Jonah Goldberg Takes on Ron Paul
Jonah Goldberg’s critique of the Paul campaign – published in the dead-tree version of National Review—is surprisingly respectful, but, alas, he gets several things wrong: heck, he gets just about everything wrong. But then, if he didn’t, he’d be in the Paul camp, and probably wouldn’t be Jonah Goldberg. At any rate, whereas Paul’s leftist critics concentrate primarily although not exclusively on his domestic agenda – less government, more personal liberty – Goldberg takes issue with Paul’s foreign policy, which he insists is “today called "isolationism.”
Well, uh, no it isn’t – unless it’s by some neocon who wants to typify a worldview based on peace and non-intervention as the invention of sclerotic Neanderthals who live in a metaphorical cave. What Paul clearly advocates is a policy of trading, not invading – a policy that can fairly be called non-interventionist, or even anti-interventionist, but which is hardly “isolationist,” as Paul himself explains.
Goldberg writes about the historic split on the Right over the issue of the cold war, and whether such an extended engagement required the postponement of the fight against statism at home. He quotes William F. Buckley, Jr.’s infamous 1952 Commonweal piece, albeit incompletely, leaving out the part about how we have to accept “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores” and “war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington.” I guess, what with the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the burgeoning surveillance state, such phrasing is a bit too close to the reality to be acknowledged.
Goldberg cites Paul’s evocation of Robert A. Taft, and avers that even Taft supported the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and support to Formosa. Yet in reality Taft led a Republican effort to drastically cut funding for the Marshall Plan, and he openly challenged the Truman Doctrine, opposing efforts to interfere in the internal politics of Czechoslovakia, and voted for the appropriations requested by the President, in the end, only because he didn’t want to tie his hands at the negotiating table. In any case, the real point of Paul raising Taft’s name is on account of the Taft wing of the GOP, especially in the House of Representatives, which stoutly resisted both the Truman Doctrine and the pernicious idea of collective security that was its underpinning. Taft himself was a famous waffler, yet his followers, such as Reps. Howard Buffet (R-Nebraska) and George H. Bender (R-Ohio) were unrelenting in their opposition to the whole foreign policy of the interventionist liberals, who were using anti-Communism to shovel foreign aid to Europe – and, as far as they were concerned, down a rathole.
Goldberg ruminates on the historical debate, for a while, albeit inaccurately, but with an obviously sincere desire to engage the libertarian arguments, and then gets down to the nitty-gritty, as it were:
“There has always been a pacifist strain to libertarian domestic policy (government is violence). Why should foreign policy be different? One answer might be: because it is different. The international arena simply isn’t a liberal polity where concepts such as contracts and property rights apply as they do in, say, Cleveland. To treat the world as just another sphere of liberalism is a category error.”
The idea that foreign policy can be walled off from domestic policy is nonsense. They are inextricably intertwined. One cannot but agree with Goldberg that we’re not in Kansas anymore once we step outside the Western sphere—which is precisely why we cannot extend the American polity to, say, a place like Iraq: because it isn’t and cannot be a liberal polity, and any attempt to force it into that Procrustean bed will only result in much pain, as much to ourselves as to our unfortunate client.
Elsewhere Goldberg says we must intervene to keep the free flow of trade going – and yet, how are we to do that, by imposing economic sanctions on, say, Iran? By encircling Russia? Furthermore, it does not benefit us to subsidize gigantic international corporations by protecting their investments in foreign lands: if they are foolish enough to buy oil and natural gas rights in, say, Turkmenistan, a country that neither knows nor recognizes such uniquely Western concepts as property rights and the rule of law, then that is their problem, and not one for the American taxpayers – or American soldiers under arms – to solve for them.
Goldberg’s argument gets really threadbare, however, when he tries to undermine the obvious connection between war and the centralized state:
“The case that intervention abroad naturally leads to the curtailment of liberty at home is less ironclad than even most conservatives, never mind libertarians, might think. Manchester liberalism arose in the British Empire. The Corn Laws were repealed in 1846. Exactly 100 years later, the National Health Service was born not from empire but from its ashes. In America, women got the vote in the aftermath of World War I, and the Army was integrated by the ‘butcher of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.’ The Civil Rights Acts were passed during Vietnam. Ronald Reagan liberalized the economy while increasing spending on defense, and Bill Clinton reinvigorated government with the proceeds from the alleged ‘peace dividend. Oh, and for the record: Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises--who reportedly share space with Rothbard on Paul’s wall--were subjects of the Hapsburgs.”
