Reply With Quote
Would it be safe to assume you cannot create a viable democracy until you have a majority of the people who don't need government?
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 head 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
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?
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?
"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
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)"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 iden y is but a product of political panic. Take Merkel in Germany.
Last summer, Thilo Sarrazin published a book the le 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.
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 values and immigration if you just stop doing every other possible thing completely wrong in regards to the economy and foreign policy.
Would it be safe to assume you cannot create a viable democracy until you have a majority of the people who don't need government?
I guess you think that's clever.
WC playing St Ronnie's dishonest Welfare Queen card.
It's like what Hemingway said about Ezra Pound. He was right exactly half the time, but the other half of the time he was so wrong there could be no possible mistake about it. I feel like that, reading Pat Buchanan. He has moments of true insight and moments of rotten flackery. PJB represents the old professionalism in most of the good ways and all of the bad ways.
The imperviousness to plain results is striking. We effed up bad.
I surmise there are a lot of people who agree with PJB on this, but who don't wish to appear to be disloyal to their party or the war effort by saying so publicly.
I take exception to your use of the word arguably. Pat Buchanan represents nothing if he does not also represent the hopes and fears of the virtuous remnant of good old fashioned American chauvinism and bigotry, plus all the wannabes.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-20-2011 at 05:09 AM.
feels all pooted out.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-20-2011 at 05:28 AM.
Republicans and think? Oxymoron!
No.
You're just too stupid to understand the implications of what my question means.
nah it's just a stupid question
Buchanan is willing to stand for that in which he apparently believes. We find that alien and puzzling today, as Americans are conditioned to prize conformity and eschew principled stands. Disagreement is often seen as disloyalty or insubordination. Also, there is a need, among American public intellectuals, and in the broader society, to always hold the correct opinion. That is, to always be right. Credibility is lost in this nation whenever one once held what was an incorrect opinion.
Or, in a country with an exceptional legal liberty of conscience we are now a bunch of navel gazing toadies, afraid to express our own thoughts and conclusions. We are men without chests. The New Republic is before you.
Is it patriotism or, rather, adherence to the American public religion?I surmise there are a lot of people who agree with PJB on this, but who don't wish to appear to be disloyal to their party or the war effort by saying so publicly.
Tell us the story about how you were going to vote repug until Palin showed up.
I also remember you making the claim that you supported hilary clinton for which I agreed... But you're still stuck on stupid to remember... when are you going to go gay on us?
"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him, 'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic...it's deep within them,' when he declares this 'is not a fight between Catholics and Jews,' he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume role of defender of the faith."
Come on George, tell us how stupid repugs are, again and then tell us how you were going to vote McCain in 2008.
I remember when our little jack told us that he hated obama because he was the biggest liar he had ever seen... then dumb boy told us he supported Palin over Obama..problem with that was Palin is a liar and a quitter..so jack said that he hated liars but he would support a liar, but he hated obama because he was liar... he was against liars before he was for them..
then jack just acknowledged he just makes up as he goes along..when confronted he calls you ..
The genetic angle is always dangerous, and without solution.
There are plenty of white, Christian Euro-American citizens who are as "genetically", mentally challenged (aka the Repug base) as blacks, or Muslims, or Arabs, or illegal immigrants.
Mixing/importing tribal, stone-age, agrarian, impoverished, Muslim, uneducated people with Judeo-Christian, "democratic" Western/industrial/advanced/urban culture is the problem, not genetics.
"Why do they hate us"
because UCA invades and occupies their countries for decades, takes their natural resources, and supports UCA-friendly autocratic regimes against their own people.
Eisenhower/UK (UK had to ask the UCA to install the Shah because UK was only a few years away from WWII) preferred the Shah to the Mossadegh because was going to nationalize Iranian oil fields that USA/UK were extracting. That's why Iranians hated/hate us.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-20-2011 at 11:06 AM.
Related to fashion, perhaps. Holding an opinion that is not fully au courant and/or PC, is a disgrace that exposes one to ridicule and social irrelevance.
But the old one has not vanished from the earth yet. That's one thing to like about Pat.
Exactly, that's why I find his articles fascinating....he's like a living fossil.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
