Showing posts with label Pat Buchanan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pat Buchanan. Show all posts

Thursday, February 4, 2010

The Return of "The White Man's Burden"?


Are we a nation or a charity?

How many millions in free health care for Hitians (esp. those brought to south Florida hospitals has the American tax payer ponied up w/o even being asked? Half of America is on acid, they don't realize we are the world debtors nation & want us to give Afruca a 100 billion for "climate change" last month & now want us to become hopeless Haiti's baby sister, China doesn't act like this they aren't occupying 3 nations & spending billions on foreigners nor throwing away their economy w/ Cap & Trade nonsense, they arent paying a billion to give KSM a 5 year trial for a crime he already confessed to. I feel that a imposter has gotten ahold of our treasury (not to mention our justice department and all the rest).

China, detestable as the regime is in certain respects (it is just like a mob family), operates in all the good ways that American Presidents and diplomats sued to until the yuppies came along (hitting a zenith with Obama).

-When Africa tries to so obviously use "climate change" alarmism as a mere means of blackmailing money and aid out of the guilty white west, and Ethipoian delegates say that their willing to settle for a 100 billion up front in increasing payments for the next 50 years (from America primarily) for the purpose of helping Africa "cope with climate change" whatever that means, American diplomats just 20 years ago would've laughed the African global welfare hucksters out of the room. "'I will settle for a 100 billion up front' Who the fuck do these African primitivest ake us for Zulu's?'" George Kennan and Oliver North would joke had they been in power now. Ofcourse neither nor patriots like North and Kennan are anywhere close to the Obama adminstration and George Kennan and other statesmen unafraid of saying "America First" are long gone, replaced by namby pampy liberals with degrees in Multicultural Studies and Oppression Studies from Weslyan and Brown, literal, pussies who bow down to African dicators to quell their third world hard ons. They where only too happy to shovel the American tax payers money into the money bags of the Robert Mugabe's and General Gaddafi's of Africa. The whole continent is terminally corrupted and it's a waste of time to even try to help these goverments (outside preventing epdimics), the whole contient is cursed with misgoverment or so it has been since the end of colonial rule on the contient. I now see where the Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's we Americans nknow and hate so well got their roots for these Africans are even better hucksters and shakedown artists and ehortationists than they are. The African delegates at the sinister Coopnhegan Climate Summit just started to collectivly shourt, repeating some African tribal phrase or whatnot again and again like barabarians at the gates. Their refrain probably translates roughly to, "DON'T FORGOT ABOUT AFRICA! DON'T FORGET ABOUT AFRICA!". The African poliical huckster has usually been educated in Europe for a little and knows how to push all the liberals buttons to make them reach for their nations collective wallots. They guilt weak chinned European liberals (and now American weak chinned liberals too!!) by saying that "you, in the west, have forgotten us and neglected us". Aren't tehy embarrsed to talk to their colonial owners-France England, Belgium, etc,-like they are, literrally, the children of the white europeans that white europeans all once thought if them as-children (as far as civilization was concerned). The great benefactors and enthusaists of Gilded Age imperialism-Teddy Roosevelt, Cecil Rhodes, the BOer leader Peter Krueger, etc. all shared atleast one general belief in common which was that Africans (among other "Mongogreloid" races) simply weren't equipt to govern themselves without descending into their natural state of anarchy, chaos and barabarism. But now it almosy seems as if this sadly determivistic view of Africa (which would obviously apply to African extracts like Haiti and Jamaica too) is some-what true. Haiti would be better off had Canada been running the nation for 50 years,and most all of Africa would be dramaticly worse off had European colonalism never come to what was a savage jungle and brought with them civilization (trains planes, automoblies, mickey mouse, offefe, magazines, the printed word, shoes, and all the 800 thousand things that certainly weren't invinted in Africa.

