Category Archives: Globalism

George Soros Fears Secession

Not only Scottish secession from the UK but UK secession from the EU: George Soros condemns both in the Financial Times.

Soros fears:

Resurgent nationalism and illiberal democracy are on the rise within Europe, at its borders and around the globe.

Oh my!

Soros continues:

With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, military conflict has spread to Europe. Two radically different forms of government are competing for ascendancy. The EU stands for principles of liberal democracy, international governance and the rule of law. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin maintains the outward appearance of democracy by exploiting a narrative of ethnic and religious nationalism to generate popular support for his corrupt, authoritarian regime.

What this boils down to is: The financial pirate needs an open international system to maximise and retain his obscene profits. In his 2003 book, Soros writes repeatedly of his concerns with nativism. And Soros has long funded a more international society with his Faithful America, Open Society Institute, Center for American Progress, and similar organisations.

More recently, Soros-funded FEMEN mocked Dominique Vesser’s suicide.

It’s billionaire capitalists leading this wider charge for globalism.

The Rand Apple Continues to Roll Further and Further from the Tree

Rand assures us, in Time no less, that he’s not one of those awful isolationists.

Yes Rand, we get it. You are not your daddy, which is why I’m still looking for a candidate to support in 2016.

Ron Paul was a great Congressman, but I’m beginning to doubt his parenting skills. He obviously didn’t spank Rand enough.

Another View on the Ann Coulter Ebola Column

Ann Coulter sure has a knack for stirring up trouble. Her Ebola column has a caused an interesting division on the right which is chronicled here.

Below, Alan Cornett takes the contra Coulter view. Tom Piatak defends Coulter at Chronicles.

I see both sides, although I have no problem with them bringing the Ebola infected doctor and nurse back to the US which seems to be a lot of people’s issue. The likelihood of Ebola spreading to the US because of those two patients is vanishingly small. Discuss.

Update: links fixed

Ann Coulter, Dr. Brantly, & the False Choice

by Alan Cornett

Ann Coulter, she of blonde and bombast, posted a jaw-dropping column yesterday in which she called Dr. Kent Brantly, who is a real medical hero, “idiotic” for his decision to go to Africa to treat the needy. It was a choice that led to his (and nurse Nancy Writebol’s) infection with the deadly Ebola virus.

Brantly’s apparent idiocy, according to Coulter, has led to Samaritan’s Purse spending more than $2 million to bring him back. “Whatever good Dr. Kent Brantly did,” she writes, “has now been overwhelmed” by that tremendous financial cost. Because making a cost-benefit analysis of helping others is what the Biblical Good Samaritan is best known for.

“Why did Dr. Brantly have to go to Africa?” Coulter asks incredulously. Missionaries like Brantly “slink off to Third World countries…to do good works” when their real need is here in America, “the most consequential nation on Earth.” Brantly should have “served the needy in some deadbeat Texas town” instead of engaging in “Christian narcissism.” This is the Coulter worldview.

I know there are some, many, in fact, who in essence agree with Coulter. I have spoken with Christians who think just this way. We have enough work to do here, why go somewhere else?

But Coulter has presented us with a false choice. For us to complain that Dr. Brantly should have stayed here to do his work is, 1) to presume that we have any right to control what Dr. Brantly should do (I thought that was one of the fears of Obamacare, that doctors would be told where to work), and 2) that Dr. Brantly is the only doctor who can do volunteer and charity work.

I have made ten trips to foreign countries doing missionary work (in a teaching, not a medical, role). I have good friends who have traveled to Sierra Leone where Ebola is now spreading. And I know people who know Dr. Brantly. I understand why people decide to “go.”

When someone decides to go to a foreign field to do needed work, they are not the only ones who are capable of a certain role. Dr. Brantly is not the only doctor from Texas. There are doctors in Texas who have no desire, or ability, to go to Africa like Dr. Brantly did. That’s perfectly fine. But they don’t have to wait for Dr. Brantly to get well, decide to abandon Africa, and return to Ann Coulter’s deadbeat Texas town. No, they could go do that work themselves right now.

There are always more who stay than those who go. To criticize those who go for not staying is to make the false assumption that all our resources are currently being utilized to their fullest capacity. It is to assume that the missionary who goes does not leave behind scores—hundreds—of others perfectly capable of doing the same work here.

