In it, they explain that nothing will change in America's policy around the world -- we will continue to attempt to militarily prop up our crumbling globalist empire, after so much success on that project in Iraq and Afghanistan, which now belong to Iran and the Taliban, respectively. However, we will officially drop the narrative rationalization that our goals are to spread democracy, free markets, human rights, and all-American values around the world for the benefit of other countries. We are officially only going to pursue our own interests with whoever aligns with us -- is that what you damned nationalists wanted to hear?
This shameless attempt to drop the disguise while maintaining the ugly substance underneath is meant to appeal to Americans whose main gripe is that they have to hear a bunch of altruistic multicultural BS about the need to spread American values and institutions overseas. Re-frame it as a naked pursuit of self-interest, and maybe they'll accept the same old policies that have flushed this country down the toilet.
And to be sure, there are plenty of Americans, even some Trump voters, who are mostly focused on the quality of political rhetoric and theatre. They just want to stop having to listen to all that airy-fairy crap about our duty toward other nations. They will accept Jeb Bush's policies, as long as they are packaged and performed in the persona and style a la Trump.
In fairness, if it does prove impossible to change the outcomes, we might as well enjoy a relief from the multicultural propaganda employed to justify the policies. Still, that's not what we voted for -- to continue the same practice, now with a less annoying theory to justify it.
In fact most Americans are turned off by political theatre altogether, and are only interested in "Is anything in the fundamentals going to change for the better?" Certainly the handful of swing voters across the Rust Belt states that decided the election did not decide to roll the dice on Trump in the hopes of getting to consume more palatable political entertainment. They voted on substance, not on presentation.
If anything, these Midwestern voters don't care at all for the brash no-BS New York persona. Giving them globalist policies they don't want, in a crudely self-interested presentation they abhor, will alienate them, not bring them closer to the GOP. They were hoping for Trump's policies with Kasich's presentation, not the other way around.
Conservatives especially ought to be wary, after so many arguments trying to sell the degenerate status quo as secretly conservative. "The conservative case for gay marriage" -- OK, so we'll stop pretending that gays care anything about monogamy, or raising children without molesting them or pimping them out to pedophiles and kiddie pornographers. We've gotten your feedback on that -- not buying it. OK, well hear us out on this new one -- unless we adopt gay marriage, we will lose elections, and that will prevent us from implementing the rest of our agenda. Isn't Paris worth a Mass?
In reality, these arguments have always turned out to be selling the audience a bill of goods. Adopting gay marriage was not about allowing Republicans to win elections in order to pass other, actually-conservative policies, which they never get around to. It was just Republicans caving in to liberal movements -- or already being supportive of those movements to begin with, and cynically branding themselves as conservative champions in order to get votes.
And in the case of trying to re-brand wide-ranging interventionism as self-interested and nationalist rather than altruistic and globalist, we've already been there once before -- under the Clinton administration, who were worried that in a still semi-conservative climate, they would be targeted as liberal internationalist do-gooders, and made the effort to brand themselves as calculating self-interested realists.
From an NYT article in 1993 ("U.S. Narrows Terms for Its Peacekeepers"):
Reflecting widespread anxiety within the Administration over open-ended peacekeeping missions in Somalia and Bosnia, the Administration is defining new limits for a future role in United Nations operations, senior Administration officials said today.
The evolving policy would require justifying involvement in terms of United States national interests and would limit situations in which American troops would serve under United Nations command, the officials added. ...
"It was not enough to say that the United States might be involved in future United Nations operations," said one senior Administration official. "We have to define what type of operation, and whether it would be something the United States has an interest in, or will only succeed if the United States leads." ...
Now the Administration seems intent on describing the limits of multilateralism rather than extolling its virtues.
[Sec State Warren] Christopher touched on the theme in a speech in New York on Monday, saying multilateralism "is warranted only when it serves the central purpose of American foreign policy, to protect American interests."
"This country will never subcontract its foreign policy to another power or another person," he said.
Less than two weeks after that article, the US fought the Battle of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) -- in that utmost of regions necessary for America to control, Somalia. Pure calculating national-interest at work. Then it was on to "blood for no oil" in the Iraq War (credit to Greg Cochran).
But now, thank God, we've finally started to get rational and self-interested. And what better way to promote our national interests than by marching toward Iran, who has never attacked us, as we provide hundreds of billions worth of weapons to Jihad University, sometimes referred to as Saudi Arabia. Hopefully this time, the jihadists won't wind up attacking their patrons in America like they did on September 11th.
