Well, it would have been one thing if France had just opposed the war or voted against it. Nobody would have faulted them for that. But they went way beyond that to not just obstructing us, but trying to undermine our efforts in a way that in the end made the war more likely. That's not how allies act. And France has now made itself a non-ally of the United States. As for our past and France's past, I would urge you to take a tour of the beaches of Normandy in deciding who owes whom what. We have three times in one century saved France -- twice from Germany, once from the Soviet Union. France's behavior reminds me of the immortal statement of Prince Schwertenberg of Austria, who, after the Russians helped him put down the Hungarian rebellion, and then asked about his support for Russia in return, stated, "We will astonish them with our ingratitude." Except that when it comes to the French, one is never astonished.Krauthammer currently seems quite happy that the U.S. is getting itself into another Mideast war, and "credits" the Bush Doctrine for it.
France's attitude about astonishing us with ingratitude is the correct attitude to have in international relations. There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. Yet the nations of Western Europe are as close to permanent allies that the U.S. is likely to have. Now that France appears to be on board with invasions of Middle Eastern countries that have committed no act of war against us, presumably for the neocons, all is forgiven; the French are no longer cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Sarkozy appears to be the George Bush of France.
For the neocons, it's permanent revolution everywhere, with the U.S. as the agitator and enforcer of the revolution. Even though no one in charge seems to have a clue as to what they're doing, whether the rebels are linked to Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood, and whether victory would really result in any kind of democracy - not necessarily a good outcome anyway - they rush in where angels fear to tread.
The U.S. government is far from being run in the interests of the American people; it's being run in the interests of a globalist, revolutionary elite who just can't stand to leave a country alone - unless it has no oil, like say the Congo, in which case the slaughter is allowed to happen. Just because Obama is in power, that doesn't change the dynamic of our foreign policy and seemingly doesn't change who calls the shots.
Richard Spencer notes that some mainstream, National review-type conservatives are expressing great reservations about our latest military adventure, so there's some hope that at least some people are learning. Of course, conservatives aren't supposed to learn this type of thing, they're supposed to know it already.
Theatre for the sheep (and terrible theatre at that).
ReplyDeleteI know never to ascribe malice where mere incompetence will suffice - in other words, I'm perfectly willing to accept that a lot of stupid people in positions of power are doing really stupid thoughtless things here. But I'm also convinced that it's not all folly. The real interests behind all these recent events are well hidden from everybody, even most politicians. (Especially the pundits, who appear especially clueless trying to confirm their stupid biases and worldviews in every event.)
My worldview-confirming guess (which is at least as likely as any pundit's) is that international bankers, oil, and gold are somehow involved.
Iran and the DPRK are surely noting what's been taking place and I'd be surprised if they are not resolving to hasten the production of nuclear weapons. This pretty much derails the carrot and stick (more stick than carrot, though) strategy used up till now to get them to give up trying to build up a nuclear deterrent. The lesson is that those without enough power to defend themselves are in danger of becoming victims, and the leaders of those countries can see what happened to the other "axis" member Saddam Hussein. Everything that's done has some sort of blowback, often unpredictable, and can end up working against us in the longer run. The Libyan action seems to me to be inept, short-sighted and rather treacherous.
ReplyDeleteRight. The Canadian-born Krauthammer, who strongly self identifies as Jewish above all else, pretends to be an American superpatriot. Oy vey!
ReplyDeleteWanna talk about ingratitude? The US fought a long, bloody war against the Jews’ worst enemy and afterward supported the founding of Israel.
But the Jews' most important priority right now is to reduce whites to a minority because all whites are racist Nazis who can’t be trusted.
At the same time, the Neo-Trotskyite multicult global revolution must continue.
Diversity Uber Alles!
It occured to me that if we assumed our leaders knew what they were doing (almost certainly false)this intervention would be a good way to weaken Khaddafi without risking a successful regime change. A permanent rebellious enclave would make life more difficult for him.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I know...
...But they went way beyond that to not just obstructing us, but trying to undermine our efforts...As for our past and France's past, I would urge you to take a tour of the beaches of Normandy in deciding who owes whom what. We have three times in one century saved France...
ReplyDeleteWho is this "we" of whom the neocons continually speak? I do not understand.
This is admitedly a small point, but Krauthammer was born in New York; he was raised in Montreal.
ReplyDeleteGratitude has got to be among the shortest-lived and most ambivalent of human emotions. Only a fool would count on it for very long. Most people will come to resent the person who saved them from catastrophe, because that person will forever remind them of their own helplessness, which none of us wish to be reminded of.
"There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests."
ReplyDeleteNothing is permanent, but allies and enemies can be far more enduring than interests, which change and change.