To begin with, classical liberalism arose in the heyday of the British Empire precisely because the Manchesterites opposed imperialism and devoutly wished for a “Little England” bereft of the burden of overseas possessions that drained the Treasury and meant endless wars. What Goldberg calls “Paulism,” too, arises just as the American version of the Anglo-Saxon Imperium is taking shape before our eyes – the former is a reaction to the latter. The advocates of the repeal of the Corn Laws were principled anti-imperialists, as well as free traders: the empire predated them by a few hundred years. The national health service was indeed born from the ashes of a defeated and thoroughly transformed liberalism – i.e. state socialism, which was ushered in as the sun finally set on the British empire.
I don’t know what the integration of the army has to do with Goldberg’s larger point: was the slaughter of millions and the destruction of so much productive capital really the only way to accomplish this? I tend to doubt it. Ditto for the Civil Rights Act, the passage of which has little to do with the Vietnam war. Yes, we never did see that “peace dividend” – and, if Goldberg and his confreres have their way, we never will. I won’t bother to address the alleged anomaly that Goldberg finds in the fact that both Mises and Hayek lived under the Hapsburgs, except to note that Rothbard lived under the rule of Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I – and so what?
Goldberg asks: “Does ‘empire’ really cost too much?” Is $2 trillion too much to pay for the Iraq war? Well, no, not if you’re Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, et al. Yes, if you’re the average American taxpayer. Which brings us to Goldberg’s contention that “As Walter Russell Mead and Niall Ferguson have argued, maintaining global trade and stability worked to Britain’s advantage--and, now, works to ours” Yet we have not achieved stability, on account of our interventionist policies – quite the opposite. And this has disrupted global trade, not sustained it. “Empire’s moral costs,” avers Goldberg, “are also murkier than Paul thinks. Thwarting the Nazis and Communists came at a bloody price, as will, undoubtedly, any sustained effort against bin Ladenism. But let’s not concede the moral high ground to those who would not take up such fights.”
Here we get to the really absurd aspect of the neoconservative foreign policy, which equates bin Laden’s ragtag army of insurgents with the military might of the Third Reich and the Kremlin at the height of its power. Hitler had the Wehrmacht, Stalin had nuclear weapons: what does bin Laden have – a couple of box-cutters and fanatics willing to die for the cause? There is no comparison.
“Finally,” ask Goldberg,
“Is America an empire at all? It certainly isn’t in the sense that Rome was. Our foreign garrisons are there by invitation and negotiation; we’ll pull them out if asked, as we did in the Philippines. Some scholars argue that America is merely the leader of a "liberal hegemony." Mead and Ferguson say America is a ‘liberal empire.’ Whatever the right term, it is slanderous to lump us in with Huns, Nazis, and Communists.”
Well, no, we aren’t like Rome, which plundered its colonies and exacted tribute: in the American Empire, the flow of cash goes in the other direction—our client states exact tribute from us. As Garet Garrettr, the Old Right’s Cassandra, trenchantly pointed out: “Everything goes out, and nothing comes in.” Nothing but demands for more, that is.
No one equates the American empire with that of the Huns or the Nazis. These were two outbursts of pure barbarism, and neither, in any case, lasted very long, precisely for that reason: their own evil led to their military defeat, and—left to their own
devices—would have caused them to explode from internal pressures. The same thing happened to the Communists, except their malevolence was more systematic, and painted with an altruistic-egalitarian veneer. They, too, murdered millions, and yet the commissars were different from the Huns, and the Nazis, in that the Communist narrative spoke in the name of humanitarian idealism, instead of speaking the language of pure power and sadistic cruelty.
In this sense, it is not “slanderous” to equate the Communist and neoconservative ideologies, which both gave birth to strategies for world “liberation.” Of course, the neocons’ goals are invested in a desire for a “benevolent world hegemony,” while the Communist goal of world domination was indicative of “totalitarianism.” When the latter were fighting the Afghan rebels – the very same gang that morphed into Al Qaeda – the Kremlin propagandists hailed their “achievements” in “liberating” women, setting up schools, and creating a modern state in place of the wild array of warring tribes we call Afghanistan. We are simply taking up where the Soviets left off.
Our neoconized foreign policy is the fun-house mirror image of Leninist internationalism: or, perhaps, it is the Bizarro World version. This is reflected not only in the rhetoric employed in defense of interventionist policies but also in the disastrous results. The Soviet empire, badly overextended, and ridiculously costly to maintain, met its end in the mountains of Afghanistan, fighting an endless war against a guerrilla insurgency fighting on its home turf, in defense of a way of life that predated the Bolshevik Revolution by more than a thousand years. So, too, will we meet a similar end, unless we take to heart the wise counsel of Rep. Paul (and his counterparts in the Democratic party, such as Dennis Kucinich).