Paul of Tarsus spent a couple of decades traveling from city to city in the eastern Roman Empire preaching the gospel. Barnabas found Paul (still Saul at the time) in his hometown of Tarsus, but convinced him to leave to come to Antioch to help out. That began Paul’s journey far afield, a journey that would lead to him being stoned, beaten, shipwrecked, imprisoned, and eventually martyred. Couldn’t Paul have stayed in the deadbeat town of Tarsus and just preached there? Was Paul an idiot to leave, just a Christian narcissist?

Philip the Evangelist spent some early time “going,” traveling to Samaria, encountering the Ethiopian eunuch on the road to Gaza (dangerous places, eh?). But Philip ended up in Caesarea where the account of Acts leaves him. Paul comes through Caesarea in Acts 21 where he stays with Philip, who apparently has been there all this time, probably for twenty years. Philip had decided to “stay.” We have no record of his work, but no doubt he had been busy doing what needed to be done in the deadbeat town of Caesarea.

Neither path was wrong, both Paul’s and Philip’s work were needed. As the body has many parts, and each with its own role, so we do not need to judge the one who goes nor the one who stays.

Sadly, those who often criticize those who choose to go, as Dr. Brantly went, are those who are really afraid that with those workers gone, they themselves might be expected to step into the gap.

So when Ann Coulter criticizes Dr. Brantly, is it because she laments the loss of his help in serving others, or is it because with him gone, she might be afraid someone will expect she do it herself? Ann, there’s a deadbeat Texas town just waiting for you.

Alan Cornett is a former assistant to Russell Kirk. He blogs at PinstripePulpit.com. You can follow him @alancornett. He writes from Lexington, Kentucky.

The international hypocrite

Vox Day cites that notoriously “neo-Confederate” propaganda mill known as the New York Times on the explosive issue of secession in Crimea. The editorial writers at the Times are having a little difficulty making sense of Obama’s opposition to a popular referendum on Crimea seceding from Ukraine:

Consider the different American views of recent bids for independence.

Chechnya? No.

East Timor? Yes.

Abkhazia? No.

South Sudan? Yes.

Palestine? It’s complicated.

It is an acutely delicate subject in the West, where Britain wants to keep Scotland and Spain wants to keep Catalonia.

To which Vox Day adds:

And the USA murdered hundreds of thousands in order to forcibly “keep the Union together” and deny the sovereign Southern States their right to self-determination. This has not escaped the attention of the world’s second-rate powers, some of whom have indicated support for the Russian position.

What the ruling elite can’t grasp is that the peoples of the world do not share their globalist vision. Crimea has a majority Russian population that does not want to be part of Ukraine. This is just one more problem caused by the anti-human policies of the old Soviet Union. And it wasn’t just the Reds who violated natural borders; the West is largely to blame for the unnatural and unsustainable political lines drawn in Africa during colonial times. As the folks in Sudan recently made clear, those borders are being redefined by history and culture.

The lessons of this worldwide trend apply here, too. As our rulers in DC import a more docile population from the Third World, the actual result is not a flowering of diversity but a loss of identification and loyalty to the old American nation. Already, secession is gaining steam in America, and ethnic and racial divisions are openly recognized as the reason. No people anywhere in the world wants to be governed by others – self-determination is just another term for secession. So as DC continues to reconstruct the old America, look for REAL secession movements to arise here at home.

Before They Pass Away

Jimmy Nelson recently published a book of photography (pricey @ over $100, Amazon) entitled Before They Pass Away. The book glorifies vanishing tribes, tribes being destroyed largely by globalism.

Many of us here are alike with such traditional peoples. Will Swedes be extinct by 2100? Will Southern-Americans? Our losing life force today of course doesn’t predestine us as Darwinian losers tomorrow. However, I find value in viewing the struggle as Tradition vs. Globalism.

In Harry Seabrook’s famous 2004 speech, he quotes Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

“[T]he disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”

We need a dictator!

David Brooks is frustrated. Congress won’t grant amnesty to all those potential Americans “hiding in the shadows,” it can’t pass gun control, and it hasn’t given us any fun wars lately. Brooks is also disappointed by the American public’s lack of enthusiasm for DC’s military adventures. Members of Congress, always mindful of the next election, aren’t about to further alienate voters. That makes Brooks sad. Brooks, a thorough Neocon, gleefully backed the Iraq War as a means to achieve “national greatness.” To him, a strong central government is the answer to everything, since, in his own words, “ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington.”

