The following is from a Russia Today video interview of Anetta Kahane.
Update: I’ve moved the video further down this page, below what shows on the main page, because it autoplays.
Interviewer: Indeed sociologists have said that something like three and a half million Turks in Germany actually regard Turkey as their homeland which leads many to think that the Turks are there simply to enjoy the social benefits, to take something away from German society, and not put anything back, and simply not integrate.
Interviewer: There you are in Germany. Isn’t the situation there indicative of the rest of the European continent where we’re actually seeing the EU expanding more and more? How do you now see the future issue of immigration developing now across the whole of the European continent based on what you’re seeing there in Germany?
Anetta Kahane: This is a very good point because immigration is the future. You cannot work and live in a globalised world, in the middle of the world, in Europe, without immigration and moving populations. So, you have to really make a good policy of immigration all over Europe. And we see the history of Europe with its long history of nationalism and small countries is now getting into a crisis. We need a long time to make it better, but you have to confront this. You have to really change the policy of immigration inside Europe. This is very important. You have to make adopt the educational system and adopt all the self understanding of the states. They are not anymore only white, or only Swedish, or only Portuguese, or only German. They are multicultural places in the world.
The Rise Of Anti-Western Christianity
By Matthew Roberts, Quarterly Review
During Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to London this September, Cardinal Walter Kasper noted two things about London: it’s secular and parts of it resemble a Third World country. While the politically correct were quick to condemn Kasper and the Vatican was even quicker to exhibit its pro-Third World, anti-racism bona fides, Kasper’s two statements taken together are noteworthy in that they demonstrate two antagonistic aspects of the modern world. The First World is secular; the Third World is religious.
How can London be both? What happens when you mix First World secularism and Third World religion? In particular, what happens when you import the Third World to the First – as in London? Often, the Third World tries to convert the First, regardless if the evangelizers are Christian or Muslim. While Westerns may be more shocked by Third World Muslims because they expect them to be different, they often are more disoriented by Third World Christians because they are so different from what they expect. The Christianity that the Third World brings to the West is unlike anything ever seen before – just as alien as Islam.
Manufacturing’s Dismal Decade
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Last year, Barack Obama committed his administration to doubling U.S. exports in half a decade.
The good news: He is on the way. U.S. exports of goods and services grew in 2010 by 16.6 percent.
Bad news: U.S. imports, starting from a higher base, surged by 19.7 percent.
Result: The U.S. trade deficit in 2010 worsened by 33 percent, rising from $375 billion to $498 billion, the largest percentage increase in a decade. If Obama keeps this up, he may prove as big a disaster for U.S. manufacturing as his predecessor, although these are big shoes to fill.
As he has each February for years, Charles W. McMillion of MBG Information Services has compiled the stats on the industrial decline of his country under our free trade presidents. Here are but a few numbers for the decade from December 2000, the month before George W. Bush took the oath, to December 2010, the end of Obama’s second year.
In that decade, America ran a total of $6.1 trillion in trade deficits, more than our entire economic growth. To finance those 10 years of deficits, America had to borrow $1.553 billion every day.
And we wonder why China owns America.
This series is a work-in-progress. Your feedback would be appreciated.
That group of conservatives often identified as paleoconservatives are usually characterized by three issues on which they differ from “regular” (i.e. movement) conservatives. They are non-interventionist on foreign policy, they were immigration restrictionists before immigration restriction was cool, and they are skeptical of free trade. (There is more to paleoconservatism than these three issues, but this should suffice for the sake of this discussion.)
One curious exception to this categorization has often been Southern conservatives. (When I say Southern conservatives I don’t just mean conservatives who happen to be from the South although obviously there is some overlap. I mean those conservatives who consciously come at their conservatism from a uniquely Southern perspective.) Southern conservatives have generally been regarded as a subset of paleoconservatives, but many Southern conservatives have been more reluctant than their other paleo peers to embrace “protectionism” and “protective” tariffs (as opposed to a revenue tariff). (I use quotation marks around protectionism, not because I don’t think it is a real thing, but because I don’t think both sides necessarily agree about what the word means.)
