Cant_Be_Faded
02-19-2011, 01:44 PM
I tend to read Pat's articles more than other politicians for some reason. Partly because I share some of his isolationist beliefs. Partly because he's a student of history, and always uses historical examples to support his point. Partly because they are posted on Republican websites, and I just try to read them in the mindset of a stupid fuckhead neocon, and I think "How would I ignorantly think he is wrong?"
Here are a few excerpts from some recent articles.
"Who Lost The Middle East?"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41246
George H.W. Bush abjured "the vision thing." But George W. had a road-to-Damascus experience during 9/11. He became a true believer that the security of his country and the peace of the world depended on a global conversion to democracy. And he would do the converting.
This is the ideology of democratism. Bush's zealotry in pursuing his new faith blinded him to the reality that whatever their failings, the kings of Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Mubarak are more reliable friends than any regime that might come out of one-man, one-vote elections.
Why, other than ideology, would a leader demand that a friendly regime hold elections if it were a near certainty the regime to come out of those elections would be more hostile to one's own country?
Dwight Eisenhower preferred the Shah to Mohammad Mossadegh, though the latter had been elected. Ike backed the coup. Richard Nixon preferred Gen. Augusto Pinochet to Chile's pro-Castro President Salvador Allende, who was elected. The general was with us.
Yet this raises anew the question: Why do they hate us?
So simple, so obvious. The Idealogy of spreading democracy has been an abject failure, and I wish people who believed in this and supported it were not having children. Why can't more Republicans think this way?
"How The Chinese Must See Us"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41310
But why should they? Why should China abandon a trade policy that is working marvelously well for them, and adopt a trade policy that is failing dismally for us? Does that make sense?
Why should any nation emulate the U.S. trade policy of the Bush-Clinton-Bush era that has stripped us of a third of our manufacturing jobs and made us dependent on China and the world for the needs of our national life and the borrowed money to pay for them?
Our grand strategists demand to know why the Chinese are making these brash claims to all the islands in the South China and East China seas. Why are they telling us to keep our aircraft carriers out of the Yellow Sea and out of the Taiwan Strait? Who do they think they are?
Well, maybe they think they're 19th-century Americans.
Did not James Monroe and John Quincy Adams brashly tell the great powers of Europe to stay out of our hemisphere?
What are the Chinese about, other than imposing a Monroe Doctrine of their own? As historian Walter McDougall writes, Otto von Bismarck was as affronted by us as we are by the Chinese, declaring that the Monroe Doctrine represented "a species of arrogance peculiarly American and inexcusable."
Hu Jintao got an earful from us on his human rights records. Stop the repression of Uighurs and Tibetans. Stop jailing political dissidents. Allow more freedom of the Internet and the press.
But on his way home, Hu must be thinking to himself: Who are these Americans to lecture us?
It's good stuff, IMO.
But then you keep reading his articles and you come across gems like this, that make you understand why this dude was NEVER going to be elected:
"Will Multiculturalism End Europe?"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41801
Multiculturalism has "totally failed," says German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"State multiculturalism has had disastrous results," says Britain's David Cameron.
Is multiculturalism a failure in France? "My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," says President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Ex-Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has declared multiculturalism a failure in Spain, saying it divides and debilitates Western societies.
Only in Canada and the U.S., it seems, is the issue still in dispute.
Yet these European leaders are not leading anyone. They are far behind the people, and their belated appreciation of the idea of national identity is but a product of political panic. Take Merkel in Germany.
Last summer, Thilo Sarrazin published a book the title of which may be translated as "Germany Abolishes Itself."
Sarrazin argued that Germany's gastarbeiters, guest workers -- Turks, Kurds, Arabs -- are dumbing down the nation. While Germany's birth rate fell below replacement levels decades ago, these foreigners with less intelligence and much higher dropout, welfare and crime rates are rapidly replacing the declining German population.
"It is a matter of culture," said Sarrazin, and "Islam is the culture." This is why Muslim immigrants are "socially, culturally and intellectually inferior to most everyone else." Yet Sarrazin did use the phrase a "genetic minus" to describe migrants from the Middle East.
Were these the ravings of a neo-fascist intellectual and closet admirer of the late Fuhrer? Not at all. Sarrazin was a proud member of the Social Democratic Party of Willy Brandt and a board member of the Bundesbank.
ROFL. He's very very eurocentric and anti-immigration. To the point that I wonder if he even realize he's arguably a giant racist. He argues similar points in regards to the Republican classic of "Keep America's values". But the end result of that argument is always "Keep America white and Christian (even though we weren't all devout Christians in the beginning)"
I thought these excerpts were interesting and amusing, just thought I would share with the forum. Even though I disagree with his values and immigration, I would certainly trade the Republicans we have had the past 20 years for more Republicans like him.
