed factories are inhabited by a white working class that has seen a declining life expectancy for the last twenty years. Their despair about their dire economic conditions has led to widespread drug and alcohol abuse among this population.
In 1940 the U.S. was 90% white. Among the current working age population, only around half are whites of European descent. The half that aren’t white receive more in government benefits for them and their families than they pay in taxes. Among the half of the working age population that is white, half of those are white females. They receive about as much in government benefits as they pay in taxes so are revenue neutral.
That means the 25% of the working age population that are white males are going to be paying the taxes. Increasing numbers of them are going to be opting out of being tax cows for the welfare-warfare state. Projections showing our future fiscal problems are easily solvable rely on unrealistic estimates about what future tax revenues are going to be. Socialism always fails in the end because people are only productive when they can keep the fruits of their labor. White males are not going to work hard in the future so they can pay taxes to support a large welfare state for nonwhites and to keep the money flowing to the military-industrial complex for its endless wars. People who disagree with this really have their heads stuck in the sand.
==
I gather the term 'ratio' is a mystery to you.
==
China is the only country in the world where value-added in industry exceeds that in the United States
==
The proportion of the population which is white is irrelevant in this discussion. Drawing more in government benefits than you produce in gainful employment isn't a racially-delimited phenomenon. It is delimited by life-cycle and one's position in earnings strata. The ratio of employed persons to the population over the age of 16 has seen no secular decline, by the way.
Some pyabis.
Both 9/11 and the housing bubbles were the products of malfeasance at the top.
While Bush’s laxer airport security may have been misguided, there were many many more signs that something was up, and those in the deep state were aware of this, as was later revealed. In other words, the Plot could have been sniffed out way before Atta even appeared at the airport. Why were he and others allowed to go so far without detection? In fact, they’d been detected, and the Mossad that trailed these terrorists were aware that something was up. Who can forget the ‘Dancing Israelis’?
From the Trump and Biden affair, we know the deep state is deeply compromised, biased, corrupt, and does the bidding of powerful forces.
The rot went far deeper than naivete about diversity and laxer airport security. Those who knew something was up(the Israelis) didn’t share the info with the US, and it’s possible there were key figures in the deep state who turned a blind eye knowing what was up. There are too many coincidences.
The housing bubble wasn’t only about easy loans to Hispanics. The big banks had much to gain from the financial instruments that allowed this. Rather than having a gun to their head, they were feeding the bullets. When the housing roulette finally went bang on the economy, the banks owned the politicians who bailed them out and had connections in the media that blamed it entirely on Bush, while the conservatives blamed only Fanny Mae. Moral hazards? That’s for little guys, not those who are ‘too big to fail’, which is what US power has turned into. (And now, there’s the problem of ‘too black to jail’.)
The speech deals with little truths about the little fish, not the big truths about the big fish.
In the end, the truth isn’t about left or right or diversity or some much-pouted idea but the same kind of ethnic networking that was behind both the events surrounding 9/11(and Iraq War) and Wall Street shenanigans(that are beyond the politics of Democrats vs Republicans as both parties are beholden to big finance, along with big pharma, big tech, and other things).
Noticing isn’t enough. We need more probing into the ways of the real power that people dare not talk about. We notice things on the surface, not things that are hidden.
Wokeness has prevented the noticing of even the most obvious things, but noticing those things is only the first step. The more important step is why things are allowed to fester to the point where so many bad things happen and why. And that requires us to probe deeper into the nature of American Power.
https://ie.ambafrance.org/-Year-of-the-French-1068-
The 1798 rebellion was memorialized by RTE in the 1981 TV series The Year of the French:
https://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/0809/807932-the-year-of-the-french/Replies: @Steve Sailer
Caitlin Flanagan’s dad wrote the 1978 bestseller historical novel “The Year of the French” about the 1798 Irish uprising. I’ve read it twice.
The text was posted on VDARE last week, the video this week. I waited until the video was available to link to the text so that when the video came out (video of me is much rarer than text from me), the words wouldn’t be old content.
https://i.imgur.com/beG4qhp.jpgReplies: @Anonymous
I'm surprised you're now dabbling in economics. The truth is we'd have an economy ordered some way if it wasn't ordered the way it is currently. And currently it functions like a pyramid scheme that will go belly up once the economies improve and wages increase in the countries currently being exploited. Eventually, there being no third world left, the US, et al, would mechanize the low-skilled jobs.
I'm curious. Do you get paid by word or by comment for your propaganda?Replies: @Jack D
That’s true for sure but it’s meaningless. It doesn’t say whether that economy would be bigger or (perhaps much) smaller than the one that we have. Haiti has an economy too, but not one that you would want to have.
And transitions are hard and risky. People here have pointed out that life expectancy in Russia fell 15 years when they transitioned from Communism to oligarchy. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. If you think that think that things couldn’t possible be worse than they are now, you are wrong. They can ALWAYS be worse.
Maybe someday we will run out of 3rd world countries in which to make cheap shit for us but that will be a while. There is a lot of potential left in parts of Asia outside of China and when that is done you have all of Africa (if anyone can figure out how to get Africans to work outside of slave labor).
All things must past but I think that we could milk a good few decades more out of the post WWII system which has been berry berry good to America. I don’t want this party to end.
Perhaps Afghanistan has some nice date groves. Perhaps Somalia has nice beachfront. But if we aren't coming to chase the riff-raff out and grab it for ourselves ... then lets not waste a single American life there.
Instead, let's stay the hell out of their patch and keep them the hell out of ours.Replies: @George
If people thought like you, back in the day, we wouldn’t have Hawaii. And what’s the point of the massive military if we “stay the hell out of their patch”?
In an era of retreat and a questioning of America's commitment to freedom and strength, your comment is a little ray of sunshine to counter many of the anti-American negative nancies on this site.Replies: @Jack D
He’s on my Roto team. It’s frustrating that you have to choose on days he pitches.
Both 9/11 and the housing bubbles were the products of malfeasance at the top.
While Bush's laxer airport security may have been misguided, there were many many more signs that something was up, and those in the deep state were aware of this, as was later revealed. In other words, the Plot could have been sniffed out way before Atta even appeared at the airport. Why were he and others allowed to go so far without detection? In fact, they'd been detected, and the Mossad that trailed these terrorists were aware that something was up. Who can forget the 'Dancing Israelis'?
From the Trump and Biden affair, we know the deep state is deeply compromised, biased, corrupt, and does the bidding of powerful forces.
The rot went far deeper than naivete about diversity and laxer airport security. Those who knew something was up(the Israelis) didn't share the info with the US, and it's possible there were key figures in the deep state who turned a blind eye knowing what was up. There are too many coincidences.