I know that among the right-wing crowd (both your alt-right twitter and r/The_Donald crowd, your /pol/ crowd, your Breitbart readers and listeners, etc.) it's big to portray the leftists -- the Antifa, SJW, trust fund commies and the like -- as a grave threat to America. But while I don't like them, the more I read your posts, the more fawning (or disappointed tsk tsking I see that he's "stooped to Trump's level") for guys like McMaster, the more I see arm-twisted Syrian airstrikes and Saudi arms deals and a continuation of failed Neo Cold War geopolitics. The more I see of all of it the more convinced I become by the day that the neocons are truly the biggest threat to not only America but to pretty much any region of the globe that catches their attention. While the lefties might be letting in the jihadist Cultural Enrichers, it's the neocons and their psychotically failed policies that unleashed them first on the Middle East and then the world at large. Everywhere some adherent of Irving Kristol's Glorious Ideology that managed to crawled their way from the gaping Hell maws of the AEI, PNAC, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. has turned their eye too, the only end result is rubble, lost Middle Eastern and American lives and nothing to show for it on the part of the United States.ReplyDelete
Neo-cons are open borders people, too, it's not just the Lefties. Just look at the Muslim ban -- where was General Mattis or General Kelly to marshal their troops in defense of the nation's borders, to help enforce that exec order of the Commander-in-Chief?ReplyDelete
They're multiculturalists and jihadist-enablers, so they'll never be on board with tight borders, deportations, and the like.
I don't think many nationalists see the link between imperialism and open borders -- the whole point is that the imperialists see "the borders" as the furthest extent of the core nation's sphere of influence, occupation, conquest, etc.
They don't think in terms of the core nation itself -- how narrow and small-minded! They're thinking in terms of the great big globalist empire they're in charge of managing. The core nation is just a piece of that larger machine, albeit the primary piece, but not a piece that can be disconnected from the others.
Look at how many foreign groups settled Italy and Rome during the Roman Empire -- all sorts of Mediterranean groups, plus Germanic groups after a time. As long as they obeyed Roman laws within Roman imperial territory, they were A-OK with the elites.
Empire creates a multinational identity, even for the core nation that sees itself as the leaders of a sprawling system encompassing all sorts of exotic yet fellow-imperial subjects.
It is nationalism, rather than imperialism, that makes people want to tighten up their borders.
"I don't think many nationalists see the link between imperialism and open borders -- the whole point is that the imperialists see "the borders" as the furthest extent of the core nation's sphere of influence, occupation, conquest, etc."Delete
That doesn't make much sense. There's no inherent connection between "we should occupy/boss around weaker lands and loot whatever we please" and "we should dissolve our borders and eliminate the very population that makes our empire possible". Certainly the British Empire didn't throw open its borders when it actually was in the business of occupation. No-borders is a guaranteed recipe for destroying an empire, as none can stand without a core population. If multiculturalists succeeded in obiliterating white people all their power and wealth would vanish overnight in favor of various flavors of warlord/gang leader.
Yes indeed. I noticed even Laura Ingraham use the term "conservative populism" as the new rebranding technique for the talk radio listeners to get accustomed to.
Also, yes, the (((neo cons))) are in fact leftist to the core. We should really call them pro war liberals in republican clothing. Watch any segment with (((Krauthammer))) and the like. Its always about foreign policy and how Trump appears from their pro war leftist multicult worldview. Boomers are incapable of noticing their pockets being picked while this occurs.
"No-borders is a guaranteed recipe for destroying an empire, as none can stand without a core population."ReplyDelete
America had no-borders during its expansionist imperial phase, culminating in the Gilded Age and turn-of-the-century. The Ellis Island people, right up through the early '20s -- millions and millions of them, with no connection to core historical America.
Even today, how many Italian-Americans or Hungarian-Americans take Thanksgiving seriously as it relates to American history, rather than some generic family holiday?
There was also no-borders regarding African slaves, who were brought over by the millions. I don't think they identify much with the Pilgrims and Indians stories either.
And Britain did indeed have open borders during its imperial stage -- it was simply too onerous for its subjects to make the voyage, lying half-way around the world and being dirt-poor to boot.