There is a clear historical reason for this. Southern conservatives have naturally become well versed in defending the Southern cause in the War Between the States, and one of those causes was opposition to a high protective tariff, which was rightly seen as intended to benefit one section of the country, Northern merchants, at the expense of another, Southern agrarians. So Southern conservatives have been slower to embrace protectionist tariffs that they view as intended to benefit some (industry primarily) arguably at the expense of others.
Of course there are exceptions to this. The average man on the street conservative in the South may be just as likely or more to be skeptical of free trade, than his man on the street conservative Northern counterpart. I am speaking here primarily of an identifiable subset of Southern conservative thinkers who would otherwise be easily characterized as paleocons. This reluctance to whole heartedly endorse protectionist trade measures among historically attuned Southern conservatives is evident in the blogosphere and paleo commentariate.
And this is not just because Southern conservatives have to a greater degree adopted laissez-faire free market ideology. On the contrary, Southern conservatives (and paleocons in general) are more likely to recognize the importance of an economics (and politics) of the human scale and to be skeptical of economic reductionism and “economic man” thinking. I believe what is more at work here, besides historical sensibilities, is a skepticism toward nationalism in all its manifestations (and protectionism is often couched as economic nationalism) and a healthy skepticism that the Feds could create a rational and fair (unbeholden to powerful lobbies) economic nationalist agenda even if it were deemed desirable and constitutional. (While no conservative would doubt the constitutionality of tariffs per se, the “industrial policy” that often accompanies an economic nationalist agenda could be viewed as constitutionally suspect depending on what exactly is being proposed.)
I will leave this debate to the various partisans. My point with this essay is to point out that Southern conservatives who might otherwise be reluctant to embrace “protectionism,” should recognize the danger of the proposed KORUS FTA to another issue that is near and dear to their hearts, states’ rights. A vote on KORUS is imminent. Obama could drop it in the hopper any time he thinks would best facilitate its passage. It is time to put pointy headed discussions like the one above aside for a later day, and work to stop the KORUS broadside to US sovereignty and states’ rights.
According to Americans for Free and Fair Trade, KORUS “using language almost lifted from NAFTA … obligates the federal government to force U.S. states to conform state laws to every single provision in the 1000-page agreement – whether directly related to trade or not.” Furthermore, “Korean and other multi-national corporations could take any dispute with federal or state laws, regulations, or rules to the World Court or United Nations. Federal or state courts would have no authority over the companies.” (emphasis mine)
A person might not like all the rules and regulations individual states may impose on businesses in their state. In fact, conservative minded folks probably don’t. But those rules and regulations are a matter that is properly addressed by the people of the state and their representatives and state and federal courts if necessary. To allow foreign corporations to challenge state laws before foreign tribunals is an intolerable outrage. No self respecting Southern conservative or any other patriotic conservative should stand for this.
It is time for the various partisans in the academic free trade vs. fair trade debate to put their differences aside while we stop this KORUS outrage before it is too late. Once we have done that, then we can reengage this always entertaining debate, a debate to which Southern conservatives bring a unique and historically informed perspective.
This categorization, by Ellison Lodge, may be a little unfair to Buchanan and perhaps a little too generous to Michael Savage, but it succinctly captures the mixed positions on nationalism in Israel and the West:
If one were to try to sort out views on nationalism in Israel and the West, it could be neatly split into four categories:
1) Those who support ethno-politics for Israel but not for Europeans and the West. (neoliberals and neoconservatives like Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Kristol et al.)
2) Those who oppose ethno-politics for Israel and the West (Noam Chomsky, Max Blumenthal et al.) [and politically correct libertarians]
3) Those who support ethno-politics in the West and in Israel (Lawrence Auster, Diana West, Michael Savage)
4) Those who oppose ethno-politics for Israel but support it for the West (Pat Buchanan, Kevin MacDonald)
Like the author, I would include myself in category #3. I have no problem with Israel promoting ethno-nationalist policies or taking a hardline stance on immigration (these are things any sane nation should do), but I think Israel should have to do these things on its own dime, and we don’t need overseas partisans of Israel (e.g. Bill Kristol or Joseph Lieberman) trying to prevent Western nations from pursuing much-needed immigration enforcement and reduction. That said, unlike Larry Auster, I don’t think one’s position on Israel should be the deciding factor in assessing his political views. Frankly, I don’t care whether another Westerner is pro- or anti-Israel; I do, however, care whether he’s pro-Western. Lodge says it best:
The idea that the fate of European or American Civilization is somehow tied up in Israel, as Geert Wilders & Co. often claim, has absolutely no basis in reality; the same goes for the ahistorical, made-up term “Judeo-Christian tradition.”