The housing bubble wasn't only about easy loans to Hispanics. The big banks had much to gain from the financial instruments that allowed this. Rather than having a gun to their head, they were feeding the bullets. When the housing roulette finally went bang on the economy, the banks owned the politicians who bailed them out and had connections in the media that blamed it entirely on Bush, while the conservatives blamed only Fanny Mae. Moral hazards? That's for little guys, not those who are 'too big to fail', which is what US power has turned into. (And now, there's the problem of 'too black to jail'.)
The speech deals with little truths about the little fish, not the big truths about the big fish.
In the end, the truth isn't about left or right or diversity or some much-pouted idea but the same kind of ethnic networking that was behind both the events surrounding 9/11(and Iraq War) and Wall Street shenanigans(that are beyond the politics of Democrats vs Republicans as both parties are beholden to big finance, along with big pharma, big tech, and other things).
Noticing isn't enough. We need more probing into the ways of the real power that people dare not talk about. We notice things on the surface, not things that are hidden.
Wokeness has prevented the noticing of even the most obvious things, but noticing those things is only the first step. The more important step is why things are allowed to fester to the point where so many bad things happen and why. And that requires us to probe deeper into the nature of American Power.Replies: @Jack D
What?
I can because they didn’t exist. OTOH, the Palestinians did hand out candy in E. Jerusalem:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1293121308110192
Hindsight (and conspiracy theories) is always 20/20. Sure if you go back you can see that the clues were there (and plenty of them) but people failed to connect the dots.
As Steve mentions, such failures are often ideological – you don’t see the clues because you don’t WANT to see the clues. Seeing the clues would mean that you would have to do something and it’s easier to go along with the prevailing dogma (“don’t be racist”) and not make waves. This is different than actually knowing what is about to happen and allowing it to happen anyway because you WANT it to happen or are even encouraging it to happen or planning that it happen.
Sure it’s a type of failure but it’s not the conspiracy version theory where the CIA is planting explosives. It’s like Epstein’s death which was due to a bunch of black prison guards sleeping on the job and their employers knowing that they slept on the job and not being racist and firing them which is different than the CIA going into his cell and strangling him.
More repeating of the truth might even make some others repeat it. Your snark is the excuse of some intellectual cowards to ignore. Perhaps you could create a “Data Noticer” substack to summarize the data you like to analyze? So that stack might not be so toxic.
Tiny typo at the end “by” instead of “my contribution “.
Well yeah: after all, you'd have to have a genuine, respectable intellectualism to start out with, before you could have a bona fide intellectual split.
Disputes between Caveman Unk and Caveman Grunk over who gets the leg bone don't really count.Replies: @Art Deco
Well yeah: after all, you’d have to have a genuine, respectable intellectualism to start out with, before you could have a bona fide intellectual split.
==
No one’s taking their cues from you. For a reason.
The Project for New American Century was a position paper manufactory which employed all of four people and disincorporated about 20 years ago. There is nothing mysterious about 9.11.
What they were was a pair of writer / editors resident in Manhattan. Kristol had a staff of about four people, Podhoretz a staff of about 10. They both had a tour on active duty in the military, as did about 75% of Kristol’s immediate contemporaries and about 55% of Podhoretz’.
Greetings, Mr. Sailer,
So, I figured out how the youtube thumbnail works. If there is a different thumbnail you would prefer to be the “face” of the video, just let me know and I’ll upload it. Also, if there is anything you’d like me to add to the description (links or whatever) I can do that too.
Cheers!
☮
I understand you are a neocon who is hostile to the traditional American policy of noninterventionism. As the article I linked to says, for the neocons it's always 1939 and there is always some existential threat that requires we continue to spend almost a trillion dollars a year on our bloated military.
I'm sorry to break the news, but there isn't going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won't be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.Replies: @Jack D, @Art Deco, @Mike Tre
I’m not sure why anyone bothers with the bot known as Art Deco. He is a Corvinus in a “less filling, tastes great” label.
I see Madonna, who looks more and more like a Kabuki theatre mask these days, in in hospital with a serious bacterial infection, probably of all those fillers.
She’s also had a hip replacement.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/jun/28/madonna-tour-postponed-bacterial-infection
Alas, you may not believe in limitations, but what about when limitations don’t believe in you?
https://youtu.be/AYELAu9hqdUReplies: @John Henry, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Coemgen, @Prester John
Purcell’s Funeral March for Queen Mary was included in season 9 episode 2 of Endeavor. The march starts around 1:36: https://www.pbs.org/video/episode-2-uniform-vb0j2p/
and yes, the episode has a “Clockwork Orange-ish” sub plot.
https://soundcloud.com/deathfireprime/a-clockwork-orange-funeral-of-queen-mary-edited-movie-soundtrack
I started reading your stuff in 2002, around the same time my favorite radio station hired a morning man with a very distinctive voice. Somehow I identified you with him. So every day for twenty years, I’ve heard his voice in my head when I read your posts and articles. It’s always jarring to me to hear your actual voice and realize you don’t sound anything like him.
That’s the point: unless you’re going to make it a colony and milk it for resources and taxes it’s not worth the bloodshed. BTW, what do we gain by having Hawaii? It’s ridiculously expensive to defend it from Japan or China, the natives hate us, and its two senators, two representatives and four electors are permanent Democrats.
As for it's being "blue", you could say the same about NY or Calif or Illinois. Should we give back all the blue states?Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
It’s an unsinkable aircraft carrier right in the middle of the Pacific. Back in the day it was an important source of domestic sugar (and pineapples). Even today it is a place where American tourists can spend dollars without damaging our balance of payments.
As for it’s being “blue”, you could say the same about NY or Calif or Illinois. Should we give back all the blue states?
The point of an aircraft carrier is to move the planes to the action. Hawaii just sits there in the middle of the Pacific, thousands of miles away from everything.Replies: @Art Deco
It’s way more than that, but then who can keep track? The Government?
OT: You know what I love best about the West? Just how many chickens it has coming home to roost now:
this is the link to Helen Andrews’ rightfully praised by Peter Brimelow article provided by Adam Smith
https://tinyurl.com/av435jt3
What did I get wrong?Replies: @dieter kief
see my comment above this one
As for it's being "blue", you could say the same about NY or Calif or Illinois. Should we give back all the blue states?Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
Of course we should. They’re social/cultural/political sinkholes with lots of poor, resentful Third Worlders who will carry us all to hell with them.
The point of an aircraft carrier is to move the planes to the action. Hawaii just sits there in the middle of the Pacific, thousands of miles away from everything.
==
As of 2019, Hawaii produced $92 bn in goods and services. On a per capita basis, that was almost precisely the national mean. About 8% of all earnings were to those in the military.
How much did he cost in your draft? He went for $61, a record for my league.
In 1940 the U.S. was 90% white. Among the current working age population, only around half are whites of European descent. The half that aren't white receive more in government benefits for them and their families than they pay in taxes. Among the half of the working age population that is white, half of those are white females. They receive about as much in government benefits as they pay in taxes so are revenue neutral.