“Buckley was right in 1952,” says Goldberg:
“Much ‘hard thinking’ was required of conservatives. And it is required of us again. So it’s good news that Paul is running. Alas, too many conservatives dismiss him out of hand rather than engage him. The Rothbard-Paul vision was rightly defeated during the Cold War. Now that the Cold War is over, it seems not only fair but wise to give it another hearing--and if it can’t be defeated on the merits, it deserves to win.”
The “Rothbard-Paul” vision, far from being defeated, was vindicated by the sudden and total implosion of the Leninist project: Rothbard’s teacher and mentor, Ludwig von Mises [.pdf file], had confidently predicted the collapse of Communism in the mid-1920s: since prices were absent from the socialist economic mechanism, there was no way to know where to allocate scarce resources: this meant the Soviet economy would either revert to capitalism, or else come to a grinding, screeching halt. We know what happened: first came the grinding, screeching halt, followed shortly by the reversion.
The point is that Soviet Communism was not destroyed by a military assault: there was no “rollback,” as the Buckleyites of the 1950s and 60s dreamed – the system rolled itself back. Soviet society was destroyed from within. It wasn’t toppled by the West, but by its own internal contradictions.
Buckley was wrong. And we have paid a high price for his error, which was hardly his alone. The “totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores” has not withered with the end of the cold war: instead, it has strengthened its grip on power, until our Constitution is a dead letter and the foundations of our old Republic are radically undermined.
The legacy of the cold war, and the mutant form of “conservatism” it birthed, is a need for endless enemies, an institutional craving for a militant adversary whose threat to our way of life provides income, power, perks and privileges for the new New Class: the administrators and corporate beneficiaries of our global presence, including the worldwide network of military bases in 130 countries, and our newly-acquired Mesopotamian protectorate.
Goldberg has to take Ron Paul seriously, because conservatives are deserting the War Party in droves, and especially the younger generation of rightists, who have made Paul’s cause their own: next to the GOP “presidential” line-up of braying warmongers, sanctimonious phonies, and flip-flopping opportunists, the unassuming, non-telegenic country doctor from the Gulf Coast of Texas is a giant amongst pygmies, the only truly serious and principled person of the bunch.
Goldberg, by the way, has demurred in the face of his magazine’s endorsement of Mitt Romney, and seems unwilling, at this point, to endorse anyone. He recognizes, albeit only obliquely, that the conservative movement is intellectually bankrupt, and politically at a dead end. Yes, the Rothbard-Paul vision deserves to win, but in an important sense it has already won, although it may take a while for the intellectual victory to exert its full political effect.
Ron Paul’s success defies the old orthodoxies, and it’s no wonder they’re putting up a defense, however weak and self-serving it may be. The neocon vision of a world dominated by an Ameican hegemon, centered in Washington, D.C, is dashed on the rocks of reality – it’s in the same dustbin of history that Trotskyism was tossed into.
The anti-Paul Popular Front extends all the way from National Review to the International Socialist Review (make sure you read my piece in antiwar.com on the left-wing critics of Paul): it’s a grand coalition of right-wing “former” Trotskyists and currently-practicing left-wing Trotskyists. These are apparently the bounds of the politically permissible: all else is “ultra-leftism” and “right-wing extremism.”
Comments
Rothbard’s teacher and mentor, Ludwig von Mises [.pdf file], had confidently predicted the collapse of Communism in the mid-1920s: since prices were absent from the socialist economic mechanism, there was no way to know where to allocate scarce resources: this meant the Soviet economy would either revert to capitalism, or else come to a grinding, screeching halt.
True enough and obvious enough.
I’m surprised more isn’t made of the research done by Anthony C. Sutton about US funding of the Soviet regime in books like Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy.
The anti-Sutton ‘Popular Front’ also extends all the way from National Review to the International Socialist Review, but every demographic in the pro-Paul coalition should read Sutton.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m not an intellectual libertarian. I’m an
emotional libertarian swiping at the threads
of intellectualism.
We in america are living on borrowed time,
are we not? The service industry is a very
unsatisfactory foundation for an economic system.
I hope social security survives the implosion.
I don’t care necessarily, because I have a
small trust system that will back me up and pay
for my smokes and beer. My concern is the
currently middle-class; at least those who
believe themselves to be, what with both
spouses working and if they weren’t, they
couldn’t afford their comfy condo.
They’re going to get depressed! That doesn’t
make for a satisfied populace. What am I
saying, I want them disillusioned, just like I am.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Goldberg takes issue with Paul’s foreign policy, which he insists is “today called “isolationism.”