Read the rest of Ellison Lodge’s article here.
Although the MSM want to cast the Wisconsin protestors and the tea-party protestors as archenemies, the two groups probably have more in common than they realize. Demographically, they are nearly identical. Richard Spencer, in the best article I’ve read summarizing recent protests, writes:
Both the Tea Party and the Wisconsin phenomena represent genuine, grassroots protest movements of Whites caught somewhere between the stages of denial, anger, and bargaining in mourning the death of their “American Dream.”
Unlike the violent mau-mauing in Chicago’s South Side, the labor unionists and partisans have demonstrated in a noticeably polite fashion; much like the Tea Party, they’ve made clever signs, dressed up in colourful costumes, congregated at democratic institutions, and only demanded that the government be reasonable and fair.
More important, whatever Obama’s rhetoric, the Power Elite he represents has effectively abandoned the Baby Boom-and-under Whites marching on Madison.
A teacher’s union meeting in Madison, Wisconsin, has the demographics of a screening of The English Patient. And however they might disagree on hot-button issues, the Tea Party and the Wisconsinites are essentially the same people.
Boiled down to their essences, the Tea Party represents White, middle-class private-sector workers who are beginning to realize that their future is being taken away from them; the Wisconsinites represent White, middle-class public-sector workers who are beginning to realize that their future is being taken away from them.
Might these two groups notice that they have a lot in common?
The following is from J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit. I present it as an allegory for the West uniting in the West’s common defence, though uniting as allies not as empire.
Suddenly without a signal they sprang silently forward to attack. Bows twanged and arrows whistled; battle was about to be joined.
Still more suddenly a darkness came on with dreadful swiftness! A black cloud hurried over the sky. Winter thunder on a wild wind rolled roaring up and rumbled in the Mountain, and lightning lit its peak. And beneath the thunder another blackness could be seen whirling forward; but it did not come with the wind, it came from the North, like a vast cloud of birds, so dense that no light could be seen between their wings.
“Halt!” cried Gandalf, who appeared suddenly, and stood alone, with arms uplifted, between the advancing dwarves and the ranks awaiting them. “Halt!” he called in a voice like thunder, and his staff blazed forth with a flash like the lightning. “Dread has come upon you all! Alas! it has come more swiftly than I guessed. The Goblins are upon you! Bolg of the North is coming, O Dain! whose father you slew in Moria. Behold! the bats are above his army like a sea of locusts. They ride upon wolves and Wargs are in their train!”
I like WRM’s Jacksonian, Wilsonian etc. categorization of schools of foreign policy thought, but he is otherwise a fount of conventional wisdom. Here he discusses the Palinite vs. Paulite foreign policy divide within the Tea Party movement.
The first is that the contest in the Tea Party between what might be called its Palinite and its Paulite wings will likely end in a victory for the Palinites. The Palinite wing of the Tea Party (after Sarah Palin) wants a vigorous, proactive approach to the problem of terrorism in the Middle East, one that rests on a close alliance between the United States and Israel. The Paulite wing (Rand Paul) would rather distance the United States from Israel as part of a general reduction of the United States’ profile in a part of the world from which little good can be expected.
The Paulites are likely to lose this contest because the commonsense reasoning of the American people now generally takes as axiomatic that security at home cannot be protected without substantial engagement overseas.
I do think he explains the Paulite side fairly if only briefly, but beyond that the whole essay drips with elitist condescension toward the attitudes of us common folks that he is supposedly trying to explain. It’s like he is deliberately trying to prove Codevilla’s “Ruling Class” thesis. “Oh there go those populist common folks getting uppity again.”
He may be right that the Palinites will eventually triumph over the Paulites, but it is not because “commonsense reasoning” dictates “substantial engagement overseas.” (Is “substantial engagement overseas” necessary for the security of Switzerland? Do the Swiss lack commonsense?) Many Americans take for granted overseas engagement because it is all they know, and it has been drilled into their heads by both the liberal/moderate internationalist consensus and the interventionist “right.” Until recently there has been almost no voice for non-interventionism to compete for their loyalty.