That means the 25% of the working age population that are white males are going to be paying the taxes. Increasing numbers of them are going to be opting out of being tax cows for the welfare-warfare state. Projections showing our future fiscal problems are easily solvable rely on unrealistic estimates about what future tax revenues are going to be. Socialism always fails in the end because people are only productive when they can keep the fruits of their labor. White males are not going to work hard in the future so they can pay taxes to support a large welfare state for nonwhites and to keep the money flowing to the military-industrial complex for its endless wars. People who disagree with this really have their heads stuck in the sand.Replies: @Art Deco
This isn’t 1940. In 1940 America was the leading industrial power on the planet.
==
I gather the term ‘ratio’ is a mystery to you.
==
China is the only country in the world where value-added in industry exceeds that in the United States
==
The proportion of the population which is white is irrelevant in this discussion. Drawing more in government benefits than you produce in gainful employment isn’t a racially-delimited phenomenon. It is delimited by life-cycle and one’s position in earnings strata. The ratio of employed persons to the population over the age of 16 has seen no secular decline, by the way.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1673856877841764352Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Pixo, @Hypnotoad666
When did Steve ever say a bad word about Zelensky? Maybe I missed it, but Steve’s been a straight down the line supporter of the State Department’s positions, i.e., pro-Zelensky, anti-Putin, and pro-Russophobia.
Sometimes I’d like Steve to be a little less conventional in his thinking. But at least he is honest and self-aware about where he is coming from.
He starts out accepting the conventional wisdom but is willing to notice and point out contradictions and hypocrisies in that wisdom when they are glaringly obvious. He’s basically a non-ideological, small “c” conservative whose default position is to trust authority unless a high threshold of evidence proves it’s wrong. That’s okay. But it puts him a little out-of-step with people who believe that history (especially recent history) calls for a more skeptical approach.
The point of an aircraft carrier is to move the planes to the action. Hawaii just sits there in the middle of the Pacific, thousands of miles away from everything.Replies: @Art Deco
Hawaii just sits there in the middle of the Pacific, thousands of miles away from everything.
==
As of 2019, Hawaii produced $92 bn in goods and services. On a per capita basis, that was almost precisely the national mean. About 8% of all earnings were to those in the military.
More like 60 million.
Cheers!
☮Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Nicholas Stix
Among other writers, Peter purged me from VDARE. He never said why, or even admitted he’d purged me.
First thing I remember is your articles at least 20 years ago about NYC blacks attacking White bus drivers and subway drivers. And setting fire to the subway ticket seller boothsReplies: @Nicholas Stix
That was good, but Steve is not a natural born speaker. In the media, intelligent relaxed conversation (not a polemic, not a debate) would best suit him.
The secret history is the march through the bureaucratic institutions and we cannot displace them
Next time, have one of your Southern Cal Hollywood friends help you get decked out in a dark gray suit, white shirt, and boldly colored tie. Shoot your cuffs, and wear some really nice cufflinks. And everything needs to be custom-tailored as us old guys aren’t built like the generic mid-30s models that off-the-rack clothing is based on.
Hi Steve, You were endearingly ill at ease.
Britain ended the slave trade through baldfaced white supremacism. We no longer have that luxury.Keeping the see lanes free and open is a legitimate goal, preferably in concert with other seafaring nations. Who controls Mackinder's "World Island" is of far less concern. The Germans bet on Mackinder, and failed. Now the Chinese are attempting the same with the Silk Road. Hint: the Road is as obsolete as the Erie Canal in the post-Vasco world. Perhaps still good for a backup.
https://iges.ba/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CD2B0EDE-84E3-4417-AE15-1725C412F4C2.png
As for "dollarization", let's paraphrase Churchill: the latter-day Joachimsthaler is the worst choice for a reserve currency... except for all the others.Replies: @Jack D, @Bardon Kaldian
I don’t take the Mackinder obsession seriously, He’s as dated as Bing Crosby.
NBC - "it's only words, what are those suburban straights worried about?" https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/nbc-out-proud/re-coming-children-chant-nyc-drag-march-elicits-outrage-activists-say-rcna91341Replies: @Stan Adams
https://slaynews.com/news/woke-disney-lost-890-million-box-office-last-8-releases/
Also, you’re a tall, wiry guy so you can carry a three-piece suit. It will add some visual mass to you.
Rich Lowry -the definition of the house-boy Republican.
You’re my favorite blogger of all time. Because your focuses are black on White crime and affirmative action discrimination. And you never criticize and blame White victims of black criminals because horrors!!!! They’re out and about at 10/30 PM. Because they’re retail restaurant medical workers leaving s 2-10 pm shift or going to an 11/PM to 7:AM shift. Or jogging at 5/45 AM or walking at 5/45 PM or living and working in a county with a black population of more than 2 percent.
First thing I remember is your articles at least 20 years ago about NYC blacks attacking White bus drivers and subway drivers. And setting fire to the subway ticket seller booths
Nah. It’s good publicity and an exercise for them. They probably didn’t have anything better to do at the time. It’s like a fireman getting a cat out of a tree.
The Huntington Beach fire department even got one of our family dogs off the roof when I was a kid. She had climbed out through an upstairs bedroom window and somehow jumped across a corner to a part of the roof she couldn’t get back from. There was Rusty, a full-sized Irish Setter, sitting on the roof looking stupid when the firetruck arrived. It was a hilarious scene suitable to the breed.
Only the fireman is a Sikorsky MH-60 and the tree is a sheer cliff. I've always had plenty of respect for Coasties but we called them puddle pirates for reason.
Sometimes I'd like Steve to be a little less conventional in his thinking. But at least he is honest and self-aware about where he is coming from.He starts out accepting the conventional wisdom but is willing to notice and point out contradictions and hypocrisies in that wisdom when they are glaringly obvious. He's basically a non-ideological, small "c" conservative whose default position is to trust authority unless a high threshold of evidence proves it's wrong. That's okay. But it puts him a little out-of-step with people who believe that history (especially recent history) calls for a more skeptical approach.Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
Oh, that was my attempt at sarcasm. I was pointing out that Tucker Carlson has his own ideas, many of which are at odds with Sailer. And that video is a huge example
I’m noticing this about certain engineer types. Some just accept the moral/cultural status quo, as if it’s up to Others to figure that out, and they just want to be advisers to Power.
When the Power in question wants to get rid of you, it’s time to quit being so bourgeois in your thinking.
They convinced themselves, quite bizarrely, that they were being neutral and "value-free" by simply telling the government how to achieve whatever goals the rulers of the government happened to have.
Of course, this was utterly bizarre: quite obviously, they were thereby accepting the values of the governing elite, or, perhaps, more generally the value of worshiping power.
This was a big part of what the New Left was rebelling against, especially in the case of academics who were working to implement the governing elite's policies in the Vietnam War.