The solution? Brooks says it’s time for the president to assume more power and get things rolling again. Here’s his argument, from an opinion piece entitled Strengthen the Presidency:

Here are the advantages. First, it is possible to mobilize the executive branch to come to policy conclusion on something like immigration reform. It’s nearly impossible for Congress to lead us to a conclusion about anything. Second, executive branch officials are more sheltered from the interest groups than Congressional officials. Third, executive branch officials usually have more specialized knowledge than staffers on Capitol Hill and longer historical memories. Fourth, Congressional deliberations, to the extent they exist at all, are rooted in rigid political frameworks.

What should Obama do, in Brooks’s opinion? Simple: “So how do you energize the executive? It’s a good idea to be tolerant of executive branch power grabs and to give agencies flexibility.”

Yeah — nothing like a few “executive branch power grabs” to liven things up.

Don’t dismiss this as just the ravings of a typical government supremacist. What Brooks is advocating is a very real, very frightening possibility. Obama is already taking steps to do exactly what Brooks is talking about. Obama has appointed long-time DC insider John Podesta to his senior staff. Podesta has long been an open advocate of a powerful chief executive. In a Center for American Progress paper in 2010 entitled, “The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change,” Podesta wrote: “Concentrating on executive powers presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Liberty activists should fear this man. Podesta’s progressive ideology is a blueprint for the welfare-warfare state:

In 2008, Podesta authored his book The Power of Progress: How America’s Progressives Can (Once Again) Save Our Economy, Our Climate, and Our Country. In it, he articulates a vision of progressive values based on four core lessons: 1) Progressives stand with people, not privilege; 2) Progressives believe in the Common Good and a government that offers a hand up; 3) Progressives hold that all people are equal in the eyes of God and under the law; and 4) Progressives stand for universal human rights and cooperative global security.

(Catch that last line? And some people don’t believe me when I argue that civil rights and militarism are DC’s yin and yang.) Like all DC insiders, John Podesta knows how to deploy his noble-sounding ideals to turn a buck:

Since President Obama entered office in 2008, Boeing has spent $840,000 on The Podesta Group’s services, relying on the firm to lobby in favor of lucrative defense appropriations at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

What can we expect from Obama in the coming months? More wars, more forced multiculturalism, more authoritarian government.

In other words, what we can expect from ANY administration.

Another leap forward toward the progressive vision

Same-sex marriage? That’s SOOO last year. Polygamy is now on the horizon, thanks to a ruling by a federal judge (naturally!)

Now if I’m reading Volokh’s analysis correctly, polygamy has NOT been declared a right, like abortion or health care; the judge has only ruled that one particular State prohibition against polygamy is unconstitutional. But the ruling in Brown v. Buhman does seem to make it inevitable. After all, Western attitudes against polygamy are based on disdain for its practice in Africa — therefore, it’s “racist,” and therefore, it must be wrong.

Looks like Nelson Mandela’s heir, Jacob Zuma, with his four wives, will indeed be a model for us all. We have seen the future.

Why Inbreeding is Unwanted

Razib Khan has a recent post at The Unz Review entitled “Why Inbreeding is Bad“, which links to a shocking Australian case of multigenerational first-degree incest, where many of the children are impaired.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Inbreeding doesn’t create mutations; it reveals them if two copies of a preexisting recessive gene are expressed. Inbreeding to the Colts’s extent is shocking and especially bad for the social issues. A parent should never sleep with his children, nor siblings with one another!

However, the term “inbreeding” can refer to varying degrees of relatedness. A false implication from today’s condemnation of “inbreeding” is that the less related a couple is, the stronger their children will be. The result: increased miscegenation and a population that holds a more globalist, less clannish, less nationalist worldview.

HBD Chick recently posted a quote from Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica (pg. 2749) on inbreeding:

“Hence in olden time marriage was forbidden … within … degrees of consanguinity, in order that consanguinity and affinity might be the sources of a wider friendship”.

So, the motive then was to discourage clannishness.

Aquinas continues with:

Afterwards, however, towards these latter times the prohibition of the Church has been restricted to the fourth degree, because it became useless and dangerous to extend the prohibition to more remote degrees of consanguinity. Useless, because charity waxed cold in many hearts so that they had scarcely a greater bond of friendship with their more remote kindred than with strangers: and it was dangerous because through the prevalence of concupiscence and neglect men took no account of so numerous a kindred, and thus the prohibition of the more remote degrees became for many a snare leading to damnation.

