So, people who want to take money from others to pay for their student loans, health insurance, and housing now know what it’s like to have their money taken.
Now that’s social justice we can all believe in.
So, people who want to take money from others to pay for their student loans, health insurance, and housing now know what it’s like to have their money taken.
Now that’s social justice we can all believe in.
In his new book, Suicide of a SuperPower, Buchanan argues that as European Americans become a minority, they will have no choice but to organize along lines of racial advocacy, such as blacks do with the NAACP, mestizos with La Raza, or Asians with the 80-20 Initiative. His latest article on this topic:
A.D. 2041 – End of White America?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday – October 18, 2011
John Hope Franklin, the famed black historian at Duke University, once told the incoming freshmen, “The new America in the 21st century will be primarily non-white, a place George Washington would not recognize.”
In his June 1998 commencement address at Portland State, President Clinton affirmed it: “In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.” The graduates cheered.
The Census Bureau has now fixed at 2041 the year when whites become a minority in a country where the Founding Fathers had restricted citizenship to “free white persons” of “good moral character.”
With publication today of Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? this writer takes up what this portends. And while many on the left are enthusiastic about relegating the America of Eisenhower and JFK to a reactionary past, I concur with the late Clare Boothe Luce.
In this world, she said, there are optimists and pessimists.
“The pessimists are better informed.”
What are the seemingly inevitable consequences of an America where whites are a shrinking minority?
First, the end of a national Republican Party that routinely gets 90 percent of its presidential votes from white America.
California is the harbinger of what is to come.
Carried by Richard Nixon in all five presidential elections when he was on the ticket and by Ronald Reagan all four times he ran, California, where whites are now a shrinking minority, is a state where the GOP faces extinction. John McCain’s share of the California vote was down to the Barry Goldwater level of 1964.
When Texas, where two-thirds of the newborns and half the schoolchildren are Hispanic, goes the way of California, it is the end for the GOP. Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, also critical to any victorious GOP coalition, are Hispanicizing as rapidly as Texas.
In every presidential election since Bush I in 1992, Hispanics have given 60-70 percent of their votes to the Democratic ticket.
For Hispanics, largely poor and working class, are beneficiaries of a cornucopia of government goods – from free education to food stamps to free health care. Few pay federal income taxes.
Why would they not vote for the Party of Government?
What in the Hell is a Paleo?
Alternative Right, Oct. 17, 2011
By Paul E. Gottfried
Reading an online response by someone described as “National Review’s chief domestic policy analyst,” with the mellifluous, politically correct name of “Reihan Salam,” addressed to Ron Unz of theAmerican Conservative, I was struck by a stray reference to a group that Salam’s employers have not accorded the right of recognition. Salam observes that Unz, who edits a “paleoconservative” publication, has written a “thought-provoking” article on Hispanic immigration. Unz wishes to discourage further Hispanic immigration because it depresses wages in the U.S., but otherwise this publisher raises no substantive objection to the influx of Third World, uneducated population from south of our border.
Unz begins his brief by arguing that Hispanic crime, including in all probability crimes by illegals, is no higher than it is among the Anglo population. (Unfortunately, Ron’s thesis has been debunked, but let’s not dwell on that.) Furthermore, the Latino immigrants, according to Unz, are generally hard-working and make reasonable efforts to fit in. Unz states that Republican politicians have overreacted by declaring war on illegals and by engaging in supposedly xenophobic policies and rhetoric against the newcomers. His only objection against continued immigration from Latin America is that it’s depressing the wage structure for those already in the work force. Latino immigration has hurt vulnerable American wage-earners, by providing cheap, expendable labor.
According to Salam, Unz has gone outside the box of what he would expect from the right. He has properly condemned the anti-foreign gestures of the GOP, and he never raises those “cultural issues” that one hears, perhaps with a shudder, from “paleoconservatives.” But who, pray tell, is this last group? Although Salam devotes an entire essay to them, I don’t have a clue as to what he’s talking about. The people alluded to have something to do with how the Right used to be…and they tend to follow “the idiosyncratic political economist Murray Rothbard,” my late friend. Many of them have racial reasons for not wanting to flood the country with Hispanic immigrants, but Unz, to whom one could never ascribe the slightest twinge of racial or cultural Angst, is somehow a paradigmatic paleo. Indeed, engaging in discussion with Unz is the litmus test for whether Salam’s neoconservative camp is open to a “good-faith conversation” with a group on the right with which Salam “doesn’t agree very often.” One might note that if he did, he would in all probability have to apply for food stamps.