Unfortunately, the New Left degenerated into, on the one hand, deranged terrorists (e.g., the Weather Underground) and, on the other hand, greedy career opportunists (e.g., the Clintons, Bernie Sanders, etc.).
It is an interesting question as to why. I think part of the answer is that the New Left were essentially spoiled sons of privilege who despised the actual productive members of society who made their cushy lives possible. And part of it, no doubt, was simply that they identified intellectually as "Leftists": they sensed that they needed to move beyond traditional Marxism, but they could never bring themselves to just completely chuck the entire Leftist tradition as a huge historical mistake.Replies: @Prester John
and yes, the episode has a "Clockwork Orange-ish" sub plot.Replies: @MEH 0910
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(soundtrack)
==
There is no such thing as a 'neocon'. It's an epithet invented by people who know nothing. The term 'neoconservative' was promoted by Peter Steinfels to describe a collection of academics and opinion journalists who dissented from the regnant viewpoint in the chattering classes and had generally been liberals and leftoids earlier in their career. None of the three people Steinfels profiled in his book were primarily concerned with foreign policy in formulating their dissent. They had associates who had c complaints about foreign policy, but these were complaints about functionally pacifist and pro-Soviet strands of thinking in the chatterati ca. 1977 and amounted to a defense of the strand which was dominant in both parties from 1949 to 1968. (Reagan didn't have any systematic objection to Cold War foreign policy). People like Kristol and Podhoretz ceased to be a distinct segment in Republican discourse 30 years ago.
==
The 'traditional American policy of nonintervention' scarcely exists outside your imagination. It was simply an adaptation to a particular set of circumstances, not some categorical imperative. The interwar governments weren't run by Paulbots and they made use of instruments which disappeared in the post-war world. The dramatic change in the quality of the post-war political landscape generated policy changes. The sort of 'non-interventionist' bushwah you fancy had completely disappeared from Congress and the academy by 1959 and Ron Paul et al have never succeeded in reviving it except among minor political sects. There's a reason for that.
==
I’m sorry to break the news, but there isn’t going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won’t be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.
==
Your problem is that you manufacture caricatures which you fancy are faithful depictions. The ratio of military spending to domestic product is as low as it has been since 1940, around 0.038. About 13% of our troops are deployed abroad; that's also as low as it has been since 1940. The military is dreadfully malgoverned and soldiers and sailors are treated shamefully, but that has little to do with budgetary allocations. Of course, we never acted as 'world policeman'. The bulk of our manpower deployed abroad was Germany, Japan, and Korea, none of which have seen open warfare in the last 70 years.
==
The person who told you there was a 'sixty-trillion dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare' is using an accounting method that doesn't belong in a poker game. Putting Social Security on an actuarially sound basis is not some insuperable task nor does it require doing anything complicated. It does require doing things which make costs transparent and disappoint people in explicit ways. It's an issue completely irrelevant to that of crafting foreign policy and provisioning the military. The only way it is relevant is in regard to two rather stratospheric observation: that there's an upper limit on social and economic tolerance for redistribution and that you can ultimately only consume what you produce. (Social Security spending has historically hardly exceeded 5% of gross domestic product). Addressing problems with Medicare are part of a larger problem in financing medical care which are more complicated but also reparable.
==
And, no, the immigrant populations will not be 'needing' a larger welfare state. The degree of redistribution in a society is ultimately discretionary. The vast bulk of expenditure of this nature is spent on medical care, long-term care, schooling, and cash for the elderly and disabled. Young immigrant populations aren't big clients of any of these programs.
==
As for our public sector borrowing, that's a function of our politicians being irresponsible sh!ts. Our propensity to spend on the military is half what it was in 1948, when the federal budget was balanced.Replies: @Jack D, @Mark G., @Tom Grey, @PhysicistDave
A pretty accurate summary. We who love and support Free Speech were supporters of that aspect of Liberalism.
George wrote to AnotherDad:
And there would not have been a US Naval base on Oahu for the Japanese to attack and 400,000 Americans would not have died in a war that resulted in handing China over to Mao and Eastern Europe over to Stalin.
You think that was a good thing?
Yes, and what is the point of the massive military? Answer: corporate welfare for the military-industrial complex. Which dwarfs welfare to poor Blacks.
==
There is no such thing as a 'neocon'. It's an epithet invented by people who know nothing. The term 'neoconservative' was promoted by Peter Steinfels to describe a collection of academics and opinion journalists who dissented from the regnant viewpoint in the chattering classes and had generally been liberals and leftoids earlier in their career. None of the three people Steinfels profiled in his book were primarily concerned with foreign policy in formulating their dissent. They had associates who had c complaints about foreign policy, but these were complaints about functionally pacifist and pro-Soviet strands of thinking in the chatterati ca. 1977 and amounted to a defense of the strand which was dominant in both parties from 1949 to 1968. (Reagan didn't have any systematic objection to Cold War foreign policy). People like Kristol and Podhoretz ceased to be a distinct segment in Republican discourse 30 years ago.
==
The 'traditional American policy of nonintervention' scarcely exists outside your imagination. It was simply an adaptation to a particular set of circumstances, not some categorical imperative. The interwar governments weren't run by Paulbots and they made use of instruments which disappeared in the post-war world. The dramatic change in the quality of the post-war political landscape generated policy changes. The sort of 'non-interventionist' bushwah you fancy had completely disappeared from Congress and the academy by 1959 and Ron Paul et al have never succeeded in reviving it except among minor political sects. There's a reason for that.
==
I’m sorry to break the news, but there isn’t going to be money in the future for the U.S. to play policeman for the world. We have a sixty trillion-dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare over the next thirty years, we are going to have increasing interest payments for the rapidly expanding national debt, and our increasingly nonwhite third world work force will be needing a larger welfare state and won’t be paying much in taxes. So, these foreign interventions are going to end whether the neocons want them to or not.
==
Your problem is that you manufacture caricatures which you fancy are faithful depictions. The ratio of military spending to domestic product is as low as it has been since 1940, around 0.038. About 13% of our troops are deployed abroad; that's also as low as it has been since 1940. The military is dreadfully malgoverned and soldiers and sailors are treated shamefully, but that has little to do with budgetary allocations. Of course, we never acted as 'world policeman'. The bulk of our manpower deployed abroad was Germany, Japan, and Korea, none of which have seen open warfare in the last 70 years.
==
The person who told you there was a 'sixty-trillion dollar shortfall in Social Security and Medicare' is using an accounting method that doesn't belong in a poker game. Putting Social Security on an actuarially sound basis is not some insuperable task nor does it require doing anything complicated. It does require doing things which make costs transparent and disappoint people in explicit ways. It's an issue completely irrelevant to that of crafting foreign policy and provisioning the military. The only way it is relevant is in regard to two rather stratospheric observation: that there's an upper limit on social and economic tolerance for redistribution and that you can ultimately only consume what you produce. (Social Security spending has historically hardly exceeded 5% of gross domestic product). Addressing problems with Medicare are part of a larger problem in financing medical care which are more complicated but also reparable.