So the ideal, as with most things, is moderation.
Continue reading

Perils of a Porous Border

The Open Borders crowd would have us believe that the only people who oppose dismantling the border fences are crabby xenophobes. Are there legitimate reasons for keeping our eyes open and powder dry at our borders? This article makes the case for taking border security seriously, and it turns out to be a powerful one:

Protecting the 1,954-mile Mexico-U.S. border, as some pundits assert, is not just an economic issue, or a problem of criminal drug trafficking and gun running. It threatens America’s national security. In an August 13, 2013 op/ed in The Washington Times, Retired Admiral James Lyons, who was senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, stated, “Fixing our porous borders is one of combating the threat of terrorism that America faces. In the various efforts to reform the U.S. immigration system, often overlooked in the debate is its impact on national security.”

The statistics are alarming: according to an August 1, 2011 investigative report in the Columbus Dispatch, the United Nations estimates that 97 percent of the illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. clandestinely do so across the U.S.-Mexican border. However, only 20 percent of illegal aliens are caught. Smuggling illegal aliens across the border is now a $6.6 billion industry for Mexican crime syndicates.

If Israel and Saudi Arabia can enforce their immigration laws, so can we.

Pentagon training manual: white males have unfair advantages

Imagine a deluded soul who claims to despise the Mafia, but gets teary-eyed about the bravery of its gunmen. That’s pretty much what housebroken conservatives do when they rage about DC’s assaults on our liberty but insist true patriots support the regime’s wars and armed forces.

This story should open some eyes about what those armed forces are armed to enforce:

A controversial 600-plus page manual used by the military to train its Equal Opportunity officers teaches that “healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian” men hold an unfair advantage over other races, and warns in great detail about a so-called “White Male Club.”

“Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege,” reads a statement in the manual created by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI).

The military document advises personnel to “assume racism is everywhere, every day” and “notice code words for race.” They are also instructed to “understand and learn from the history of whiteness and racism.”

“Assume racism is everywhere, everyday,” read a statement in a section titled, ‘How to be a strong ‘white ally.’”

“One of the privileges of being white is not having to see or deal with racism all the time,” the manual states. “We have to learn to see the effect that racism has.”

DC has pursued an egalitarian agenda since it squared off with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Our handlers decided that the best way to counter Soviet ideology was to emulate it. Thus was born the Civil Rights Revolution, which birthed open borders, the homosexual rights movement, and a domestic army of race hustlers.

Check out who authored the diktats from the Pentagon’s new manual:

I obtained a copy of the manual from an Equal Opportunity officer who was disturbed by the course content and furious over the DEOMI’s reliance on the Southern Poverty Law Center for information on “extremist” groups.

In other words, another leaker who couldn’t stomach what his government was doing made the courageous decision to expose what was going on—much like Edward Snowden. And just as in the Snowden affair, the heel-clickers will howl that only unpatriotic, hating extremists oppose what “our” armed forces are doing. That’s because the post 9/11 definition of a patriot is a person who supports all of the Pentagon’s urges, no matter how totalitarian and self-destructive they are.

Finally, click on the following story if you aren’t convinced the US military, like every other tentacle of the DC Empire, is a force of evil:

Two men married at West Point chapel for first time

Are you mad enough yet?

Is Red State America Seceding?

Leave it to Pat Buchanan to talk about trends the ruling elite wants us to pretend not to notice. But at some point, even they will have to wake up and smell the reality:

The spirit of secession, the desire of peoples to sever ties to nations to which they have belonged for generations, sometimes for centuries, and to seek out their own kind, is a spreading phenomenon.

Scotland is moving toward a referendum on independence from England, three centuries after the Acts of Union. Catalonia pushes to be free of Madrid. Milanese and Venetians see themselves as a European people apart from Sicilians, Neapolitans and Romans.

Dutch-speaking Flanders wants to cut loose of French-speaking Wallonia in Belgium. Francophone Quebec, with immigrants from Asia and the Third World tilting the balance in favor of union, appears to have lost its historic moment to secede from Canada.

What are the forces pulling nations apart? Ethnicity, culture, history and language — but now also economics. And separatist and secessionist movements are cropping up here in the United States.