Puhleez, the Bush administration has isolated America thru its actions and utter lack of foreign policy.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I, for some reason, think about Hayek here;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/hayekian-solution.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As usual, Mr Raimondo is almost 100 percent correct, especially about the Soviet system collapsing on its own. Communism was doomed from the start, because it’s total nonsense, and the Cold War was an atrocious waste of blood and treasure.
But then there’s this bit, evidencing Mr Raimondo’s willfully blinkered refusal to
think about the historical reality of the power of Nazism and the fact that it had to be destroyed by military force:
“...Huns or the Nazis. These were two outbursts of pure barbarism, and neither, in any case, lasted very long, precisely for that reason: their own evil caused them to explode from internal pressures.”
What? What the hell? Please explain how the combined forces of the Red Army and the two great powers of the West, and other allies, was “internal pressure”.
Germany was full of true believers in Nazism until the very end, many of whom committed suicide in 1945. In contrast,
virtually no Communist Party members in any country committed suicide in reaction to the end of Communism, because unlike the Nazis, hardly any Communists believed in Communism. Communism collapsed from within; Nazism was slain from without.
“Internal pressure?” Please explain?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Per John Ball: “Germany was full of true believers in Nazism until the very end, many of whom committed suicide in 1945.”
Justin may need to clarify his remarks. However John Ball, Germany was not “full” of true believers in Nazism. There was a core of die-hard Nazis, mostly at the top positions in the Third Reich. Typically most of these were boot lickers hungry for power who had no problem saluting “Heil Hitler”. The majority of Germans did not vote for Chancellor Hitler when he started his rise to power in the twenties and early thirties, or anytime after. Those bureaucrats and business leaders who joined the party did so because it allowed them to keep their positions and have some level of influence (much like the Baathist members at all levels of the Saddam Hussein government, or Republicans in the Bush administration). There are many who attempt to hold all Germans of all ages during the Third Reich responsible for Nazi crimes. Here’s a reminder: Josef Stalin and his murderous regime were responsible for at least three times as many war crimes and murders as the Nazis ever were; but somehow in the post-WWII political atmosphere, only Germans are considered guilty of these monstrosities. The hypocrites FDR and Churchill meanwhile stayed chummy with Stalin during his on-going genocide against Germans, Ukrainians, and others.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m an avid reader of your columns, Justin, but this one may have been better left unwritten. It’s hard to ignore that the task you set for yourself, finding redeeming features in Jonah Goldberg’s writing, was a tedious chore.
Looking for something of value in Goldberg’s columns are, to me, like searching through a pound of stale ground black pepper in order to pick out the fly shit.
The end result is that I would have a ferocious headache with only a few worthless fly turds and a pound of unusable pepper to show for my efforts.
Jonah is a lying, duplicitous imbecile and anything he has to say is a waste of time to read or to analyze.
I look forward to your next column, hoping that it addresses a more worthy subject.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Cherusci :
“Josef Stalin and his murderous regime were responsible for at least three times as many war crimes and murders as the Nazis ever were; but somehow in the post-WWII political atmosphere, only Germans are considered guilty of these monstrosities “
How true. Hitler was a small time tyrant in the era of Stalin, as Bukowsky once said.
This bit of ‘the post-WWII political atmosphere’, however, should require some further comments. Who made one Holocaust much more ‘holocauster’ than the other, to this very day? ( or, do we already know the answer to this question?)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear John Ball:
What I meant to say, and clearly did not, is that the Nazi empire, and the US, are in no way comparable—and that the former would have collapsed on its own if left to its own devices.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
the anti war hurdle is as hard for repbuilcans as the pro life one is for democrats. people need to look at the bigger picture: our survival
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Like most posters, I support Ron Paul, but I read something this morining on the Lew Rockwell list that troubles me a bit. The writer, I believe his name was Arias, addressed a letter to Hispanics on Rep. Paul’s behalf, stating that under a paul administration up to “60 million” new Hispanic immigrants would be allowed into the USA. First, can anyone document that this is part of Paul’s program? I’ve never seen this mentioned previously, and I find it highly disturbing, if true.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If by some happy quirk of fate, Ron Paul were able to fashion his motivated and loyal legions and their generousity into a force that will win the Republican nomination, how many of his fellow candidates would endorse him? If through strength of personality, Paul can overcome the Republican “base”, who tend to like the neato displays of American power (shock and awe), he is going to run into a lot of Republican politicians who would rather support Hillary than give up on the U.S. being king of the world. Of the current ones running, I’ll bet Tancredo would be the only one who would support Paul in the general election. Many of the Republican politicians would oppose Paul not only on foreign policy but on his resolve to downsize the federal government. Ron Paul predicts impending economic disaster, but I’m afraid the disaster will have to happen before the body politic is open to his ideas.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Dr Cathey
Believe it or not, but the USofA is NOT a “nation”,
in the same way England or Germany are nations.