The New England Complex Systems Institute is an independent research facility staffed by faculty from MIT, Harvard, and other universities. Its focus is the study of social organization. The Institute has issued a paper on the political conditions that promote peace. The title of the study is Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence. From the abstract:
Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in speci?c areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve con?ict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.
Based on the lessons of real-world examples, then, forced integration, affirmative action, and the dissolving of ethnic boundaries lead to ethnic conflict. What promotes peace? Simple: The right of every people to self-government. Or, as it was expressed 235 years ago:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Switzerland is a confederal, rather than a centralized system. Its standard of living, as well as its enviable record of living in peace with its neighbors, are well worth studying. Here’s an earlier study on the implications of complex systems studies for commercial and political organizations.
It seems that the loud-mouthed and obnoxious neoconservative Herman Cain (the diversity lapdog of the Federal Reserve) is largely a creation of the Koch Brothers. Anyone surprised? Just as Obama was created by Soros and friends, so Cain has been created by Koch and crew. In fact, Cain and Obama have much in common, as noted by BATR:
The truth about Herman Cain is that he shares many commonalities with Barack Hussein Obama. Both can deliver a stirring speech, both are establishment corporatist favored candidates, but the factor that ultimately bonds them together, is that each are beholden to their Wall Street masters.
Has the US declined so much that it will be impossible ever again to elect a man of a higher caliber (e.g. Calvin Coolidge) but the US will forever be locked in Third World Oprah Winfrey-style politics electing diversity-vetted mediocrities like Obama and Cain? Will talented European Americans be de facto barred from the presidency?
Patrick J. Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?
New York; Thomas Dunne Books; October 2011; 496 pages; $27.99
The Happy Warrior
by Peter B. Gemma
Pat Buchanan’s hundreds, if not thousands, of incisive articles and commentaries have appeared in print and on the internet for decades (he became a columnist for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat at age 23). His writings have proven to be both controversial and courageous—defending Middle American values, defining an America First foreign policy, and dicing up the elitist-driven multicultural agenda. The Christian Science Monitor calls him “Dennis the Menace with the pen of H. L. Menken.”
Along the way he stopped to run for President on three different occasions. In 1992 he had a major impact on the Republican nomination process, nearly scoring an upset victory over President George H. W. Bush in the crucial New Hampshire GOP primary. Buchanan continued his influential political crusade for traditional conservative issues in 1996—besting Bob Dole, the favored Republican candidate, in several states. In 2000, he hewed the tough road as a third party presidential candidate and was the lone voice supporting fair trade, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and opposing illegal immigration (as well as capping legal immigration). Columnist George F. Will says “Pat Buchanan is the pit bull of the American Right.”
Buchanan finds time to write best-selling books too—thought-provoking albeit foreboding and sternly worded titles including, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America (2006), The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (2002), and The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy (1998). Somehow he can investigate and interpret the threats to America’s sovereignty, economy, and its traditional culture—yet find a way to offer practical and encouraging solutions. This is why the left-wing newspaper Village Voice conceded “Buchanan is one hell of a wordsmith.”
He obviously enjoys the battle as he enters the fray on every front.
Now comes his eleventh book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Pat Buchanan is at his combative best explaining the question he poses:
“Our intellectual, cultural, and political elites are today engaged in one of the most audacious and ambitious experiments in history. They are trying to transform a Western Christian republic into an egalitarian democracy made up of all the tribes, races, creeds, and cultures of planet Earth.”
Insights from a man who knows politics as a keen observer and as a street fighter. “The two parties are the two wings of the same bird of prey.”
Oh boy! Brace yourself for the warmongering and the bloodlust. Given that so many people are itching for a reason to bomb Iran, this news must be greeted with extreme skepticism.
Update: Surprisingly, this revelation is meeting with some skepticism from conservative Obama and Holder opponents who would otherwise likely be inclined to believe it. Holder is being subpoenaed today by Congress about his role in the Fast and Furious scandal, and many see the timing as suspect. The Pres has apparently known about the alleged plot for months.
Thomas Fleming has a new blog post up at the Daily Mail on the Occupy Wall Street movement. I think the comparisons to the 60′s hippie phenomenon are bound to come up, and Dr. Fleming handles that well. I’m sure a lot of the protesters are sincere, but I get the distinct feeling that a lot of them are just wanna be 60′s hippies who think protesting is great fun and the thing to do. This generation strikes me as too self-centered and immature to ultimately be about grand schemes meant to lift up the down-trodden. They just want to be loafers and slackers who get paid for it. (A good gig if you can get it.) Even the uber PC Cultural Marxism of some of the protest organizers strikes me as a self serving “see how morally superior we are” pose. When you have lost real religion you have nothing to fall back on for a sense of moral purpose other than moralizing fanaticism.