The billionaire globalist elites and hate-filled leftists want to dissolve society and transform mankind into a mass of detached, alienated individuals mindful of nothing but short-term economic interests. Alone and lost, people can then be regimented for maximum exploitation, both economically and politically. In other words, lurking behind all the flowery rhetoric about equality is the lust for money and power.

But stubborn human nature resists their plans. We’re social beings, and must have the connections to the cultures we came from. Look for more secessionist movements as a powerful counter to the doomed schemes of our self-proclaimed superiors.

And know hope.

“American Exceptionalism” = Yankee Supremacy

In a recent open letter to the American people, Russian president Vladimir Putin assured us he likes and respects us, but asked us to realize we’re embarrassing ourselves and doing a lot of harm with our delusion of “American Exceptionalism.” Both the mainstream American left and right rushed to prop up our most beloved myth against this iconoclastic Cossack.

What’s interesting is that both wings of accepted American thought agree on what “exceptionalism” means–and more significantly, that both, though supposedly rivals, are actually in lockstep on all other major issues as a result.

For example, liberal columnist Dana Milbank shot back at President Putin with this bristling retort:

When we say we are exceptional, what we really are saying is we are different. With few exceptions, we are all strangers to our land; our families came from all corners of the world and brought all of its colors, religions and languages. We believe this mixing, together with our free society, has produced generations of creative energy and ingenuity, from the Declaration of Independence to Facebook, from Thomas Jefferson to Miley Cyrus. There is no other country quite like that.

Americans aren’t better than others, but our American experience is unique — exceptional — and it has created the world’s most powerful economy and military, which, more often than not, has been used for good in the world.

Miley Cyrus? Really? My pride floweth over.

And former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, now president of The Heritage Foundation, also defended “exceptionalism” by invoking the image of America as the Multi-Culti Empire that roams the globe doing good:

We are, in other words, not a nation based on ethnicity, but on beliefs, and not coincidentally, that is why we attract people of all ethnicities and they become proud Americans…. When we have used our power, however, we have done it for good.”

Both echoed what Madeleine Albright said as secretary of state:

It is the threat of the use of force [against Iraq] and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.

That self-image still inspires the Obama regime’s global aggression:

In their more honest moments, White House officials concede they got here the messiest way possible — with a mix of luck in the case of Syria, years of sanctions on Iran and then some unpredicted chess moves executed by three players Mr. Obama deeply distrusts: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and Iran’s erratic mullahs. But, the officials say, these are the long-delayed fruits of the administration’s selective use of coercion in a part of the world where that is understood.

“The common thread is that you don’t achieve diplomatic progress in the Middle East without significant pressure,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said Thursday. “In Syria, it was the serious threat of a military strike; in Iran it was a sanctions regime built up over five years.”

If your identity is that of a polyglot hegemon endowed with greater wisdom than the rest of the world, how can you NOT support open borders? Or the invasion of Iraq? Or Iran? Or Syria?

First of all, the US was NOT founded as a unique blend of whatever ethnic group decided to elbow its way in; it was founded as an outpost of Western civilization.

More important, the notion that the American people have always been committed to a never-ending global war to impose democracy and equality is a pure lie, and a fairly recent one at that. Previous “Wars of Liberation,” including Lincoln’s invasion of the South, the Spanish-American War, Vietnam, and Iraq, later turned out to be based on massive propaganda and misinformation.

The core idea expressed in “American Exceptionalism” is that the role of America’s elite is to serve as the global mind bringing reason and order to a chaotic, degenerate world. That is Gnosticism, an anti-Christian concept that explicitly glorifies abstract knowledge while scorning the physical. I argued here that Northern thought degenerated from its Puritan roots into militant Gnosticism, while Southerners upheld and lived by a balance between the spiritual and the physical.

Author John C. Wright said this of the Gnostic foundations of today’s statists and their leftist enablers:

In sum, they are idolaters who substitute the worship of Caesar for the worship of Christ; they are Gnostics in the posture of eternal rebellion both against God in Heaven and civil society on Earth. They are chameleons who adopt any ideals or values or party lines needed for so long as needed to destroy them, including Pragmatism, including Worldliness. They are Politically Correct and factually incorrect.

They seek to destroy civilized institutions here on Earth and drag Utopia down from heaven to replace them, indifferent, or even glorying, in the bloodshed required.

To avoid confusion, let us call them Ideologues. They are utterly unworldly, rejecting the pragmatism of the Worldly Man as cold and loveless and unspiritual.