The USofA is a construct of Revolution, and there is
no real argument against Mexicans being here, unless
you are willing to accept arguments against
ANY ETHNIC GROUP being here. That is, once you
eliminate Mexicans from the USofA, you have no real
argument against the elimination of the English, the
Scottish, the French, the German, etc.
If you want to be a legitimate defender of racial
and/or ethnic nationalism, please move to some of the
European nations (such as England, France, Scotland,
Germany, etc.) and fight immigration THERE!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Andrew Capp,
Thank you for that lesson in political correctness.
Dr. Cathey,
This too is a concern I have, as I posted here:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=1429
Early on in his career, Ron Paul had a horrible record on immigration. More recently, however, he has improved, calling for reduction, meeting with the Minutemen, etc. Americans for Better Immigration gives him a recent career grade of B+:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TX14&VIPID=787
If what Arias says is true, then I will promptly withdraw my support of Ron Paul. However, as I write at CHT, I think Lew Rockwell has published a fruitcake.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What a day, Dr. Paul breaks all campaign funding records and Bret Favre breaks Dan Marino’s yardage record.
Go Dr. Paul Go,Go Pack Go.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hey, I’m not the one in favor of Revolution, that
is, I’m not a supporter of this THING we call
the USofA.
What I was implying in the previous post is that if
you want to fight Mexicans coming to the USofA, you
must fight the very notion of what the USofA is
all about: REVOLUTION! Also, the REVOLTION must
be put down in Mexico as well!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Andrew Capp,
I think you reduce immigration and nationality to the lowest common denominator, and thus what are we left with? My loyalties are to, in descending order, my Church, my family, my region/state, and then the country. On that basis I oppose unrestricted immigration that would destroy whatever culture I have left to me. And thus I would oppose the entry of millions of Mexicans into the USA.
I do not think it racist to take this opinion. I am a Southerner, the descendant of Confederates and those who came here in the 1640s, tilled the land, had slaves, raised children, fought, and died...this LAND I inherited, and I have athe right to fight for it, to prevent others from possessing it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Let me add, that I share your disenchantment with the USA as a nation. My loyalties are local, regional, familial, and ecclesial, by in large. And mass immigration will affect those as well.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have been putting some thought into my position on Mexican immigration to America, and I believe I have answered my question, to myself, as to why I support it.
My family is of the Catholic Faith, but also of Southern Appalachia. As you well know, this region is very sparsley populated by people of the Faith. That is, until the immigration of retired Yankees by way of Florida and Hispanics, mostly Mexicans.
To me, these Mexican immigrants are bringing the Faith to a people that may otherwise never have been exposed to it. I do not believe that any one person will convert to the One True Faith because his neighbor is from Mexico, but the presence of numerous Catholics in a community would enable a parish church to be built, and gives the Church opportunity to evangelize a community they may not have ever had the opportunity to do so.
Anyway, about Ron Paul: it is absolutely impossible that he wins the Republican nomination. Republicans and Americans as a whole do not want freedom and peace. They want communism and war, and lots of it! The reason Ron Paul polls less than 10%? Because 90%+ oppose for what Ron Paul stands.
America was born upon REVOLUTION, and will continue it’s liberal REVOLT against tradition for as long as it stands!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Cathey,
While I support Ron Paul, I disagree with at least some of his stand on immigration as he is much more restrictive than I am. I favor immigration as long as immigrants are properly screened. This quote from Arias, whoever he is, is so preposterous that I suspect it is deliberate sabotage from one of Ron Paul’s Republican opponents or some neo-con.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“To me, these Mexican immigrants are bringing the Faith to a people that may otherwise never have been exposed to it.”
Whether my neighbors are Catholic or not is almost irrelevant. Whether or not they improve the neighborhood is critical, and Mexicans worsen it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
<<Mexicans worsen it.>>
Here is Mother’s Day at Plaza Fiesta, a shopping center on Buford Highway in suburban Atlanta:
http://plazafiesta.net/gallery/mothers-day.htm
This shopping center was once vacant, here is an article from Atlanta’s Creative Loafing:
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:87934
Statments such as “Mexicans worsen a neighborhood” simply shows your ignorance. You really have no right to voice your opinion on things of which you have no knowledge.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin, thanks for another great article.
Concerning the Soviet economy:
“prices were absent from the socialist economic
mechanism...”
Isn’t the same thing beginning to happen here
in America? Why is the FED now adjusting the
interest rate over increasingly shorter time
periods?
What is the true value of a dollar? I doubt anyone
knows and is another plank in the Ron Paul
platform: SOUND MONEY
Down with the FED!