The problem that the non-interventionists are going to have is that the constituency for non-interventionism is entirely idea based. There are no vested interests in non-interventionism except maybe people who would like to use the defense budget for some other purpose. Deficit hawkishness is more an idea than a vested interest. But there is a huge vested interest in maintaining the current defense/foreign policy status quo. I live just north of a military base town that would be utterly devastated if we were spending what we ought to be on defense, which is a mere fraction of what we do. Not just active duty military members, but civilian personnel, contractors, defense industry workers, etc. Do you think those people want a non-interventionist foreign policy and serious cut backs in national defense spending?
Daniel Larison makes the same point here. (I had considered this dynamic before Larison mentioned it, I swear.)
“First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in the humble and endearing scenes of private life.”
Eulogy to George Washington by “Light Horse” Harry Lee, father of Robert E. Lee.
George Washington allowed us to question him on modern-day issues:
Mr. President, should the US borrow money from China to give to Israel?
“The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.” Farewell Address
Should the United States pursue an interventionist, aggressive foreign policy?
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.” Farewell Address
Do you think the Pentagon should be continued, expanded, or dismantled?
“Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” Farewell Address
Finally, sir, do you believe the Union is a permanent government, or do its members have the right to withdraw if they see fit?
“It is well worth a fair and full experiment.” Farewell Address
Here we are in one of the worst depressions in American history, and Sen. Orrin Hatch tells Obama to flood the U.S. with even more foreign workers. Great!
Unfortunately, in the MSM the fallout of H1Bs is rarely discussed, such as the displacement of American workers, the driving down the wages of American workers, the inferior work product of H1Bs, the chain migration resulting from H1Bs, and the illegal immigration resulting from work visas. Regarding the last point, it recently has been estimated that over 10% of all Indians now in the U.S. are here illegally — a fact that the anti-Western Indian Lobby will surely try to gloss over. From Economic Times of India:
WASHINGTON: Indians in the US are not only the fastest growing Asian community, but also have the dubious distinction of being fastest-growing group of illegal immigrants in the country. According to the American Community Survey of the US Census Bureau, the Asian Indian population in the US grew from almost 1,679,000 in 2000 to 2,570,000 in 2007. With a growth rate of 53 percent the highest for any Asian American community, and among the fastest growing ethnic groups in the US, Indian Americans are the third largest Asian American ethnic group, after Chinese Americans and Filipinos.
When it comes to illegal immigration, Hispanic illegal immigrants largely outnumber other undocumented immigrants. Mexicans make up nearly 7 million of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. The next largest group of Hispanics are Salvadorans and Guatemalans. But Indians are the fastest-growing group of illegal immigrants in the US, according to US Department of Homeland Security report.
My first Ether Zone article looks at DC’s runaway debt, trade deficit, and multiculturalism as symptoms of the same disease — loss of American identity.
My being from Wisconsin, I suppose you all want to learn my view of the current situation.
In a sense I’m torn by one staunchly anti-union grandfather and the other who was a state employee when the first public employee unions were created in Wisconsin. I could agree with most of what Gov. Walker wants. I have no problem making the union re-certify every year, or every two years, and I don’t think the state should be in the business of holding union dues or making state government a closed shop.
However the deal-breaker for me is the ending of collective bargaining, which essentially busts the union altogether. Without collective bargaining, what’s even the point of a union? Let’s be clear; this is a union-busting bill. Unions are needed as a check on corporate power, because if you’re someone who gets money or derives power from others, chances are you’re going to screw people. Not that everyone would do this, but the temptation is ever present – many will succumb. If not a corporation, look at government itself for the same example.
Ron Paul’s son, Robert, is considering a run for the Senate in 2012. Robert is a doctor like his dad and brother. Good genes in that Paul family.
Walter Jones, a paleoconservative
Democrat Republican, has co-authored this appeal to end the insane war in Afghanistan. In the name of spreading democracy to the Afghans, whether they want it or not, American taxpayers are propping up one of the most repressive and corrupt regimes on the planet at a projected total cost of $6 trillion dollars.