The Ideologues are as nearly a pure evil as mankind has ever produced or can imagine, but please note that their motives are the highest and noblest imaginable: they seek things of the spirit, peace on earth, food for the poor, dignity given to all men, and all such things which are the only things, the holy things, that can electrify dull mankind and stir him to take up the banner and trumpet and shining lance of high and holy crusade.

Ever wonder why leftists see “education” as the cure to all ills? Or why they fancy themselves superior to those they see as living in the darkness of tradition and irrationality? Their contempt for the physical explains their hatred of heritage and tradition–and of life itself. But as John C. Wright pointed out, there’s a terrible price to pay for the spreading of their concept of the good. When Madeleine Albright proclaimed the death of a half-million Iraqi children as “worth it,” she was expressing what all Gnostics believe.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

My Letter to My Two Republican Senators on Syria Intervention

Dear Sen.,

I am writing to urge you to vote against the resolution to attack Syria.

First, it is not at all clear that Assad was responsible for any chemical weapons attack that may have taken place. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. It makes no sense that Assad would order such an attack and invite reprisal. Even mainstream sources are suggesting the possibility that this was a false flag attack perpetrated by the Rebels. Pardon me if I don’t accept the “evidence” presented by my government at face value, but it doesn’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to evidence used to justify wars of choice.

Second, even if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible, there still would be no reason for the US to attack. Syria is not threat to the US and we should stay out of the internal affairs of other countries. Neither side here is the “good guys,” but if we had to chose a side we are better off with Assad than with the Islamist Rebels. As Sen. Rand Paul has pointed out, at least Assad has protected Syria’s Christian community. Our interventions in the Middle East have systematically been bad for Middle Eastern Christians.

Third, the Republican Party is supposed to be the conservative party. Contrary to the mistaken belief of many modern conservatives, foreign policy interventionism is not the authentic conservative position. The assumptions that underlie interventionism are profoundly not conservative. Interventionism is inherently globalistic, hubristic and downright Jacobin. This is not conservative. Non-interventionism and avoiding “entangling alliances” is the position that arises from a conservative mindset properly understood. Voting no on Syrian interventionism can be step one in righting the course of the GOP and the conservative movement so-called and putting them back on track toward the authentically conservative position of foreign policy non-interventionism.

Sincerely,

“Red” Phillips
Managing Editor,
www.conservativetimes.org

Edward Snowden: An Enemy of the Welfare-Warfare State

When Representative John Lewis said Edward Snowden was “appealing to a higher law” by exposing the government’s citizen surveillance programs, a lot of folks were puzzled. (See Rep. Lewis likens Snowden to Gandhi.) After all, the DC Interventionist State is founded on an alliance between the Civil Rights Industry and the Military/Industrial Complex. Each needs and serves the other.

Didn’t Lewis’ handlers realize the boss was off-message?

Well, they finally did realize it, and made sure Lewis toed the party line. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs assured his readers that Lewis was still on the plantation:

Press Release:
Rep. John Lewis: No Praise for Snowden
The Website of Congressman John Lewis, Serving the 5th Congressional District of Georgia
Aug 8, 2013

“News reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading, and they do not reflect my complete opinion. Let me be clear. I do not agree with what Mr. Snowden did. He has damaged American international relations and compromised our national security. He leaked classified information and may have jeopardized human lives. That must be condemned.”

Yes, it’s a bad thing that the public learned about their government’s illegal spying. Bad!

Jack Hunter’s mistake

An anonymous commenter posted this complaint yesterday in response to Jack Hunter’s disavowal of pro-Southern (and therefore heretical) thoughts he expressed many years ago:

“You think you know somebody, and they turn out to be a defender of sodomy and God cursed sodomites. I’ll never read Jack Hunter again. Is there never any GOOD news anymore???????????”

I share the commenter’s pain. Yes, Jack Hunter has tossed secession, border security, and traditional marriage the same way Butch Cassidy would toss the loot when the posse started closing in. (Here’s a summary of Jack’s earlier statements, as well as his disavowal of them, as presented by the “conservative” Washington Free Beacon, which broke this story.)

Jack Hunter, like Ron and Rand Paul, tried to work within the system to restrain an interventionist, activist government. Now he’s being scourged as a “racist” who shares his boss’s “radical antiwar views.” That’s because only a “racist” would want to deny the Third World the joys of American liberation — as DC’s apologists have made abundantly clear.