Go Ron, GO!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Cathey. Your argument that Mexicans will destroy “what ever culture” you have left stink as much as your racist ass.
Mexicans descend from Spaniards and Aztecs and other Indian cultures. Some of these cultures inhabited much of what is today Western USA.
Your descendants came to this land and raped, dispossessed and practically exterminated the natives, the real Americans. Thereafter, like a plague, your ancestors moved to the West. There, they applied the same treatment to the Mexican natives and took THEIR land by force.
There was already a Mexican culture in half of the USA before you and your ancestors set foot on America. This same America, you’ve been squatting (or do you prefer occupying?) ever since.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In his study of civilizations, Arnold Toynbee noted an interesting detail that may be relevant both to Raimondo’s argument and to America’s current situation: advancing civilizations control people by getting them excited, interested and eager to support the civilization. Declining civilizations operate by using threats of punishment and military force. Toynbee summed the two types by the “role models” of the Piper of Hameln vs. a drill sargeant.
An example of this phenomenon could be seen in the British Empire, where, with the exception of periods of major wars, the military forces used to defend the empire were laughably small up to the late 19th century. Furthermore, Britons were fully aware of the lack of military force. The “Oak in a Flowerpot” view of the Empire implied that Rule Britannia could survive only if local populations liked and supported it.
Troublingly, it looks that with the rise of neoconservatives the US is changing from operating via attraction to operating via coercion and armed force, i.e, from an expanding to a declining empire.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Perhaps a meeting could be arranged between Andy Capp and Pancho Villa? I’m sure they have much to discuss.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Cathey, I too read the column by Arias today at Lew Rockwell.com and my reaction was identical to yours. Thank you for raising it here.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Pancho Villa,
One suspects that you might not be the Mexican you pose as; but, anyway, if you are, then, please, do continue with the rhetoric: “Your descendants came to this land and raped, dispossessed and practically exterminated the natives, the real Americans. Thereafter, like a plague, your ancestors moved to the West.”
Such rabid hyperbole from people like you is extraordinarily helpful to the conservative American traditionalist cause. It illustrates the problem and the threat better than we traditionalists can explain it. The louder you bawl it, the better. Can one hope that you mean to buy radio time to broadcast your hatred? If so, I would like to support your effort; where can I send the money?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Jonah Goldberg, like David Brooks uses the kind of ad jingle sophistry that is the journalistic equivalent of Vicks Vapo- Rub. It appears to work only because it smells so strongly. Lather it on, breathe deeply....all better. Right.
The neo-conservatives present the knowledgeable student of politics and history with a kind of counterintuitive problem because the political force they most closely resemble is a Barely Constitutional Monarchy. Their king is the Bureaucracy....a Bureaucracy that tilts toward windmills like all dutiful utopias. They should really be called neo-con monarchists. The Bureaucracy is Dead, Long Live the Bureaucracy (and offshore accounts in the fine print). What it all really boils down to is a surrender to the notion that we need large institutions and large governments........a strong cumulative force in order to deal satisfactorily with a complex world. As a result, we are confronted in this next election with a choice between Big Government Democrats and Big Government Republicans. Any use of the term liberal or conservative is a complete waste of time and a satisfactory diversion for the schemers that run the bold-faced charade that is our current elections.
This is why the Ron Paul Candidacy has generated such interest this time around, from non-Stockholm Syndrome infected elements of both the left and the right. His philosophy is, above all else, anti-big. It hues strongly to the foundational philosophy of the Framers. They saw the excesses of big government and the large smoothly operating machinery of an unaccountable bureaucracy first hand and in response, created a purposefully Rube Goldbergian contraption that lay athwart the natural progressions of power that affect any government, liberal or conservative. If anything, their design for government was essentially counterintuitive for a species hardwired for territorialism and power. It was and shall always be a lovely conceit...something that required a restrained discernment and vigilant skepticism to properly pull off. The fact that we did make a great go of it for so long really is exceptional and our relapse into failed paradigms so quickly is equally exceptional. Brainless perhaps but we aint tentative.
We stopped exhibiting discernment when we decided we were exceptional and should just embrace exceptionalism rather than skepticism. When this happened, our journalism went along for the ride and produced people like Jonah Goldberg in droves, war train camp followers who are eager to please the Beast of Bigness because there is a good payday for pedestrian effort.
The National Review embraced this Beast of Bigness because it rightly feared another form of arid Institutional bigness called Communism. But, absent the self-defeating Communists, it had nothing else to fight besides history and so it embraced the Neo Cons whose great Crusade was the Re-Writing of History in Their Image. The Terrorism which is a reaction to the Bigness that afflicts us provided a perfect venue for them to grow and consolidate their crusade. This centralized and bloodthirsty bureaucracy that Mr. Buckley felt safe in supporting against the Communists is now being turned against our own institutions and the National Review remains among it’s biggest supporter. Albert J. Nock would be a tad surprised that his purported lunch table conversations with the young William went so thoroughly ignored.