I mean what do the Haitians look like right now? they look like the black New Orlenians, like children screaming for help from their parents, who can make all their troubles go away and give them aide and shelter and food again and again and again forever. Yet it does no good. Its not our fault that Africans, in general, around the world, elect hucksters and con-artists to reprsent themselves in goverment posts. Just imagine a contient so full of corruption that the slimy, racist, anti-white, black Power, would-be-warlord, South African President, Jacob Zuma (read Peter Hitchens profile of Zuma in the American Conservative). Barring the discovery of some phenominally fought over rescource on the African contient, it seems to me that Africa will, no matter how you may or may not like it, be the poorest contient on earth. We have to come to terms with the facts of the matter. Their is no "Blank Slate" Steven Pinker showed that years ago. Africa doesn't have to be such a hell hole. It can be better than it is but it will never in my estmiation. Same goes with the black-white education/achievment gap which just won't go away no matter how much money the left pours into the task, how maany tests they make easier to leseen the test score gap and all the other outragous liberal schemes to thrawt honest hard working whites because their white.

It seems we haven't escaped the era of the "White Man's Burden", have we now? Just look out the national window to Haiti where platoons of American white do-gooders race into the nation. We saw the same mobilization in New Orleans after Katrina, Iran after their earthquake and after the Tsumani in the mid-2000's that wracked so much hof poly-Asia. This is a product of being too wealthy for too long perhaps. Americans (and I mean white Americans by "Americans") have 1. grown to take their/our huge post-WW2 wealth for granted almost as a constant that will continue as it has automaticly forever and 2. They have devolped a masochist, anti-white, self-hating, third world fetishizing pathology that makes them disdain even the suggestion of acting on grounds of national intrests.

Witness the terribly inept American anti-war movement that was led by the left (to the movement eventual downfalll). These self hating old hippy leftists that took the reigns of the anti-war movement (enter George Galloway) where so fucked up with their own "White Man's Burdens" issues that they couldn't even manage to argue against the war(s) in Iraq and Afganistan on grounds of national intrest (seemingly ever). In shunning self intrest & national intrest (as the idiot internationalists these liberal types are) they discarded the best arguments(s) against the Iraq (and Afgan) war(s) a crucial error which posssibly lead to the failure of what could've been a succeful movement had patriots from the Buchanan wing of the GOP lead the anti-war movement instead. But rather than argue that "I troops are heroes and thats just the point, its not worth shedding our best and brightestst, our blood and treasure in conflicts that have little to do with our national security at all. If we want to stop the next 9/11 we must secure our borders and ports and airports and fix our broken Immigration Units. Doing that would not only be a 1000 times cheaper and more effective in protecting us than a war in Iraq it would save us billions in other areas. And then again, why are we having our boys fighting and die and loose limbs and why are we spending billions we don't have on wars for people who , atelast in Iraq, hate us. !9 year old American young men should not be arriving home with out their legs just to help build a nation of people who spit upon his effort and our nation and all that we've done for the Iraqi's. We deposed of their dictator, spent trillions rebuilding their society setting gup the first arab democracy in the region. I think we've give more than enough of our blood and treasure on Iraq, this was a war of charity, we owe them nothing, if anything, the Iraqi's owe us!"