Alliances that run contrary to race, culture and religion are a bad basis for foreign policy, because they lack the needed stability. Paul Keating's Australian / Indonesian alliance is an example. In theory it might have served various interests, but in practice it could never have amounted to more than words. It had all the inherent stability that a pact of Greek / Turkish eternal friendship would have.
Alliances that are well-founded don't guarantee that the ally will back you or even refrain from opposing you. But a chronic inclination to give you a better-than-even break is a big thing. It is not to be given away for mere "interests".
Despite their bloody and demoralizing wars against each other, the Greeks were inclined to forgive and aid each other and ally against the Persians. Without this, they would have been wiped away.
Among the things that made Agesilaus the ruin of Sparta and in the long run the Greeks was that he acted as though "There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests." was true, and as though siding with Persia against Greeks had the same long term implications as vice versa. It wasn't so.
If I could advise an honest American elite now, I'd tell them:
1. To avoid the first mistake of Agesilaus and not treat all the world as if it was one. Ally with your own kind, and cherish those alliances. Corollary: keep your racial, religious and cultural balance as steady as possible, and urge your allies to do the same.
2. To avoid the even worse mistake of Agesilaus: don't pick fights with the same people over and over, till you've forced those who had neither the skill nor really the will to beat you to learn how to give you more trouble than you need.
By encouraging your real, effective allies to remain solid, and by keeping your inept and irresolute enemies in character, you can do far more good for your nation in the long run than by chasing ephemeral "interests" and "cleverly" astonishing people with your ingratitude.
Why beat the tired old "evil neocon" horse? This is Obama's war.
ReplyDeleteOh, and what Thripshaw said.
ReplyDeleteAgain: look for goodwill primarily from people of your own kind. Help them, because they are more likely to help you back.
Don't look for the same reciprocity from people who've been nursing grievances against your kind of people for thousands of years.
You can invent words and phrases (like Judeo-Christian) that paper over basic religious and cultural differences, but they remain ... just words.
No doubt, in international relations there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. But is Krauthammer wrong when he says that France did not just oppose war, but made the possible to "undermine our efforts [to impose UN resolutions to Saddam Hussein] in a way that in the end made the war more likely"?
ReplyDeleteI don't think he is. And if USA thinks it's not in the best interests of the American people to act internationally to mantain a certain amount of order (as the French and British empires, in their time, did), than it should stop pretending to be the "leader of the free world".
Diplomacy has been called the art of saying "Nice doggie!" while you reach for a rock. I think that's part of it. Sometimes you will have to call a country like Saudi Arabia an ally even though it isn't.
ReplyDeleteBut to play this game properly, you have to know some basic things about who your enemies are. And before you know that you need to know some basic things about who you are.
Domination by a multiculturalist elite at odds with the interest of the national founding stock is radically destructive from this point of view.
I like Thripshaw's summary. It seems to sum it up our predicament very nicely. I have very little to add, so I won't.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFor the neocons, it's permanent revolution everywhere
Including the US?
Francisco, I agree. So America should stop defining itself diplomatically as "the leader of the free world". Particularly when "the free world" is tacitly redefine to include the Arab League.
ReplyDeleteWould we be setting out on this new misadventure if France or the UN had voted against it? Unlikely.
ReplyDeleteObama saw a chance to play the Great Peacemaker, Protector of the Innocent, Friend to the Muslim Street, etc., etc. while missile launches and fireworks took Americans' minds off of the Greater Depression. And do it with the backing of the "international community"!
Opportunities like that don't come along every day.
Once again, it won't be long before our allies are providing token support and pats on the back while we take the pain and increase our market share of Muslim loathing.
Why beat the tired old "evil neocon" horse? This is Obama's war.
ReplyDeleteThere are two factions of the US Trotskyite movement, consisting of Baby Boomers who have completed the long march and now realize their dream of using US military might to spread social democratic revolution. One faction registers as Democrat and the other faction registers as Republican. Both factions are wrecking the US nation with their messianic schemes.
What amuses me this time around is the number of liberals, many of whom were rabid, spittle-flecked critics of the war in Iraq, who are now in favor of military action in Libya.
ReplyDeleteThe Times actually said, apparently without irony, that:
"Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism."
As for gratitude, this from Mark Twain:
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."
If I understand, the NYT opines that the enemy must be attacked because he is erratic, widely reviled, gaseous, and a previous supporter of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteSo have US forces already launched an assault on Keith Olbermann?
"The Canadian-born Krauthammer, who strongly self identifies as Jewish above all else, pretends to be an American superpatriot."
ReplyDeleteThat's a correct observation, but I would go further and make a clear distinction.