Like Communism, this behemoth of Globalism and Institutional Giganticism is self defeating. Unfortunately, like communism, it is pernicious, consumptive and enormously destructive . It will be beaten by letting it be itself and the great sadness of it is that individualism, the core value of these United States is now, like labor, becoming a pejorative.We are now a nation of joiners, breathless spectators who get the most petulant when we are told we cannot be like our favorite object of consumerist fascination.
Marx was not right so much as he was just indiscriminate. Instead of decrying capitalism entirely, he should have simply went to war against bigness of any type.Capitalism is not the problem , it’s bigness that is......Elephantitis of Commerce and Government.
Capitalism, at the individual level is a great avenue for peace and prosperity. If you doubt this, take a stroll down Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn. It aint a shining city on a hill, it’s a brawling borough hard at work. It don’t so much love it’s fellow man as want to do business with em. The trans-lingual language of transaction...the peaceful pursuit of commerce between individuals is what is at stake today. If we all thought intelligently and acted intelligently at home, the globe wouldn’t require much from us beyond enjoying it. It is, in the end, a kind of pathology of the drunk and it is only when a drunk recalls his individualism that he decides to rescue himself from an auto-ass whoopin.
Here’s to another Declaration of Independence and that aint just Vicks Vapo-Rub.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The “American Revolution” is a misnomer. It was not
a revolution but a colnial revolt based on traditional
English political values. The Americans revolted
against England because they inherited the traditional
English love of liberty. They came to realize that
they could only practice those values as a sovereign
power. Don’t accept the neocon version of American
History that paints the American Revolution as a
universalist phenomenon. That’s the French Revolution,
something else entirely.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You have to make allowances for Jonah. It’s not unusual for men to become passionately attached to the wars they have given so much blood to.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear Pancho Villa (or whoever you are):
First, I use my real name when I talk and I do not hide behind the name of hitorical figures. Second, I must tell you that I deeply resent the rather lewd representation that I am a “racist” in regards to Hispanics. Let me tell you that I spent four years in graduate school in Spain, where I earned a doctorate at the university Navarra (in Spanish history). I have taught in Argnetine and travelled widely in Latin America. I am fluent in Spanish, and have a number fo close Latin American friends. I have a deep appreciation for Hispanic culture. but I must inform you that my people came to Virginia and the Carolinas in the 1600s and that there were NO Spaniards there. Yes, there were Indians, and I will not excuse the treatment meted out to them, but then again, the Spaniards who settled in Latin America were no angels, either. I repeat my people have been in these climes for 350 years, and I have the right, God-given, to defend my culture, and that includes against idot foul-mouthed types such as yourself.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Pancho Villa,
Actually, before there were Mexicans in the South West, there were Injuns, lots of em, transplanted earlier from Canada, much to the Aztec-trading Hopi’s dismay. But, the Mexicans did impart a few things of value to the Neo-Native, introducing them to Sheep thereby making them a tad more docile and , above all else, providing great training in all aspects of the Horse, not the least of which was a proficiency in horse thievery that would be admirable anywhere. Brigham Young , confronted with a long dance with Navajo Raiding Parties was said to tell Union Occupiers who advised him to go to war against the Shoshone that it was “more prudent to feed and trade with them than shoot at them”. Then , he destroyed all his original good work by converting them to Christianity....as if ....as the saying goes “they were not dangerous enough already”.
A favorite story about post Mexican Texas is about the German Immigrants of the Texas Hill Country around present day Austin. Apparently, the Teutons would read Goethe to the Commanches and developed a kind of grudging mutual respect with the locals over this Enlightenment Political Philosophy. So much so that when the Scotch-Irish Interlopers in Texas sent their Beloved Ranger’s out to chase down the Mexican Trained Horse Theiving Commanche, they would enjoy a cheerful respite whence traversing the German district, only to be attacked at will when they emerged out the other side. Germans pacifying Commanches.....only in America.
And as for Mr. Metzger and his admonishment that there was not an American Revolution but simply a natural progression of Merry Old English Libertarianism........this may be partially true, to an extent, but if it were entirely the case, the Hamiltonian Federalistas would have won then , instead of just recently, by default, ignorance and all in a days work in search of the Almighty Printed Dollar.