==
And, no, the immigrant populations will not be 'needing' a larger welfare state. The degree of redistribution in a society is ultimately discretionary. The vast bulk of expenditure of this nature is spent on medical care, long-term care, schooling, and cash for the elderly and disabled. Young immigrant populations aren't big clients of any of these programs.
==
As for our public sector borrowing, that's a function of our politicians being irresponsible sh!ts. Our propensity to spend on the military is half what it was in 1948, when the federal budget was balanced.Replies: @Jack D, @Mark G., @Tom Grey, @PhysicistDave
Art Deco wrote to Mark G.:
American history did not start in 1959.
There was indeed a traditional American foreign policy, clearly enunciated by Washington, Jefferson, J. Q. Adams, et al., that involved non-intervention in the affairs of nations outside of the Western Hemisphere. It is not imaginary. Except for the brief aberration from 1898 to 1918, it simply was the American foreign policy. Until 1939.
Guys like you have some weird sexual fetish about proving you are real men by having America wave its thing around all over the planet.
No other country does this.
Try counting all the times that China or Russia has attacked, invaded, conquered, or bombed other countries since 1945. And then do the same for the USA — you will lose count.
This is not normal; this is not sane.
It really is some weird kind of sexual dysphoria that produces this. Normal, sane human beings do not need for their country to do this.
There is something deeply and horribly wrong with neocons like you.
Loyalty Over IQ Worship wrote to Hypnotoad666
Back in the days of mainstream liberalism, before liberals became the Woke Left, this was actually the open, official position of academic social scientists.
They convinced themselves, quite bizarrely, that they were being neutral and “value-free” by simply telling the government how to achieve whatever goals the rulers of the government happened to have.
Of course, this was utterly bizarre: quite obviously, they were thereby accepting the values of the governing elite, or, perhaps, more generally the value of worshiping power.
This was a big part of what the New Left was rebelling against, especially in the case of academics who were working to implement the governing elite’s policies in the Vietnam War.
Unfortunately, the New Left degenerated into, on the one hand, deranged terrorists (e.g., the Weather Underground) and, on the other hand, greedy career opportunists (e.g., the Clintons, Bernie Sanders, etc.).
It is an interesting question as to why. I think part of the answer is that the New Left were essentially spoiled sons of privilege who despised the actual productive members of society who made their cushy lives possible. And part of it, no doubt, was simply that they identified intellectually as “Leftists”: they sensed that they needed to move beyond traditional Marxism, but they could never bring themselves to just completely chuck the entire Leftist tradition as a huge historical mistake.
“Infected” isn’t the correct way to look at it. If the institution itself is rotten and always has been.
The only “non-woke” activity the US Military ever engaged in was the frontier wars. Otherwise, it has always been a force for liberalization, under a centralizing federal government. That “conservatives”, as they like to call themselves, are very pro-military is due to their lack of intellectual self-awareness, and their knuckle-dragging love of things that go boom!
Thank God we “have” Hawaii and all her inhabitants. We are much stronger for it. I would add Guam and American Samoa. What would we do without them?
In an era of retreat and a questioning of America’s commitment to freedom and strength, your comment is a little ray of sunshine to counter many of the anti-American negative nancies on this site.
There was indeed a traditional American foreign policy, clearly enunciated by Washington, Jefferson, J. Q. Adams, et al., that involved non-intervention in the affairs of nations outside of the Western Hemisphere. It is not imaginary. Except for the brief aberration from 1898 to 1918, it simply was the American foreign policy. Until 1939.
Guys like you have some weird sexual fetish about proving you are real men by having America wave its thing around all over the planet.
No other country does this.
Try counting all the times that China or Russia has attacked, invaded, conquered, or bombed other countries since 1945. And then do the same for the USA -- you will lose count.
This is not normal; this is not sane.
It really is some weird kind of sexual dysphoria that produces this. Normal, sane human beings do not need for their country to do this.
There is something deeply and horribly wrong with neocons like you.Replies: @Art Deco, @Prester John, @Reg Cæsar
No, there was a country with modest dimensions protected by large transportation costs in a world where different parts of the globe had only fragmentary intercourse and where one particular (friendly) country was pre-eminent. The people making political decisions in 1939 knew they didn’t live in that world anymore even if you don’t.
Are you retarded or just retarded?
https://twitter.com/haskologlu/status/1672949387352211458?t=zGm23Ttz-YFB4e1-yebOEA&s=19
https://twitter.com/25_yyaziyor/status/1672967267145900032?t=6i6yCNIYAq_CxlA4XHClOw&s=19Replies: @Richard B
What an ugly flag. It’s literally a flag of hate. Pride is 1984SPEAK for Hate.
And the hate is for the West (The Land of Whiteness). Of course.But also, and ultimately, for any obstacle to their lust for power. In other words, Pride is just the latest cover for Authoritarianism. But, make no mistake about it, like the French Revolution, the Woke Revolution is headed for its Terror.
Love the footballer GIF though. Has he had his wrist slapped yet?
Or, should I say, given the context, is backside spanked?
https://youtu.be/AYELAu9hqdUReplies: @John Henry, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Coemgen, @Prester John
It might’ve been poetic justice of a kind had they played “Minstrel Boy” at Queenie’s funeral.
There was indeed a traditional American foreign policy, clearly enunciated by Washington, Jefferson, J. Q. Adams, et al., that involved non-intervention in the affairs of nations outside of the Western Hemisphere. It is not imaginary. Except for the brief aberration from 1898 to 1918, it simply was the American foreign policy. Until 1939.
Guys like you have some weird sexual fetish about proving you are real men by having America wave its thing around all over the planet.
No other country does this.
Try counting all the times that China or Russia has attacked, invaded, conquered, or bombed other countries since 1945. And then do the same for the USA -- you will lose count.
This is not normal; this is not sane.
It really is some weird kind of sexual dysphoria that produces this. Normal, sane human beings do not need for their country to do this.
There is something deeply and horribly wrong with neocons like you.Replies: @Art Deco, @Prester John, @Reg Cæsar
Throughout most of its history, the US stayed out of European affairs. It wasn’t until The Great War that we broke the mold. After that…well…you know the rest of the story.
A great speech, although as you admit you are not a natural orator. You are great writer.
They convinced themselves, quite bizarrely, that they were being neutral and "value-free" by simply telling the government how to achieve whatever goals the rulers of the government happened to have.
Of course, this was utterly bizarre: quite obviously, they were thereby accepting the values of the governing elite, or, perhaps, more generally the value of worshiping power.