I have often made the point here and other conservative blogs, but its worth repeating, that someone like Krauthammer is not an American/Candian/etc who happens to be of Jewish descent. Guys like him are Jewish Nationalists, the same way one would characterize David Duke as a White Nationalist. The only difference is that Duke doesn't hide behind deception but these guys do. People like Krauthammer have spent their entire life fighting to promote Jewish National interests. Everyone should buy Jacob Heilbrunn’s book and read it: They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons
It's very important to be able to properly identify and label the people that are working against you. How could one counter a force, if one is not even able to identify it?
Thanks for a clever comment, Porter, which made me chuckle at the end of a long day.
ReplyDeleteWhen the news shows have three Jews arguing the "liberal" side and two Jews arguing the "conservative" side, who argues the American side?
This is the first comment section I've seen getting to the heart of the matter:
ReplyDeleteEgypt just "flipped". Israel is shitting bricks.
Libya offers the opportunity to create a military-client state to off-set Egyptian power.
End of story.
Expect permanent bases in Libya. If they don't materialize, I will admit I was wrong.
...it's permanent revolution everywhere, with the U.S. as the agitator and enforcer of the revolution.
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly how it looks from here too.
Some commenters have suggested that this is a Jewish thing, that American Jews are causing America's permanent international agitation. Jews are inside and in the frontline of it indeed, but I think that Puritan America has always seen itself as the reformer and saviour of humanity, and was a revolutionary activist and missionary force much before the Jews arrived.
On the other hand, I am a Jew and by my life I cant see how this worldwide American hyper-activism can serve me or anyone. It must come from the something deep in the Anglo-American psyche. Maybe Hillary Clinton knows, she is a pure American Protestant acting like Trotsky would have, fomenting some international permanent revolution.
God help us from American do-gooders.
Anon @ 8:36
ReplyDeleteYour logic is faulty.
David Duke is a White supremacist and a former KKK member who wants to wipe none-whites off the face of the earth. Krauthammer is a conservative columnist with no history of violent background. Also, there is no such thing as Jewish Nationalism because Jews are a minority and always will be. They don't have the numbers to establish a Jewish nationalist movement, which is why Jews tend to reject such movements.
Last anon comment: I can't tell if you're a troll or just stupid. Evidence for your assertion on Duke? Ever heard of Zionism (=Jewish nationalism)? Jeez.
ReplyDelete...I think that Puritan America has always seen itself as the reformer and saviour of humanity, and was a revolutionary activist and missionary force much before the Jews arrived.
ReplyDeletePuritan America is in its northeast region, from whence the Anglophile progressivist movement sprang. It became the governing ideology around the start of the 20th century. Tragically, just as the old progressivist dynasties finally wind down due to economic and demographic shifts, along come the Evangelicals in the sunbelt and heartland to join themselves at the hip with Zionism. That's why Sarah Palin goes on pilgrimage to Israel instead of Rome. And I doubt she'll bother visiting any of the ancient and continuing Christian sites in Syria along the way.
Protestant Christianity shares a lot of blame for America's ills.
J: "Jews are inside and in the frontline of it indeed, but I think that Puritan America has always seen itself as the reformer and saviour of humanity, and was a revolutionary activist and missionary force much before the Jews arrived."
ReplyDeleteThere they are in plain sight, but you think that Jews aren't guilty and that non-Jewish Whites must be guilty.
The current American President is a Black academic leftist elected at the head of the Jewish-funded anti-White electoral coalition known as the Democratic party. When he calls on Hispanics to punish their enemies, he means non-Jewish Whites. But you think non-Jewish Whites deserve the blame even for Barack Hussein Obama's acts.
J: "On the other hand, I am a Jew and by my life I cant see how this worldwide American hyper-activism can serve me or anyone. It must come from the something deep in the Anglo-American psyche."
It seems that according to you it must be the fault of non-Jewish Whites, because it's bad. It's bad, because it doesn't serve anyone's interest but particularly your self-identified Jewish interest.
J: "Maybe Hillary Clinton knows, she is a pure American Protestant acting like Trotsky would have, fomenting some international permanent revolution."
No. Those who act like Trotsky, with extreme intellectual pugnacity and tireless contentiousness, with a revolutionary disdain for "Old Europe" and White cultures, with a love of sweeping doctrines and intensely harsh rhetoric employed on a hair-trigger, with a passion for power obtained by any means necessary and a tendency to build up charismatic "genius" leaders selected from the in-group are not American Protestants but rather neocons, and it's no coincidence that Jewish-American aggressive militarism has much the same style as Jewish Bolshevism.
J: "God help us from American do-gooders."
All gods and good spirits preserve us from those who are always inclined to blame non-Jewish Whites for everything and themselves for nothing, regardless of the evidence.
May all that's good and holy protect White children and assure them a future, when people with that hostile ethnocentric mentality are influencing policy and shaping White culture.
Looking back, in 2008 the American people never had a chance.