But instead of making fiery, logical, populist, patriotic arguments of national intrest in favor of withdrawl from Iraq the potheads at MoveOn.org, the Cindy Sheehans and Code Pink's and the rest of their ilk made anti-American arguments against the war that accused our President of deceit, conspiracy to make his friends rich, war crimes, they painted and someimes even called our soldiers murderers making them out to be sadistic cowboys running around Bagdad killing little brown people for fun. They threw red/pink paint on veterans and generals on the hill to symbolize "the blood on thir hands". They accused Donalds Rumsfield and the whole goverment of war crimes and rambled about half baked leftist conspiracy theories about Haliburton, the Caryllyle Group, Exxon Mobile, putting Bush and Cheney in office to bring the nation to war and increase their profits. Micheal Moore's shameful documentary film, "Farhenheit 9/11" asserted that the CIA had trained and created Osama Bin Laden, training Bin Laden at exactly the tactics he would use against America on September 11th, 2001. In truth, the CIA had a tenous indirect relationship with Osama and Osama got most of his funding from his brother Salem and his uber-wealthly Saudi cla though he did fight alongside the Mujohaiden who the US did fund to fight the Soviet invaders inAfganistan. Also, the CIA never trained Bin Laden least of all would they have treained him or any other Afgan freedom fighter how to ram airliners into sky scrapers considering their were not such sky scrapers to ram 747's into in Kabul at the time (or today probably too). This isn't the only such blatantly fallacious claim made by Moore and inturn made by his army of folowers in the course of the entire decade of the aughts. The most outragous perhaps is the claim that we went to war in Afganistan to build a pipeline which funnily enough has never been built still as of 2010.
Again, rather than saying "Bush went o war in Afganistan to build a pipeline" point out that we ran off to war in Afganistan with no long term gameplan or any conception of what the endgame was there. We were pissed off after 9/11 and ran off too war in a mindless rage not thinking off the long term at all. It would have been approbarite to go in and atleast shock and awe the Taliban into learning a lesson about who not to host (e.g. Al Quada). Thats what we should have done and then left within a year or two. rather than getting bogged down in a pointless occupation. We should've realized that we couldn't stay there forever and make sure Al-Quada didn't come back. We didn't have the money nor the will to do so. And the war was futile in that all that we did really was focre a nomadic inclined people to move into either Pakistan or someother Islamic country like Yemen where Al-Quada set up shop. We have to realize that Al-Quada is not a nation but a franchise that is scattered and has bases in Yemen, Jakarta, East Timor, Nigeria, Syria, and many more places (including probably the US) where we can war at all at once. We can't occupy Yemen and Nigeria and Syria and Afganistan and Pakistan all at once. But we can secure our borders and ports, and tighten the screenin process for deciding which muslims are allowe dto entire the United States and we can do all that for much cheaper".

This is basically, as I said before, the Buchananite Old Right paleocon arguments against the war and the American people would've had no trouble embarcing them. Because just like Pat Buchanan himself, we who opposed the wars on the right we're known to be patriots. With Buchanan you didn't have to wonder if he was using the anti-war movement as a front for his anti-americanism or anti-capttilist crusade. Americans didnt want to embrace anti-american demogauges and other forms of hucksters that made up so much of the anti-war movement like Jesse Jackson, George Galloway or Tim Robins.