This was a big part of what the New Left was rebelling against, especially in the case of academics who were working to implement the governing elite's policies in the Vietnam War.
Unfortunately, the New Left degenerated into, on the one hand, deranged terrorists (e.g., the Weather Underground) and, on the other hand, greedy career opportunists (e.g., the Clintons, Bernie Sanders, etc.).
It is an interesting question as to why. I think part of the answer is that the New Left were essentially spoiled sons of privilege who despised the actual productive members of society who made their cushy lives possible. And part of it, no doubt, was simply that they identified intellectually as "Leftists": they sensed that they needed to move beyond traditional Marxism, but they could never bring themselves to just completely chuck the entire Leftist tradition as a huge historical mistake.Replies: @Prester John
“…greedy career opportunists (e.g., the Clintons, Bernie Sanders, etc.).”
True. In terms of ego and an insatiable sense of entitlement though, Sanders doesn’t compare to either Slick or The Wife of Record.
BB753:
That suit was a sartorial nod to one of Steve’s influences, Tom Wolfe. The latter’s white suit yellowed with age and cleaning.
https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/tom-wolfe-gay-talese-1774c09f-9331-42b1-b96b-193814c6a51f.jpg?w=1024Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @The Anti-Gnostic
Steve has to go with Wolfe. We don’t donate enough for him to emulate Gay Talese.
On the other hand, Thomas Wolfe had a couple of inches on our host. Ta-Nehisi is Steve's equal.
Your Favorite Writers, Ranked by Height
There was indeed a traditional American foreign policy, clearly enunciated by Washington, Jefferson, J. Q. Adams, et al., that involved non-intervention in the affairs of nations outside of the Western Hemisphere. It is not imaginary. Except for the brief aberration from 1898 to 1918, it simply was the American foreign policy. Until 1939.
Guys like you have some weird sexual fetish about proving you are real men by having America wave its thing around all over the planet.
No other country does this.
Try counting all the times that China or Russia has attacked, invaded, conquered, or bombed other countries since 1945. And then do the same for the USA -- you will lose count.
This is not normal; this is not sane.
It really is some weird kind of sexual dysphoria that produces this. Normal, sane human beings do not need for their country to do this.
There is something deeply and horribly wrong with neocons like you.Replies: @Art Deco, @Prester John, @Reg Cæsar
It’s how Britain ended the slave trade. I had no idea that William Wilberforce and Capt. John Newton were sexual fetishists. The things you learn here!
Wilson's intervention in WW I led to the triumph of Bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism. Not to mention the economic dislocations in the 1920s that led to the Great Depression and WW II (e.g., the German inflation, the manipulation of the currencies in Britain and the US that led to the 1929 crash, etc.).
US intervention in WW II handed over China to Mao and Eastern Europe to Stalin.
And then there are the disasters in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and on and on and on.
Not to mention well over half a million Americans who died in vain... and millions of non-Americans.
This is not a matter of decency or good will.
It is a matter of a deep and horrible sickness, a profound perversion, within the ruling elite of the United States of America and, sadly, a significant fraction (largely male) of the American people.
This is not normal. This is not sane. This does not have to be. This is a perversion.
Americans need to face up to that reality.
The US Deep State is the primary threat to the human race today.
And if we do not stop it, the human race will.
Quite possibly with mushroom clouds over American cities.
https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/tom-wolfe-gay-talese-1774c09f-9331-42b1-b96b-193814c6a51f.jpg?w=1024Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @The Anti-Gnostic
Talese is listed at 5’8″, and Wolfe looks marginally taller. Imagine the cost of either’s wardrobe in Steve’s size!
On the other hand, Thomas Wolfe had a couple of inches on our host. Ta-Nehisi is Steve’s equal.
Your Favorite Writers, Ranked by Height
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81j9azTNTXL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg
Punctuation would have helped: ¿Qué pasó?Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @NotAnonymousHere
That should be “Que pasu“.
In an era of retreat and a questioning of America's commitment to freedom and strength, your comment is a little ray of sunshine to counter many of the anti-American negative nancies on this site.Replies: @Jack D
Without them, the Pacific Ocean would have become a Japanese lake and now a Chinese lake. Now that may be OK with you but the people of the west coast might differ.
The US has been involved in the Pacific since the days of the whaling ships. There is no mythical past we can retreat to in which we can close our eyes and ignore the Pacific and the Atlantic and everything and everyone that is not mainland white American.
If it was ever possible (it wasn’t) that ship has sailed long ago and you are engaging in fantasies – wouldn’t it be wonderful if we woke up and America was just the 48 states and everyone was white Christian and it was 1955 forever? Maybe it would be heaven on earth (I doubt it) but it’s not possible – it’s just a masturbatory fantasy. Quit it.
This is like AD’s “separation” fantasy. It’s not possible and it was never possible and you are not going to unscramble the omelet now or ever.
The good old Black Hawk Down incident.
18 American soldiers killed in the Battle of Mogadishu, while trying to end mass starvation.
Minnesota Lutherans: “Let’s bring all those savages here!”
To be followed by the even greater geniuses who increased Muslim immigration after 9/11.
Categorical error on your part. Muslims are not savages, nor are Somalians. And, hypocritically, your own ancestors had once been labeled in that regard. So, what changed, magic dirt?
“It’s like a fireman getting a cat out of a tree.”
Only the fireman is a Sikorsky MH-60 and the tree is a sheer cliff. I’ve always had plenty of respect for Coasties but we called them puddle pirates for reason.
https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/tom-wolfe-gay-talese-1774c09f-9331-42b1-b96b-193814c6a51f.jpg?w=1024Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @The Anti-Gnostic
Three-piece glen plaid or double-breasted glen plaid would look good on Steve.
Steve-o, break into your wife’s dishwasher fund and get yourself one of these:
You could say the same thing about military funeral flyovers at Arlington Cemetery. Fact is, they are part of routine, and required, training missions.
From 1776 to 1918 is not “most” of US history. Roughly speaking it is about half and the more distant half – the half that came before the airplane and radio and film and so on – things that “shrunk” the world. There are not many areas where people would choose to roll the clock back to before 1918.
The period from 1776 to 1917 is indeed more than half of American history, which makes it "most."
Though I'm glad to see that, at last, you are admitting that the United States began in 1776, not 1788, as you were formerly claiming.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
We stayed out of European affairs because there was a satisfactory balance of power and, in any case, high transportation costs between here and there. We also settled the entire continent, added a portfolio of modest dependencies, and added one quite large dependency.
China already obligingly mops up our inflation-soaked USTs, we subcontract our manufacturing to them, we dock their container ships, we provide college education for their kids, Amazon cynically uses them to bypass IP, and we let them park their money in our real estate. And we have war plans against them. Incredible.
Reg Cæsar wrote to me:
Reg, I know that you are perceptive enough to know that the actions of the US Deep State during the last century have not been to do anything like end the slave trade!