Then there’s the human cost:
At 112 months, this is the longest war in our history. More than 1,400 American service members have lost their lives in Afghanistan; over 8,800 have been wounded in action. Tens of thousands have suffered other disabilities or psychological harm. The Pentagon reported in November that suicide rates are soaring among veterans; the backlog at the Department of Veterans Affairs had reached more than 700,000 disability cases, according to NPR, including post-traumatic stress disorder.
To get an idea of what American troops face in Afghanistan, check out this video. Warning: It’s not for the squeamish, nor for those who imagine war to be a glamorous adventure. No wonder the suicide rate is climbing in the armed forces.
Of course, Lockheed Martin and the other war profiteers will whine that Jones wants to ruin their cash flow. And who’s going to provide campaign contributions to all those manly, patriotic politicians who always vote for war?
Attention Dr. Douglas: Since you obviously missed this lesson of Being a Dude 101, here is a short instructional video on how real men respond to perceived threats. Pay particular attention starting around 1:30.
Two of our favorite interventionist pseudocons who we love to poke fun at here are now engaged in a battle royal. Proving, I guess, that being an alarmist, fear mongering, belligerent interventionist alone is not always enough to ensure that two people will get along.
Briefly, Dr. Douglas ran into Knepper at the CPAC Blogger’s Row, and they had a confrontation. Apparently they have some history. So Knepper contacted the school where Dr. Douglas is employed and complained. Dr. Douglas responded with all sorts of hyperbolic language about how Knepper is a “threat” to him and the campus, whaa, whaa, whaaaaa….
You have got to be kidding me. Both of these guys come off looking like total buffoons. (Which is good for our side and good for a laugh as well.) First, Knepper is a big ol’ rat for running to Dr. Douglas’ boss and tattling like a little girl. If he has an issue with Dr. D. he should take it up with Dr. D. and leave his employer out of it. Second, Dr. D.’s hyperbolic response is beyond pathetic. “The big ol’ meanie Alex Knepper might hurt me! He is a threat to me and the campus! The authorities have been notified!” What?! (I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the kind of mentality that thinks far off backwards Muslim nations are going to invade us unless we bomb them first, also thinks a 3000 miles away Alex Knepper represents a threat to him and his school.)
Good grief Dr. D. Take off your skirt. Let me instruct you in how people with two testicles respond to a perceived “threat” from the likes of Alex Knepper. “Bring it on if you think you’re man enough. My address is 123 ABC Rd, College Town, CA and my phone number is 555-1234. Any time you’re ready big boy. You name the time and place.” And if you want to spice it up with a little more bravado, you might throw in an “And I’ll pay for your damn plane ticket.”
You see Dr. D, the trick here is to not give the impression that you are the slightest bit intimidated, and in fact that you relish the opportunity to demonstrate your superior manhood on top of the other guys head. You may actually be intimidated, but to let on that you are intimidated is to lose before the confrontation begins. This should be basic Being a Dude 101, so I guess you must have missed that lesson.
May I suggest that you take down those whiny, pathetic cry-baby e-mails before they cause you any more embarrassment and loss of your man street cred.
Ugh! A tattle-tell and a fraidy cat. Are all interventionists such chics?
On February 3, 2011, Jean Raspail, author of The Camp of the Saints was interviewed by Frédéric Taddeï on France 3 Television. The interview was recorded on two YouTube videos of about fifteen minutes each. The Camp of the Saints has been re-issued with a new preface : “Big Other”, a pun on “Big Brother”, and an obvious reference to the massive immigration of the past thirty years.
The videos, posted at François Desouche, are too long to translate, but here are a few highlights from the first half:
In truth The Camp of the Saints is a parable, written in 1972, published in 1973 about a million people from the Third World. They’re weak, they’re unarmed, women and children, they’re poor, and they come in search of paradise. But, there’s a million of them, they land on the Riviera, and behind them there are other flotillas with more millions ready to land according to whether or not France’s response is positive or negative. The problem of The Camp of the Saints is very simple – there is unity of time, place, and action. Everything happens in twenty-four hours. What happens is they have a shipwreck, a million of them, unarmed, weak, they inspire sympathy, pity. But a million… and if the response is positive, there are a million more waiting. What do we do? That’s the question posed by The Camp of the Saints.