Friday, January 15, 2010

The Republican Party of John McCain vs. The GOP of Michael Savage


There are two Republican Parties. There is John McCain and George W. Bush and Sara Palin's GOP and then there is Pat Buchanan and Peter Schiff and Michael Savage's GOP. The overwhelming majority of Republican voters and the majority of real Americans (aka Patriots) agree with and want to vote for Buchanan & Savage's GOP. Though some of them will settle for voting (without enthusiam) for McCain & Bush's GOP if thats all there are again allowed to vote for. What's the difference between the two? Conventional (liberal) wisdom holds that the GOP of George Bush and John McCain is "acceptable" and "moderate" and "reasonable" (meaning they will help vote for liberal bills & are PC) while the GOP of Buchanan and Savage is "extremist" and "far right", not to mention "racist" (meaning: they won't help the Democrats pass amnesty or single payer health care and don't like PC lies or racial quotas).
We all have incessantly heard liberals who haven't spent a moment in there lives ever thinking about whats good for the GOP offering there own disgenous bogus prescriptions to the Republican Party in the months since McCain's defeat. These liberals unsolicited advise to the GOP is almost always the same, each resembling, more or less the following each time: the Republicans are "too right wing" and they need "to move to the center" or they will be totally creamed by the Obama adminstration and be in the wilderness for decades to come. Ofcourse anyone with a iota of sense can see right through this manifestly dishonest meme. All one needs to ask in order to asseses the merits of this arguments which rests on the assertion that the GOP is "so right wing" is ask who the GOP nominated for President in 2008 (or 2000 & 2004 aswell). McCain is so un-right wing that John Kerry offered him the slot of VP nominee in 2004.
The term "move to the center" implies a parties move towards the views of the majority whilst going to the "far right" implies the GOP adopting increasingly unpopular fringe positions that few Americans share. The irony is that when the GOP moves to the "center" and becomes more McCain-like the GOP is, in fact, moving a way from the majority/mainstream and adopting policys increasingly unpopular with the public. When and if the GOP, atleast as of now, were to move to the "right" to the more Buchanan-Savage side of the party, it would be moving towards the majority and adopting the populous views more by doing so. The "moderate" center-right Republican Party of McCain is unappealing to most Americans and Republicans alike. The GOP of McCain has, first of all, a incredibly unpopular foreign policy that is outdated. This policy which the party is gradually shedding, slowly but surely, is basically a position of default hawkishness, it means, that these Republicans (like McCain) disregard changes in the wars abroad and stubbornly, unthinkingly, in order partly to not contradict themselves or the Bush Doctrine, just take up the most hawkish position on Afganistan and Iraq. This means they want to stay longer in both, Iraq and Afganistan and will only critique the Obama adminstration on grounds of being to dovish in these 2 decade long wars of charity. They will vote to extend these endless war as long as possible and critique Obama for leaving to early when and if he does (almost no matter when Obama does do so). These are the types like McCain and Bush who have no actually conserative principles outside economics and who have abandon national intrest usually to show how moralstic and idealist they are. They want a world democratic revoultion and want the US to act like a dream UN as world policeman and nanny.
These default hawks have almost no fans outside Norman Podhoretz and his crew especially outside the population of the District of Columbia & New York City. Right now, the GOP's actual grass roots voters are the most vocal critiques of staying in these 2 wars of choice that have nothing to do with our national intrest (and which we have no more trillions to fight). In fact, the overwhelming majority of the country, left and right, black and white, agrees that we should leave these 2 wars behind now and focus on our own affairs. They have, as of now, no party voicing there national intrest foreign policy views. However if the Buchanans and Schiff's and Savages can capture there party, the majority will have a party reprsenting it on foreign policy. Notice that these Republicans, Schiff, Buchanan, Savage, the national intrest conservatives, are the most popular among Americans & Republicans both, they attract far far broader audiences and fans than the average Sean Hannity or McCain espousing the views of the McCain-esque PC neocons. The truth is that Micheal Savage has more popular policy views than Glenn Beck or Sara Palin, same with Schiff & Buchanan.
The Palin's, McCain's and Bush's are really more like poltical careerists than genuine conservatives who didn't go into poltics out of concerns about the path America was on or because of there deeply held ideas but, generally because of more vain and person reasons-using poltics for therapy or as a vechile for achieving notiriety, fame or riches (e.g. Palin resigns from the governship to host her own FOX show). In Bush jr.'s case he ran for governor of Texas, in part, to avenge his repuatation within the Bush clan as the families unserious, acholic, "black sheep" aswell as to partially prove himself against his fathers famous achievments. With McCain, another son of a famous public servant, you get a similiar motivatation for entering poltics to the drive to match or exceed the promimence of his famous father, the head of the navy during Vietnam, Admiral McCain. Ofcourse, McCain surely was inspired by his patriotism but he seems not to have many well thought out ideas, or a rigorous mind but seems to have seen poltics as a good career path as a handsome returning war hero and the well-connected son of a very influential and famous military leader. Plus McCain, atleast for awhile in recent years was obbosed with not jeoperdazing his de facto position as the liberal media's favriote Republican (by doing things like voting against amnesty) and this fixation was patheticly confirmed in 2008 when it was revealed that McCain not only watched not FOX news but Keith Oblerman each night and was all torn up inside when he didn't meet Oblerman liking. Report after report from McCain campiagn leaders (such as Charlie Black) desribes McCain being driven up the wall when Oblerman, Maddow and the rest of the leftist pundit class stopped liking him, this revealing/confirming much about why McCain was/is in poltics in the first place. Sara Palin shows how much she cares about actual poltical ideas by how little she discusses them instead everytime she seems to open her mouth prefering to act like a feuding school girl devoting pretty much her whole book as well as most all of her interviews to pursuing bitter vendettas she has with Katie Couric (for asking her what she read) , "the elites" and ofcourse the "media" all of whom tricked the nation into doubting her qualifications according to her. One must realize that its not as hard as it to become governor of Alaska as it is to become governor of most every other state in the Union (its about 50X harder in Illinois for instance). She started out as a PTA mom, then small town mayor and then somehow governor, she basically a PTA mom today still, her intrests are extremly narrow (all she talks about at her own will is 1. how misunderstood Alaskians (so she claims) 2. autism 3. drilling for oil in Alaska and 4. What a "maverick" John McCain is. Basically like most women she is much more focused on the things immediately in front of her: Alaska's oil, Tripp's autism, Alaska, and little else at all. Basically, Sara Palin is a featherweight compared to Pat Buchanan or Michael Savage or Peter Schiff. Her mind isn't close to being on the same level as them, she can hardly articulate her argument, knows very little, sounds provincial and uninformed, and hardly has many concrete well thought views and arguments. Maybe she didn't enter poltics for vain or personal reasons but, no matter how genuine her intrests, she is simply not meant for a national stage she could only have gotten to the governership in such a small and idioscratic state as Alaska.
These types will change positions on amnesty and affirmtive action just because a Rovian pollster says it will win them the latino vote (perhaps less with Palin) and they all have little quarrels with going by the dishonest PC conventions instead saying the truth like say Buchanan, Savage and Schiff. The reason these 3 are honest is in part because there not polticians but that doesn't mean they or some like them would fail in politics, quite the contary. The McCains are under the illusion that they can win the latino vote if they just pander to latinos and vote for Amensty. Ofcourse, latinos will still vote Democratic no matter what as they have shown. They would rather vote for free health care than to ban gay marriage.
Perhaps the most extremly unpopular positions the McCain Republicans have is in the areas of immigration, racial preferences, spending and education.