Wilson’s intervention in WW I led to the triumph of Bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism. Not to mention the economic dislocations in the 1920s that led to the Great Depression and WW II (e.g., the German inflation, the manipulation of the currencies in Britain and the US that led to the 1929 crash, etc.).
US intervention in WW II handed over China to Mao and Eastern Europe to Stalin.
And then there are the disasters in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and on and on and on.
Not to mention well over half a million Americans who died in vain… and millions of non-Americans.
This is not a matter of decency or good will.
It is a matter of a deep and horrible sickness, a profound perversion, within the ruling elite of the United States of America and, sadly, a significant fraction (largely male) of the American people.
This is not normal. This is not sane. This does not have to be. This is a perversion.
Americans need to face up to that reality.
The US Deep State is the primary threat to the human race today.
And if we do not stop it, the human race will.
Quite possibly with mushroom clouds over American cities.
Jack D wrote to Prester John:
As usual, you can’t do arithmetic.
The period from 1776 to 1917 is indeed more than half of American history, which makes it “most.”
Though I’m glad to see that, at last, you are admitting that the United States began in 1776, not 1788, as you were formerly claiming.
In what language? Isn’t it Latin for “What have I eaten?”
Art Deco wrote to me:
So… the USA in 1870 had “modest dimensions”?????
It is indeed now much cheaper for me to fly to the city you live in than it was when I was born in the mid-twentieth century.
So, does that make it okay for me to fly over your city, drop a few really big bombs, murder a bunch of civilians, etc.?
Because that is what the US Government does. All around the world. For a very long time.
I’m sorry, but you literally come across as deeply insane. An insane pervert.
Yes, the world is more interconnected today than it was in 1792 — although, in truth, it was pretty interconnected even in 1792. Look at where the Seven Years War was fought, for example, Or the trade routes.
But, on the face of it, the greater interconnections in the world today would be an awfully good reason to not attack, invade, bomb, and conquer countries all over the planet, as the US government has indeed done since 1945.
Count them up — you are sure to miss a few (don’t forget Sudan, Serbia, or Grenada!).
Why are you in love with war? Why won’t people like you let the USA — and the rest of the world — live in peace?
What is wrong with you?
It really is a profound sexual perversion. Megalomaniacal sadism.
18 American soldiers killed in the Battle of Mogadishu, while trying to end mass starvation.
Minnesota Lutherans: "Let's bring all those savages here!"
To be followed by the even greater geniuses who increased Muslim immigration after 9/11.Replies: @Corvinus
“Minnesota Lutherans: “Let’s bring all those savages here!”
Categorical error on your part. Muslims are not savages, nor are Somalians. And, hypocritically, your own ancestors had once been labeled in that regard. So, what changed, magic dirt?
The period from 1776 to 1917 is indeed more than half of American history, which makes it "most."
Though I'm glad to see that, at last, you are admitting that the United States began in 1776, not 1788, as you were formerly claiming.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
“US” history may begin in 1776, but American history goes back to the Lost Colony. And that’s conceding another name for those here before the English.
But, since he and I were debating the foreign policy of the US government, I think it is more fair to start with 1776, as Jack himself did.
And was the colonial period really American history or British history, anyway?
https://i.imgur.com/beG4qhp.jpgReplies: @Anonymous
Tackiest suit that pretends not being tacky?
No. Humans are buried at Arlington. This is a problem with white guys: soft in the head when it comes to animals, especially dogs.
“Throughout most of its history, the US stayed out of European affairs.”
I’m not seeing it. Given how the US originated, and the French aid that made their revolution possible, the US pretty much WAS a European affair. And to this day, the US makes a pretty big deal out of having meddled as far away as the “shores of Tripoli” for what was, at the time (i.e., less than 3 decades after their declaration of independence), very much a European affair?
As Jefferson stated in his First Inaugural:That is even more important today, when the economic and commercial intercourse among nations is more delicate and complex, and when the dangers of military conflict -- nuclear annihilation -- are far greater than they were in 1801.
The enemy alien also wrote:Tripoli is in North Africa, not Europe.
And it was a trivial affair in American history, not a "big deal" at all: most Americans do not even know that that line refers to the "war" with the Barbary pirates.
If that were the biggest entanglement we had with the evil people of the Old World, people like you, for example, most of us could live with that.
Of course, it would be good to ban you from North America altogether, since you are an enemy of the American people.Replies: @HA
It would be a feeding frenzy by contractor and consultant parasites. Leaving Tripoli would be a political impossibility because it would show a lack of resolve.The French being involved in the American Revolution involved THEM SPENDING THEIR MONEY not ours.Replies: @HA
Yankee interests!
First thing I remember is your articles at least 20 years ago about NYC blacks attacking White bus drivers and subway drivers. And setting fire to the subway ticket seller boothsReplies: @Nicholas Stix
Thank you for your kind words, Alden. And to remember an article from so long ago!
Reg Cæsar wrote to me:
Well… I suppose that would strengthen my case against Jack!
But, since he and I were debating the foreign policy of the US government, I think it is more fair to start with 1776, as Jack himself did.
And was the colonial period really American history or British history, anyway?
Our evil enemy alien HAsbara wrote to Prester John:
The purpose of the War of Independence, as the Founders stated repeatedly, was to be politically and militarily independent of European affairs. Not of course economic affairs — no significant group in American history has ever advocated economic isolationism.
As Jefferson stated in his First Inaugural:
That is even more important today, when the economic and commercial intercourse among nations is more delicate and complex, and when the dangers of military conflict — nuclear annihilation — are far greater than they were in 1801.
The enemy alien also wrote:
Tripoli is in North Africa, not Europe.
And it was a trivial affair in American history, not a “big deal” at all: most Americans do not even know that that line refers to the “war” with the Barbary pirates.
If that were the biggest entanglement we had with the evil people of the Old World, people like you, for example, most of us could live with that.
Of course, it would be good to ban you from North America altogether, since you are an enemy of the American people.
The US attacked some pirates that were affecting its shipping, end of story. If we did that now, we’d have a presence in Tripoli for 50 years, start educating Berber girls and building useless roads and factories in the Sahara. We’d be paying for sham local political parties filled with grifters for a bunch of farcical “elections” in order to show our commitment to democracy. We’d pay off the Tripoli elites to make a treaty with Israel that would only last as long as the money flowed and American military occupation continued.
It would be a feeding frenzy by contractor and consultant parasites. Leaving Tripoli would be a political impossibility because it would show a lack of resolve.
The French being involved in the American Revolution involved THEM SPENDING THEIR MONEY not ours.
It was a force of nature requiring Admiral Perry to sail into the harbor with his gunboats. Same with Nixon “opening up” China. Poor sots had no agency.
As Jefferson stated in his First Inaugural:That is even more important today, when the economic and commercial intercourse among nations is more delicate and complex, and when the dangers of military conflict -- nuclear annihilation -- are far greater than they were in 1801.