ReplyDeleteIf elected, John McCain would have been a bad president, opposed to defending America's borders and to White ethnic interests but in favor of a highly belligerent policy farther afield, and apparently eager to pick quarrels with the Russians.
He had no chance to be elected though. The Democratic nominee was sure to be elected because due to the bad work of George W. Bush and the worse work of the Democratic federal legislature the economy took a serious hit during the election campaign.
Barack Hussein Obama has been a bad President, but the only other possibility was that Hillary Rodham Clinton would have been President, and judging by the direction of her advice now she too would have been a belligerent, aimless and generally incompetent chief executive.
In 2008, every mainstream candidate was for permanent revolution. They were all going to deliver needless wars, growing debts and Mexican race-replacement of Whites, regardless of what they said.
I have no idea how American Whites can avoid voting for the permanent revolution again in 2012.
"God help us from American do-gooders."
ReplyDeleteThe anti-do-gooder faction was crushed at the dawn of the Empire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
The America First Committee (AFC) was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 members, it was likely the largest anti-war organization in American history.[1] Started in 1940, it became defunct after the attack upon Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Recent organizations with similar names are not in any way connected to this historic group.
(...)
"David Duke is a White supremacist and a former KKK member who wants to wipe none-whites off the face of the earth."
ReplyDeleteDuke wants no such thing, so the only reason you must have for reciting such false propaganda is that you'd like to wipe Duke off the face of the earth. Duke doesn't have to be enamored of other ethnic groups, but this does not mean that he would do them violence. He would like to live among his own people without the cultural intrusions from other groups, including this country's most intrusive ones, such as blacks and Jews. So, why don't you stop reciting lies?
... there is no such thing as Jewish Nationalism because Jews are a minority
What kind of idiotic logic is this? How do numbers matter to how you feel within yourself about your own group? Krauthammer is an insane, nasty little Zionist, who cares only about that little toad of a country in the Middle East.
David Duke is a White supremacist and a former KKK member who wants to wipe none-whites off the face of the earth. Krauthammer is a conservative columnist with no history of violent background.
ReplyDeleteMaybe.
Yet, it's interesting that, at least for the time being, the number of people who are dead because David Duke inspired people to kill them is dwarfed by the number of people who are dead because Charles Krauthammer inspired people to kill them.
Jews are inside and in the frontline of it indeed, but I think that Puritan America has always seen itself as the reformer and saviour of humanity, and was a revolutionary activist and missionary force much before the Jews arrived.
ReplyDeleteI've seen this line of thought going around the web now for about 4 months. It usually comes from Jewish bloggers, e.g.Ilana Mercer, and tends to blame the demise of the West in general, and the US in particular, on the WASPs.
I think Kevin MacDonald and Pat Buchanan must be hitting too close to home and there is a bit of projection going on here. It is really annoying to be accused of something that others are doing.
For example, anytime people discuss immigration and the hideous 1965 act, they always call it 'Kennedy's' bill. Yet Kennedy did not write the thing. Yes he helped its passage through the Senate, but someone had to write it and push it through the House. Yet how many people are familiar with the name Emanuel Celler?
There are many more examples, beyond the scope of this post. Maybe Dennis or some enterprising blogger can write a decent response to this.
American foreign policy follows a pattern: America ordered Trujillo to pass the power to Castro and his handful of desperados; America dismissed Tachito Somoza and shooed in Ortega; President Carter brutally sacked the Shah and let the Ayatollahs in; Obama abandoned Husni Mubarrak and now he is bombing reformed dictator Ghaddafi. The pattern is permanent worldwide revolutionary agitation. The point escapes me.
ReplyDeleteJ: "American foreign policy follows a pattern: America ordered Trujillo to pass the power to Castro and his handful of desperados..."
ReplyDeleteYour history is fantastically bad. It's just a series of misdescribed incidents that serve your agenda.
J: "The pattern is permanent worldwide revolutionary agitation. The point escapes me."
Of course it does.
France is a bad example to use in this particular instance because I am informed [I lived in Lyon 50 miles from Geneva for two years] that Saddam's half-brother Ambassador to the UN in Geneva paid Jacques Chirac vast amounts of "Napoleon d'Or" in specie through the diplomatic pouch to change its early committment to support the US in the UN. A Minister of Defense named Pascqua actually resigned because of the affaire, though nobody in the US seemed to notice. Chirac is now under indictment for corruption and is special pleading his case as a President for immunity, such as the kind that Berlusconi has statutorily in Italy.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, as an Arabist very much acquainted with Qaddafi and his numberless crimes against God and man, I in this case want to suspend the rules for thirty days against assassination of a Chief of State and do what Reagan did after the night-club bombing in Berlin, bomb the shit out of the mad dog's compound until nothing moves and the rubble bounces three or four times.
dave in boca - sounds like an Arab problem. Let the Arabs handle it.
ReplyDelete