Hunter’s and the Paul’s mistake was that they thought “compromise” and “moderation” were good things. Now, in a healthy political system, those things are virtues, as John Calhoun argued. But they have been fighting a losing battle against a system that is, as Robert E. Lee predicted, “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.” That’s why we have a massive domestic surveillance system supporting a military-industrial complex — it’s the inevitable result of an overgrown, centralized government.

As Michael Hill noted yesterday, DC is open only to those who adopt the regime’s globalist agenda. With a regime based on demographic revolution and permanent war, no compromise is possible. Those policies are the foundation of the Empire’s power. Trying to find common ground with the Evil Empire is like offering to sacrifice only your children to psychopaths who want to murder your entire family. So Jack Hunter and the Pauls have been saying, “Okay, you want to invade the entire Middle East, so I’ll support a war in Afghanistan. And I’ll vote for amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens if you’ll agree to a border fence.”

One way or another, it’s all or nothing with the DC regime. That’s what Jack Hunter and the Pauls — and their supporters — have failed to see.

Neocons Heart Chechnya

American Committee for Peace in Chechnya was founded in 2004–it’s gone now– by the usual suspects, Right and Left–Frank Gaffney, Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen–we have done this drill so often it gets boring, that same old cast of those who contrived a case for Republicans to support invading Iraq, as Saddam done 9/11 dontchaknow?

At the time, the Guardian’s John Laughland noted that the war on terror stopped in Chechnya for this crowd of the usual suspects.  The purpose, as always, was to use a force to destabilize Russia, just as they had used radical Islamists in Afghanistan against the then Soviet Russia many years prior.

It goes hand in hand with CIA or Pentagon intervention abroad, that the United States receives a boat load of refugees from said country, be it Hmong, Somalian, Iraqi, or…Chechnya.

There are certainly more angles to pursue, especially, on-going, bipartisan support (e.g. Obama/Clinton/Kerry, McCain, Graham, Rubio) from the usual suspects, to work with jihadists in Syria (including those from Chechnya as reported March 6).

Lone-wolf street theater, or some actor in the Black Arts will be the subject of speculation for the while, but  in the coming days of analysis, let it sink in that the members of the ACPC will sleep uninterrupted tonight.

For additional reading: Sibel Edmonds on the Neocons & Chechnya.

 

Globaloney, 19th Century Edition

By Ian Fletcher

Everyone knows we live in a brave new world of globalization.

And like a lot of thing that everyone knows, it isn’t so.

Not only was the globalization of the late 19th century, with formal colonial empires spanning the world, just as profound as today, it generated a similar class of professional sophist to justify it all.

Think Thomas Friedman and his ilk are original? Think again. I just discovered a most amusing clip from the BBC TV production of Anthony Trollope’s 1875 novel The Way We Live Now, a startlingly modern satire of corrupt yuppies in Victorian London.

See here: youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gksJ1-8ewBs

Free trade didn’t work out too well for Britain, which had risen to power as a protectionist nation and began to decline after embracing free trade, as I’ve written here.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Ian Fletcher is Senior Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a nationwide grass-roots organization dedicated to fixing America’s trade policies and comprising representatives from business, agriculture, and labor. He was previously Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, a Washington think tank, and before that, an economist in private practice serving mainly hedge funds and private equity firms. Educated at Columbia University and the University of Chicago, he lives in San Francisco. He is the author of Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why.

It was ALL about slavery

Unemployment is still terrible, but there’s still plenty of work in historical revisionism. Here’s the latest on the ongoing reinterpretation of the War Between the States, or the Civil War, I mean, The War to Free the Slaves. Courtesy of the Huffington Post:

Issued 150 years ago this week, President Abraham Lincoln’s initial proclamation that he would free the South’s slaves is enjoying a public showcase to match its increased profile among scholars.

Lincoln released his lesser-known preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on Sept. 22, 1862 – 100 days before the final version. The first of the two documents has gained importance among historians as a turning point in the Civil War because of a change in thinking over the past 50 years.

Not that long ago, historians would explain the conflict in terms of clashing economic interests, States’ Rights, and different views of the Constitution. They acknowledged that slavery was an issue, but was not Lincoln’s or the North’s primary motivation. Historians would point to Lincoln’s own statement that if he could keep the South in the Union with slavery, he would do so. Historians would also refer to Congress’ July 22, 1861 “Joint Resolution on the War,” that proclaimed:

Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

Then there was the Corwin Amendment, which Lincoln supported, that would deprive Congress of the power to “abolish or interfere” with slavery. That effort to keep the South in the Union failed, however.