Mitt Romney recently delivered an awful foreign policy speech that has been much commented on. It is boilerplate interventionism with a heaping helping of American exceptionalism. He also introduced his foreign policy team which included a lot of Bush Administration retreads and other predictable hawks.
This is disappointing. I had hoped that Romney, in spite of his history of flip-flopping and pandering, might on foreign policy be the adult in the room compared to his interventionist opponents (all of them except Paul, Johnson and Huntsman). I see Romney as essentially a moderate by temperament, and I hoped he would recognize the current interventionist paradigm for the radicalism that it is and be guided by his inherent moderation when making decisions about whether to plunge us into another war. This may still be the case and this speech may have been just another pander by Romney in an attempt to not get out interventionisted to his “right.” But it is disappointing and doesn’t bode well.
Since my attempt to get people to rank order the candidates in order of likelihood to plunge us into a new war seems to have run its course (without the type of success I was hoping for I might add), I’ll attempt to explain my reasoning here.
The first two, Santorum and Gingrich were easy for me. Santorum was number one because he has deliberately attempted to distinguish himself from the pack based on his hawkishness and fear-mongering. There is no perceived threat no matter how small he doesn’t seem willing to monger. He is the guy who warned us about the Venezuelan menace. (I wish I was kidding, but I’m not.)
Gingrich is number two because he too has been very willing to play the fear-mongering card, and is a true believer when it comes to neocon democratization and American exceptionalism rhetoric. He just wrote a book about American Exceptionalism.
The next four were more difficult for me and based more on hunch. I picked Bachmann number three, despite her protests against Obama’s Libya intervention, because I thought she might be more likely to feel we need to protect Israel for authentic religious reasons. Perry might also claim to believe we have a religious obligation to protect Israel, but I see Perry’s faith as less authentic than Bachmann’s. Perry being more of a self-interested pragmatist might think twice before plunging us into another war. But who was number three, Perry or Bachmann, was the most difficult decision for me. Number five I picked Cain. Cain has generally not had much to say about foreign policy and what he has said is pretty much boilerplate. Since he has had ample opportunity (columns, radio, campaign, etc.) to say a lot about foreign policy but hasn’t, I think it is safe to believe it isn’t a priority for him. Fiscal issues are his priority. So while his rhetoric is boilerplate, maybe he hasn’t quite bought into the fearful hysteria. Romney I rated last of the obvious interventionists because I see him as essentially a moderate by temperament and therefore more likely to act in a moderate and measured manner. I’ll have more to say about Romney’s awful foreign policy speech in a separate post.
The last three were also easy. Huntsman is deliberately trying to establish himself as a thoughtful realist, but as a realist he still has mainstream assumptions about America having an exaggerated role to play in the world so I put him between Romney and Johnson. Johnson is coming close to non-interventionism without being as clear cut an advocate as Ron Paul. And obviously Ron Paul is last as he is a clear advocate of non-interventionism.
“Freedom Lost” by Rev. Chuck Baldwin
“Herman Cain is the Uncle Tom of the Federal Reserve” by SARTRE at BATR
“EU Bond Rollover Debt with Chinese Bailout” by SARTRE also
“UMPC Taking Snit with Highmark out on Paitient?” by J.J Jackson
“American Exceptionalism is Exceptionally Bad” by Justin Raimondo
“The End of Pax Americana” by Pat Buchanan
“History’s Missed Moment” by Robert Kutterner
I sure there are many railing against ESPN for it’s political correctness in cashiering Hank Williams Jr.’s theme song to its Monday Night Football broadcasts after old Bocephus made a joke comparing President Obama to Hitler and said he was the “enemy”. Indeed it is, but would you all agree ESPN, being a private company, can have whatever music it wishes lead off MNF. And if you want to be mad, blame corporations like ESPN who brought the theories of political correctness from the Left fever-swamps of academia into the mainstream in their workplace manuals. Perhaps you can join those protesters on Wall St for that reason alone at least.
But what’s sad about the whole thing is that it was so needless. Williams didn’t have to saying anything about Obama and certainly did not need to. He chose to for whatever reason. Aside from the fact that when mama told you if you have nothing nice to say don’t say it all is usually a good piece of advice (nowadays it can cost you your job or your song on TV), Williams became a victim of Obama Obsession Disorder (OOD). He was sick with it.