The enemy alien also wrote:Tripoli is in North Africa, not Europe.
And it was a trivial affair in American history, not a "big deal" at all: most Americans do not even know that that line refers to the "war" with the Barbary pirates.
If that were the biggest entanglement we had with the evil people of the Old World, people like you, for example, most of us could live with that.
Of course, it would be good to ban you from North America altogether, since you are an enemy of the American people.Replies: @HA
“As Jefferson stated in his First Inaugural…”
Jefferson, you say? Tell us, which president was it who ordered Ol’ Ironsides over to the shores of Tripoli? So much for that.
“Tripoli is in North Africa, not Europe.”
And given who the intended targets of Ol’ Ironsides were attacking, it was, at the time a very big and a very European affair. Deal with it.
It would be a feeding frenzy by contractor and consultant parasites. Leaving Tripoli would be a political impossibility because it would show a lack of resolve.The French being involved in the American Revolution involved THEM SPENDING THEIR MONEY not ours.Replies: @HA
“The French being involved in the American Revolution involved THEM SPENDING THEIR MONEY not ours.”
To the extent that they took an interest in our war, it stands to reason we can — if we so choose — take an interest in what goes on in Europe. It’s your ideological blinders that have you believing that interest is intrinsically a one-way street. What’s more, we sent a good chunk of “our” money to Napoleon in order to secure “their” land. That was in our interest too, at least according to the opinions that eventually prevailed. We sent another “folly”-sized heap of money over to Tsar Alexander II to secure Alaska. Even back then, there was plenty of local resistance to both transactions, most of which would be regarded as ridiculous in this day and age, but it had to be dealt with, on a case by case basis. And so it goes. The point is, just because something is European — as the United States themselves were at one point — that doesn’t mean it is beyond our interest. Your bluster and your wishful thinking isn’t going to change that.
And the whole point that you seem mentally unable to grasp is that the traditional foreign policy of the United States, to which all loyal Americans still adhere, is that we do not "so choose."
You Europeans have been screwing up your continent for thousands of years. Go at it. Enjoy yourselves murdering each other.
Not our problem.
The evil alien also wrote:Oh, if you nasty little Europeans offer us a sweet deal from which we benefit, we are happy to go for it.
But bailing you out of your stupid wars with out lives and treasure?
Nope -- we owe you nothing. Our ancestors left your putrid shithole countries to get away from people like you.
You can wallow in the hell you have created. We need not take an "interest" in that -- except to be glad that our ancestors fled your shithole countries.
i can’t imagine a lamer speech. no word of jews. 911 was arabs with boxcutters. covid was all too real. steve, you’re shilling for someone! seem to be making a handsome living at it, like all con men.
Our evil enemy alien HAsbara wrote to me:
Once again, your ignorance of America and American history shines through!
It was not a big deal in American history. Most Americans are not even aware it happened. I doubt that Europeans thought it was a big deal either, but, frankly, we Americans do not care what you Europeans thought.
You Europeans can all go to Hell for all we care.
What we loyal Americans object to is intervening in the internal affairs of foreign nations or bailing out foreign nations. Neither of those was Jefferson’s purpose in the “war” on the Barbary pirates.
The Barbary pirates were preying on Americans. He decided to stop them. Period.
Were they also preying on Europeans? Did he help stop that too? I don’t know, and, again, Americans didn’t care then and don’t care now.
In John Qunicy Adams’ famous words:
The Barbary pirates were interfering with the freedom of Americans on the open seas. So we stopped them. Period.
You really seem mentally unable to grasp the idea that loyal Americans will be murderously fierce in defending themselves and their homeland while being quite happy to leave all the rest of you on the rest of the planet to your own insane devices if you will leave us alone. We are not sweet helpless pacifists. We will kill as many of you as we have to in order to force you to leave us alone. But, if you will leave us alone, we will leave you in peace.
Of course, I am speaking here of the attitude of loyal Americans. The neocons, the Deep State, our friends like Jack D, Pixo, Twinkie, John Johnson, Art Deco, et al. are not loyal Americans. They have other loyalties than to the American Republic.
They will be dealt with.
As to you Europeans, you can all drop dead for all we care.
In fact, why don’t you?
Our evil enemy alien HAsbara wrote to Ennui:
No, not “we,” HAsbara: you are not an American.
And the whole point that you seem mentally unable to grasp is that the traditional foreign policy of the United States, to which all loyal Americans still adhere, is that we do not “so choose.”
You Europeans have been screwing up your continent for thousands of years. Go at it. Enjoy yourselves murdering each other.
Not our problem.
The evil alien also wrote:
Oh, if you nasty little Europeans offer us a sweet deal from which we benefit, we are happy to go for it.
But bailing you out of your stupid wars with out lives and treasure?
Nope — we owe you nothing. Our ancestors left your putrid shithole countries to get away from people like you.
You can wallow in the hell you have created. We need not take an “interest” in that — except to be glad that our ancestors fled your shithole countries.
We got land from those transactions. What did we get from WW1? What did we get from Ukraine? What have we gotten from subsidizing you parasites since the 40’s?
“We got land from those transactions. What did we get from WW1?”
Quit shifting the goalposts. No one is arguing that we SHOULD have meddled in Tripoli. But trying to rewrite history by overlooking the fact that we most certainly DID meddle in Tripoli, and plenty of other places, is patently false.
Face it. The US did plenty of meddling, and they were renowned for it. An Italian composer even wrote a famous opera about an American naval officer and his Japanese mistress. The character of Pinkerton seems an obvious homage to Admiral Perry (the original character in the semi-autobiographical novel on which the libretto was based was actually French), who after fighting in the Mediterranean during the Second Barbary War — there are those shores of Tripoli again — he turned south to Liberia, and then north to St. Petersburg, before eventually getting as far East as Japan. All that happened a long time before WWI.
The fact that America has a long tradition of taking in immigrants doesn’t mean we have to keep doing that forever. It’s OK to say “enough is enough” at some point. But trying to deny we let in all those immigrants would be plain wrong. Same goes for pretending that the US didn’t meddle in European or other international affairs for most of its history. That’s not how it went down. It doesn’t mean we’re obligated to be the world’s policeman forever, but if that’s the argument anyone wants to make, the likes of you and PhysicistDave shouldn’t try it buttress it by falsifying history. You already have enough tendentious propaganda to peddle.
PS It’s also worth noting that Perry also served in the Mexican-American war, where the Battle of Chapultepec was fought, down there by the so-called “halls of Montezuma”. It certainly wasn’t America’s proudest moment, by modern standards we would do well to adhere to, but it would be blatantly misleading to pretend it didn’t happen.
We should subsidize Ukrainian pensions, high-living Kievan elite,s and Brussels parasites cuz Barbary pirates.