1. There for amnesty & do nothing about the border or sanctuary citys and are for free health care, education, scholarships and welfare for illegals. The overwhelming majority of Americans are vehemently against this.

2. They also don't take a stand against continued mass immigration despite the fact that over 80% of Americans say they don't want anymore mass immigration since 17 mill. of us are out of work.

3. They share the lefts penchant for affirmtive action, racial quotas, dispirate law and bogus discimination lawsuites like Ricci v. DeStefano, which again the majority of the nation hates (minus minoritys). This especially like 1 and 2 alienates and losses white Republican voters.

4. Spending: they vote "yes" to more useless wars in the middle east and vote "no" to providing health care to laid off GM assembly line workers. In other words, they are fiscally conservative and considered with the huge debt when it comes to domestic issues yet abandon those principles utterly when it comes to foreign policy. This is extremly unpopular and also the best argument/case the left has against Republicans in 2010 & 2012 elections. It debases the domestic arguments Republicans are making about health care, the debt and so fourth and makes it seem like the GOP is, as the left claims, is just knee-jerkly opposing everything for purely poltical reasons.

5. They support "No Child Left Behind", a incredibly idiotic policy which is unpopular for many reasons on both the right and the left. Conservatives hate it cause 1. it has absurd PC goals about how everyone is equal in ability and 2. it increases the massively disportionate amount of money that is being spent on the very worst students (whilst less than 10% of education $ go to the most gifted students which is most important for our future). 3. It involves the federal Goverment in education like never before. 4. cause much cheating by public teachers. On the left they basically hate "No Child Left Behind" because it imposes standards on public schools and there teachers and liberals want teachers to grade themselves instead of having tests as standards (so that the failure of public schools can be covered up).