Need a laugh? Watch this video of a leftist hive in action — or rather, inaction. A squirrely guy with a bullhorn directs the protest, and the hive repeats every word he says. That, combined with the endless finger waggling (no applauding allowed), creates an atmosphere of mindless uniformity, which is what these goons dream of.
These “Occupiers” are such rigid and doctrinaire egalitarians that they won’t let liberal Democrat John Lewis address the crowd because that would violate their democratic ideals — no one person should be honored above anyone else, you see. You don’t want to miss Lewis’ blanker-than-usual expression at 2:08 into the video as he strains to comprehend what’s going on. An instant classic!
I thought Mormons shunned alcohol and drugs. This statement from the Romney campaign makes me wonder what Mitt is smoking or drinking:
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney says he will offer a more assertive foreign policy than President Barack Obama, promising increased military spending, a strong deterrent against Iran and an investment in missile defense systems.
Uh, Mitt, have you noticed that WE’RE BROKE? And that the Bush/Obama wars are a major cause of our financial troubles? You haven’t noticed? Well, here’s Pat Buchanan serving up a healthy dose of reality:
We are going to have to reduce the benefits and raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. Cut and cap Great Society programs. Downsize the military, close bases and transfer to allies responsibility for their own defense. Or we are going to have to raise taxes—and not just on millionaires and billionaires, but Middle America.
And if our leaders cannot impose these sacrifices, the markets will, as we see in Europe, where the day of reckoning is at hand. Ours is next.
As Pat says, it’s time we started looking out for ourselves and letting the rest of the world look out for itself. Ending the Empire is something all conservatives should support. The most serious problems that conservatives face, from open borders, to deficit spending, to affirmative action, all stem from the central government’s pursuit of global empire, as explained here.
Liberty can only exist in a small, culturally based body politic, as countless examples from history and the daily news prove. Mitt Romney doesn’t get it; he thinks we should sacrifice even more to expand DC’s empire when our survival requires us to abandon the monster.
(Right click on the image and open it in a new window to see key and entire map.)
From a new report,”Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment“:
During the past two years the state of Texas has become increasingly threatened by the spread of Mexican cartel organized crime. The threat reflects a change in the strategic intent of the cartels to move their operations into the United States. In effect, the cartels seek to create a “sanitary zone” inside the Texas border — one county deep — that will provide sanctuary from Mexican law enforcement and, at the same time, enable the cartels to transform Texas’ border counties into narcotics transshipment points for continued transport and distribution into the continental United States. To achieve their objectives the cartels are relying increasingly on organized gangs to provide expendable and unaccountable manpower to do their dirty work. These gangs are recruited on the streets of Texas cities and inside Texas prisons by top-tier gangs who work in conjunction with the cartels.
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
It’s not like this has popped up overnight without warning. The central government long ago decided traditional America was an obstacle to its quest to globalize this country and achieve world hegemony. No wonder DC allied itself with groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to target those who oppose “abortion or immigration,” or any other item in DC’s radical agenda, as national security threats.
C’mon, people. Stop letting our handlers manipulate us into trashing our civil liberties in the name of swatting exaggerated threats. DC is the greatest threat to our freedom — a realization now shared by 49% of Americans. This is your wake-up call.
As HarrisonBergeron pointed out here at CHT and Jim Goad at TakiMag, the Wall Street protesters are either stupid or deceptive. These clowns are allegedly protesting Wall Street greed (which is understandable) but they somehow think that Obama (whose administration is teeming with former Goldman Sachs employees) is going to change things. Wasn’t it Clinton who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act and wasn’t it Obama who could have restored it but didn’t? Ignoring what Justin Raimondo has pointed out as the bankster issue (which is what should be central to these protests) or instead of going after the Goldman Sachs criminals (as suggested by Matt Taibbi), the protesters are off in dreamland making completely unrelated demands. It’s no wonder anti-Western internationalist George Soros sympathizes with them, since their demands won’t affect his cronyism but rather are the typical cafeteria plan of unrelated left-wing fantasies. Interestingly, some protesters are even demanding open borders. Do not these people understand basic economics, that a labor surplus drives down wages?