Except for those who could, like the native elites -- who were most definitely educated and enculturated at Oxford and Cambridge. To refuse them entry at all, and even to refuse them entry into elite institutions, would have put a damper on the administration of the empire in their native lands.
Your racial focus is what's obscuring things, since most empires were not trans-continental enough to include starkly different races.ReplyDelete
The Romans had synagogues throughout Rome during its imperial stage, and the Germanic tribes readily migrated into and settled the Italian peninsula.
Since what we think of as "immigrants" are economic migrants, and since they're a kind of second-class resident and quasi-slave, just look at the history of slaves.
Every empire trucked in hordes and hordes of slaves from its colonies -- Balkans and Caucasians of various types into the Ottoman core, sub-Saharan Africans into Arabia, and on and on.
You're under the impression that administrators of a vast, and therefore multicultural, empire would be in a racist mindset vis-a-vis their conquered subjects. Just the opposite: they want to crush them militarily, but then extract tribute from them, have their soldiers serve on behalf of the conquering power, allow access to resources for extraction, send their young babes to the core nation as brides, etc.
Administering a sprawling empire, which will necessarily be multicultural, requires you to tolerate the other groups, so long as they remain compliant client states. Otherwise they'll resent your air of superiority or outright racism, and be in constant revolt against you -- you want them pacified and stable, so that extraction of goodies from their society flows as smoothly as possible.
Eerie the similarities between Corbyn and Trump... Just learned that despite his surging, he's quite unpopular, more unpopular than May, and even with numbers similar to Trump. But like Trump, he has a critical core of support. He is challenging and may even win despite being more "unpopular".ReplyDelete
Keeping an eye on this one. Suggests that Trumps unpopularity may have little to do with his unique personality after all.
Because I think a Corbyn win could hurt our Deep State which is hurting our Trump, I am enthusiastically supporting Corbyn.
Hard to know who to root for in Britain, without following along much.ReplyDelete
I do know that May was Home Secretary when the Libyan jihadists who blew up the Manchester concert were allowed to go to Libya in order to overthrow Qaddafi. They may have even been helped along by British Deep State.
So like our Pentagon-controlled Republican party that is responsible for the Mujahideen, al-Qaeda, and now ISIS, May's Conservative party seems to have more blood on its hands thanks to blowback from jihadists they encouraged.
In general, though, Theresa May is Mike Pence in a skirt and heels.
We're going to see what would have happened if our election had been Bernie vs. Jeb. I definitely would have voted for Bernie, so my gut is to favor Corbyn. "But he'll open the borders to radical Muslims!" -- just like Theresa May.
I wonder if Britain's Labour party is controlled by the big banks like the Democrats here are controlled by Wall Street. In other words, if Bernie had won, he would've gotten boarded by Wall Street just like Obama did -- only worse, in the same way Trump got boarded by the Pentagon for challenging their fundamental worldview.
Hard to know from afar. We'll see.
If UKIP voters are breaking for May, as it looks here, then I can only conclude that Corbyn really is a cuck (voters with skin in the game make good judges of character). Your posts on cutting immigration are the first steps needed were incredibly persuasive and it looks like that will be borne out in Britain where they're trying to put the cart before the horse.
I had hoped that Corbyn was just posing on that, but the UKIP voters tell the tale.
Anyway, we'll see. The reaction by liberals to this particular terrorist attack is the most disgusting I've ever seen. "Cuck" isn't something that readily comes to mind for me, but when I see a video of a police man dancing in a circle with kids and people act like this is the only adequate response, "Be happy! Show the terrorists how happy you are! Smile! Smile! Smile! No, we're not kidding, keep that f*cking smile on your face!!" It's disgusting. It's like a Circus-meets Stepford Wives comic-horror movie from Hell.
And Trump's fight with Londonistan just punctuates what cucks these men are.
OT again, but they may be going after Posobiec soon. Possible duper's delight spotted. Same source as with Milo. In fact, RTd old McMuffin quote-tweet mocking J.P. lamenting...Milo's saboteurs. Of course, J.P. was right. And it was mostly the McMuffin gang. The CIA-Resistance alliance Assange so perfectly describes.
It may refer to something else, but it was so mocking... Be ready for all hands on deck.
Cupcakes the Cat
Maybe it's just anger about Milo, their victim, who apparently may be making a comeback. His book is #1 correct? Think I just saw that today. 2nd tweet did not involve J.P. but did Milo (and anger at Maher giving Milo a platform).