Apparently, the people who lived and fought and wrote history during and the decades after the WBTS didn’t know what they were doing.

So why do court historians scholars now say that slavery was central to the war? Here’s what the Huffington Post article says about that:

Slavery and its abolition were once treated by historians as minor parts of the story behind the Civil War, but that began to change after the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, said historian Edward Ayers, president of the University of Richmond. Since then, the steps that led to emancipation have been recognized for their importance – with the Sept. 22 proclamation being a prime example.

“All our thinking about this has undergone remarkable recasting over the last 50 years,” Ayers said. “People begin now with slavery as the fundamental fact and emancipation and less with union as being the sole focus of attention.”

So, it was the Civil Rights Revolution that caused this “remarkable recasting” of the cause of the WBTS. And as regular readers of this blog are aware, DC promoted that cultural and political revolution to advance its aggressive foreign policy: By repackaging DC as the great liberator of blacks in the 19th century and the present day, DC was able to counter the USSR’s “African Socialism” initiative during the Cold War.

And of course, all who serve the Empire today, from Pentagon employees to court historians, continue to peddle the myth: Bush took oil-rich Iraq in the name of “liberating” that lucky country.

Bottom line: The Civil War was the first war in history NOT about power or money, but doing good deeds for others. Guess that’s what makes America “exceptional.”

Billionaires (and Marxists!) for Open Borders

Who advocates the destruction of traditional society and the nation?

You’d be surprised.

We hardly bat an eye when we read that Neo-Communists, including followers of mass murderer and totalitarian Leon Trotsky, openly gather at the Left Forum at Pace University to promote the Marxist goal of one-world government.

It’s who their friends are that might surprise you.

It’s a well-known fact that leftist billionaire George Soros advocates and financially supports the Open Borders agenda as a means of creating a one-world government. He’s not the only wealthy supporter of the end of the traditional nation-state.  It’s not hard to figure out why — with a glut of labor on the market, wages come tumbling down, boosting profits.That’s not just a problem for blue-collar workers, but increasingly for white-collare workers as well, who are seeing their incomes drop, or even losing their jobs, because of the infllux of low-wage H1B immigrants.

It’s a scam, of course, and scammers don’t like to draw attention to their scam.  So if the victims yelp in protest, they must be silenced. These days, there are many shills eager to shame those who do not welcome the importation of cheap labor.

For example, here’s Business Insider Magazine featuring an article entitled “Meet The Leaders Of America’s Twisted White Power Movement.” This strange attack piece starts with a reference to Wade Michael Page, who killed six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, then lists the names of various neo-Nazis and Klansmen who just happen to be in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s files. Included in that list is Peter Brimelow of the pro-immigration-enforcement VDare.

But what’s the real connection between those who advocate and practice violence, and those who, like Brimelow, work peacefully within the system to protect jobs and keep alien criminals from entering this country? Nothing — it’s a blatant smear job.

And check out this whopper from the Business Insider story:

Keep in mind, we are not accusing any of these people of crimes or implying that they might commit crimes. We are simply reporting their inclusion in SPLC’s intelligence files, and why they merited that inclusion.

“Oh, I’m not saying anything bad about these folks — the SPLC made me do it!” How typical of the spinelessness in what’s left of the home of the brave.

Why is Business Insider parroting the SPLC’s fundraising letters? It’s not because big business gives a hoot about “social justice” or equality. What it shares with Marxists is an attraction to big, centralized government, just as ticks are attracted to fattened cows. Check out this quote from I’ll Take My Stand:

Big business has more often taken refuge behind the national government than
behind the state…to the eternal whine of big business for paternalistic and
exploitative legislation such as the tariff, the ship and railroad subsidies.
Historically, the vested interests of industrialism have not had any great use
for state rights. They are the founders of the doctrine of centralization…It
may be suggested as a principle that for the positive exploitation big business
has desired large and sweeping powers for the national government.’ (pages
86,87)

An energetic and principled opposition to bigness in all forms is one of the defining characteristics of the Southern tradition. Anyone who’s really concerned about the middle class and the exploitation by the wealthy will find that tradition is still surprisingly relevant.