6. As far as counter-terrorism, ironically "the hawks" are sacrfices poltical correctness for security. They are against waterboarding and logical profiling at airports. Most everyone in the U.S. outside those who the Rachel Maddow's who graduated from Brown Unviersity with a degree in calling people racists, agree that 7 year old blonde little girls should not be checked as much as 28 year old Nigerian muslims.

The Buchananite Republicans have the opposite position on all 5 of these, meaning that they have the consesus view on all 5. Simply put they like a majority of Americans want (the following),

1. An immediate end to both wars in the middle east which we can't afford and aren't in our intrests to fight for another decade. We can protect our selves in a much more cheap way by A. securing our borders (which let 14 of the 19 9/11 hijackers in) B. increasing port security C. fixing immigration department D. ending sancutuary cities and E. decreasing Muslim immigration greatly/only letting in known moderate muslims (that we need).

2. An end to anti-white legal discrimination aka affirmtive action, quotas and the like.

3. An end to absurd discrimination dispirate impact law suites like Vulcan Society v. New York or Ricci v. DeStefano.

4. Spend the amount we spend funding the Iraq and Afgan wars in a month and a half and secure our borders forever with a hi-tech barrier. Build it as a public works project that would employ thousands and which would pay for itself in 2 years and then save America billions every year hence fourth in the tax dollars we won't have to give away to the millions of illegal immigrants (in free edu., healthcare, etc.) who would be stopped from entering the US as a result of the border. This would lower crime, raise wages, lower class size, etc.

5. Deport all illegal aliens in jail and save billions of dolllars inturn.

6. Have a state trooper stationed in every emergence room in America verifying citizenship and arresting illegal immigrants (granted they don't need urgent life or death care). Get rid of law which requires hospitals to give illegals all the medical care they want and demand (which has bankrupted hundreds of hospitals and raises rationing and costs and hospital waits).

7. No more tax dollars should be going to illegals in free education, scholarships, welfare or non-emergency health care.

8. End the era of "sanctuary cities", unleash I.C.E. to do its job and finally go after illegal immigrants who are allowed now to lounge in front of police with no fear of being caught. Empower all law enforcment officials to ask people if they are citizens or not and to check if they are arrest illegals.

9. Implement rational religous/ethnic profiling at airports in order to lower risks of next attack. Also, empower CIA and FBI to wiretap radical mosques within US. Finally, ban all imams from operating and recruiting inmates in all prisons (thousands of convicts are being radicalized in jails as a result each month).

10. End "No Child Left Behind". Devote more rescources to bright students. Implement vouchers and open up citys to charter schools as a way of inducing compeitition that will lead to better results and more creative thinking and effort among school adminstators.

11. Stop giving out billions of dollars in foreign aid to almost every nation on earth when we are so deep in debt.

12. Get out of NAFTA, which Ross Perot and Buchanan correctly predicted would lead to the outsourcing of US jobs.

13. Don't impose a carbon tax that will A. raise energy prices and prices in general for Americans B. be the biggest tax in US history at a time of high unemployment none the less C. hardly cut any carbon (which will be canceled out by China easily) and will have no effect on the climate cycle D. and will certainly have the effect of forcing companies, who won't be able to afford doing business in the US (which already has the highest corporate tax on earth) and will move and take millions of jobs with them increasing unemployment and E. thrwating any chance of real economic growth.

14. Don't give Africa and its many corrupt sinister leaders over a 100 billion dollars to "prepare for global warming" (the meaning of which isn't clear) especially when we have no money.

15. Build new firehouses in Boston, Massuchessutes not Basra, Iraq.