Dennis Mangan hits the nail on the head:
Those who may be tempted to sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations – possibly a fair number of readers – should take a look at a “proposed list of demands for Occupy Wall Street movement” (via Malcolm Pollack). A sampling:
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy. [emphasis added]
Like radical environmentalists – green on the outside, red within – Occupy Wall Street has another agenda than the one they say they have. Ostensibly protesting Wall Street’s unreasonable influence with the government, a position even Ron Paul supporters could get behind, what they’re really after is the full slate of leftist demands. If these people really wanted jobs, they would demand that open borders, which we essentially already have, should be stopped. But it appears that the elementary notion of supply and demand is lost on them. Those expensive college degrees were even more worthless than they thought.
An anomaly of Occupy Wall Street is that its demands are congruent with Wall Street itself: privatize profits, socialize losses. The sign that was held by one protester has already become iconic:
At 21 years old, I am…
-One semester from graduating college with a degree no one seems to hire
-In massive debt because of that once “dream degree”
-About to become a mother to a baby whose illness has gotten us booted off government health insurance…at 9 months pregnant…
-Scared for our future
-I am the 99%
One can assume that if this woman had real prospects in the job market, she would be more than willing to keep the added income for herself, but since she faces a dire future, she wants the rest of us to help her out of her problems. Since she’s about to have a baby, won’t her husband support the family? But of course she probably doesn’t have one, and wants her fellow Americans to support her bad life decisions. What was that degree in anyway? Women’s Studies? Educational Leadership?
I believe that since interventionist premises about America’s role in the world are taken for granted by the establishment and mainstream (left, right, center, neocon, realist, or whatever), it can be safely assumed that any candidate shares them unless there is positive evidence otherwise. Meaning that there are not likely to been any stealth non-interventionist candidates. If they are a non-interventionist we will already know it. There might be stealth realist candidates and ones more or less likely to do something completely foolish, but that is the best we can hope for. For example, when people were speculating about where Cain stood on foreign policy because he hadn’t said much about it, I assumed he was an interventionist because I had no evidence he was not. Ditto with Perry before his foreign policy coming out speech.
That said, I do think it is possible to make educated guesses about just how hawkish a candidate is likely to govern based on subtleties of rhetoric and analysis of their temperament and governing style. So to test my theory, let’s play a game. Rank order the nine “major” announced candidates by their likelihood to plunge us in to war with Iran or some other evil state of the month. I want to see if there is broad agreement on differentiating the interventionists among themselves.
In descending order:
1. Rick Santorum
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Michelle Bachmann
4. Rick Perry
5. Herman Cain
6. Mitt Romney
7. John Huntsman
8. Gary Johnson
9. Ron Paul
1 and 2 were easy and 7, 8 and 9 were easy. 3 through 6 were harder.
This post was prompted by this post by Daniel Larison.
Here is a CATO article by Julian Sanchez on the al-Awlaki killing which we have already beaten to death. I link to it here because it has a very perceptive discussion on the issue of blowback.
First, over the last decade we have been repeatedly told by foreign policy hawks that it is foolish, and even borderline offensive, to suggest that aggressive U.S. action abroad may have the counterproductive and unintended consequence of swelling the ranks of terror groups. When evaluating the wisdom of drone strikes or invasions of other countries, we need not even factor in the downside risk of “blowback” stemming from such actions, because “they hate us for our freedoms.” In other words, radical Islamist terrorists are fundamentally motivated by a vision of a global caliphate, not by any grievances stemming from real or perceived injuries inflicted by U.S. policy. I think of this as the “No Marginal Terrorist” Theory, because it posits that people are motivated to join terror groups strictly for reasons connected with either personal psychology or theology, such that reactions to specific U.S. actions never make the difference at the margin.
At the same time—and often by the same people—we are told that Anwar al-Awlaki posed a grave threat to the United States, not so much because of any particular logistical genius he possessed, but because he was so dangerously effective as a recruiter and propagandist who could inspire people already living in the West to jihad. Surely, then, it’s relevant to inquire into the nature of this lethally effective propaganda. Here is an excerpt from what The Guardian calls one of ”his most direct, English-language statements endorsing terror attacks on Americans”:
With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim….
To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters?
Possibly al-Awlaki is just a sort of Salafist James Earl Jones, and the sheer hypnotic beauty of his voice is what compels people to sacrifice their lives for him, without regard to the specific contents of his sermons. Still, it seems to be a problem for the No Marginal Terrorist Theory if a propagandist who was believed to be uniquely effective at motivating people to become terrorists used rhetoric like this to do it.
The “No Marginal Terrorist Theory.” I like that. I would just add that the interventionist hysterics do not just suggest that discussing blowback is “borderline offensive.” Many suggest it is evidence of America hating at best and treason (a capital offense) at worst.