I'll give you bull shit values and immigration if you just stop doing every other possible thing completely wrong in regards to the economy and foreign policy.
Here are a few excerpts from some recent articles.
"Who Lost The Middle East?"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41246
George H.W. Bush abjured "the vision thing." But George W. had a road-to-Damascus experience during 9/11. He became a true believer that the security of his country and the peace of the world depended on a global conversion to democracy. And he would do the converting.
This is the ideology of democratism. Bush's zealotry in pursuing his new faith blinded him to the reality that whatever their failings, the kings of Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Mubarak are more reliable friends than any regime that might come out of one-man, one-vote elections.
Why, other than ideology, would a leader demand that a friendly regime hold elections if it were a near certainty the regime to come out of those elections would be more hostile to one's own country?
Dwight Eisenhower preferred the Shah to Mohammad Mossadegh, though the latter had been elected. Ike backed the coup. Richard Nixon preferred Gen. Augusto Pinochet to Chile's pro-Castro President Salvador Allende, who was elected. The general was with us.
Yet this raises anew the question: Why do they hate us?
So simple, so obvious. The Idealogy of spreading democracy has been an abject failure, and I wish people who believed in this and supported it were not having children. Why can't more Republicans think this way?
"How The Chinese Must See Us"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41310
But why should they? Why should China abandon a trade policy that is working marvelously well for them, and adopt a trade policy that is failing dismally for us? Does that make sense?
Why should any nation emulate the U.S. trade policy of the Bush-Clinton-Bush era that has stripped us of a third of our manufacturing jobs and made us dependent on China and the world for the needs of our national life and the borrowed money to pay for them?
Our grand strategists demand to know why the Chinese are making these brash claims to all the islands in the South China and East China seas. Why are they telling us to keep our aircraft carriers out of the Yellow Sea and out of the Taiwan Strait? Who do they think they are?
Well, maybe they think they're 19th-century Americans.
Did not James Monroe and John Quincy Adams brashly tell the great powers of Europe to stay out of our hemisphere?
What are the Chinese about, other than imposing a Monroe Doctrine of their own? As historian Walter McDougall writes, Otto von Bismarck was as affronted by us as we are by the Chinese, declaring that the Monroe Doctrine represented "a species of arrogance peculiarly American and inexcusable."
Hu Jintao got an earful from us on his human rights records. Stop the repression of Uighurs and Tibetans. Stop jailing political dissidents. Allow more freedom of the Internet and the press.
But on his way home, Hu must be thinking to himself: Who are these Americans to lecture us?
It's good stuff, IMO.
But then you keep reading his articles and you come across gems like this, that make you understand why this dude was NEVER going to be elected:
"Will Multiculturalism End Europe?"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41801
Multiculturalism has "totally failed," says German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"State multiculturalism has had disastrous results," says Britain's David Cameron.
Is multiculturalism a failure in France? "My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," says President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Ex-Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has declared multiculturalism a failure in Spain, saying it divides and debilitates Western societies.
Only in Canada and the U.S., it seems, is the issue still in dispute.
Yet these European leaders are not leading anyone. They are far behind the people, and their belated appreciation of the idea of national identity is but a product of political panic. Take Merkel in Germany.
Last summer, Thilo Sarrazin published a book the title of which may be translated as "Germany Abolishes Itself."
Sarrazin argued that Germany's gastarbeiters, guest workers -- Turks, Kurds, Arabs -- are dumbing down the nation. While Germany's birth rate fell below replacement levels decades ago, these foreigners with less intelligence and much higher dropout, welfare and crime rates are rapidly replacing the declining German population.
"It is a matter of culture," said Sarrazin, and "Islam is the culture." This is why Muslim immigrants are "socially, culturally and intellectually inferior to most everyone else." Yet Sarrazin did use the phrase a "genetic minus" to describe migrants from the Middle East.
Were these the ravings of a neo-fascist intellectual and closet admirer of the late Fuhrer? Not at all. Sarrazin was a proud member of the Social Democratic Party of Willy Brandt and a board member of the Bundesbank.
ROFL. He's very very eurocentric and anti-immigration. To the point that I wonder if he even realize he's arguably a giant racist. He argues similar points in regards to the Republican classic of "Keep America's values". But the end result of that argument is always "Keep America white and Christian (even though we weren't all devout Christians in the beginning)"
I thought these excerpts were interesting and amusing, just thought I would share with the forum. Even though I disagree with his values and immigration, I would certainly trade the Republicans we have had the past 20 years for more Republicans like him.
I'll give you bull shit values and immigration if you just stop doing every other possible thing completely wrong in regards to the economy and foreign policy.