Actually, one can ascribe the reasons behind the American Revolution to Bad Debt as much as concepts of Liberty. The Americans were damned tired of usurious English Merchants piling up debt over their Colonial trade-mates...only to see insult added to misery when the Merchants lobbied the King hard to increase taxes to help pay for “protecting” the people of the colonies....from the offshoots of religious and nationalistic wars in Europe that were bankrupting the State and spilling over into the training of the locals to rape and pillage betwen colonies.
One can only hope that the Sub Prime Neo-Tulip Scandal will elicit similar efforts at “negotiating debt” now. Not that I’m advocating revolution mind you, thats French and my most recent forebears wuz from the Alsace where we hate both the French and the Germans....not to mention the English Apostates.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The views of Mr Arias are in no way those of Ron Paul. His views are readily availible on his webbsite. He has the toughest stand on illegal immigration than any candidate but Tancredo.He has many supporters whose veiws disagree from his.He has the most diverse group of supporters than any candidate I can think of.
I wrote to Mr Rockwell and he wrote back that he has an independent site and he allows people to have different views.Mr.Arias views are his alone.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Major Findings in United States
Income and Wealth
• Per capita income of Hispanics is one half that of non-Hispanic whites, and household net worth is less than one tenth.
• Fifty percent of Hispanic households use some form of welfare, the highest rate of any major population group.
Crime
• Hispanics are 3.3 times more likely to be in prison than whites; they are 4.2 times more likely to be in prison for murder, and 5.8 times more likely to be in prison for felony drug crimes.
• Young Hispanics are 19 times more likely than young whites (and slightly more likely than young blacks) to be in youth gangs.
Education
• Hispanics drop out of high school at three times the white rate and twice the black rate.
• Even third-generation Hispanics drop out of school at a higher rate than blacks and are less likely to be college graduates.
• From 1992 to 2003, Hispanic illiteracy in English rose from 35 percent to 44 percent.
• The average Hispanic 12th-grader reads and does math at the level of the average white 8th-grader.
Families and Health
• At 43 percent, the Hispanic illegitimacy rate is twice the white rate, and Hispanic women have abortions at 2.7 times the white rate.
• Hispanics are three times more likely than whites not to have medical insurance, and die from AIDS and tuberculosis at three times the white rate.
• In California, the cost of free medical care for illegal aliens forced 60 hospitals to close between 1993 and 2003.
Attitudes
• Only 33 percent of citizens of Hispanic origin consider themselves “Americans” first. The rest consider themselves either “Hispanic/Latino” or their former nationality first.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2007/220107mexicans4.jpg
Click to flag this comment as abusive
have a deep appreciation for Hispanic culture. but I must inform you that my people came to Virginia and the Carolinas in the 1600s and that there were NO Spaniards there.
Dr. Cathey. As Lee Corso says, “Not so fast my friend.”
They had been…
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/digs-mar06.html?c=y&page=2
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/02/000208075420.htm
England and France contested Spain’s claim to the vast area that the Spaniards called La Florida. For 150 years following the establishment of the first permanent English settlement in America at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, English colonists pushed slowly southward into Spanish territory, establishing settlements in the Carolinas and in Georgia. The English saw the Spanish missions as a threat to their claims. Throughout the early part of the 18th century, English raiders, accompanied by their Native American allies of the Creek and Yamasee nations, attacked Spanish settlements in northern Florida. All of the Spanish missions were destroyed, and most of the Timucua and Apalachee were killed, captured as slaves, or driven into exile.
Of course many examples could be posted.
Americans are not learnt it in school but America would not have gained its independence without the assistance of the Catholic King of Spain (so much for George Washington and avoiding foreign entanglements).
The Continental Congress petitioned King Charles and received tons of money and material from Spain which helped Amships get into N’Awlin’s via Cuba with false flags etc.
Were it not for Spanish troops kicking Perfidious Albion’s arse on the Mississippi and in the FL panhandle the outcome would have been different, but, one can’t have official Govt-Prot history tell that to the kiddies.
I mean, they were Catholics AND Spanish for Heaven’s sake.
Note - when I get back a book I have loaned out I will post another response.
Have a Blessed Advent, brother Dr.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin Raimondo:
“What I meant to say, and clearly did not, is that the Nazi empire, and the US, are in no way comparable—and that the former would have collapsed on its own if left to its own devices”.
Yes, the Third Reich would have eventually collapsed but the question is how long would it have lasted before that happened.
Having lived in it (or rather under it), my guess is, we wouldn’t see it happen. Not even our grandchildren. It would certainly have outlived the crummy Soviet Union.
Germans were such well organized and disciplined people, widely admired by all Europeans, friends or foes. Their fatal mistake, and, as it turned out, our luck (if that is the right word for the bloodbath)was their propensity for military adventures.
Germans had the most fantastic army, easily the best the World has ever seen.
(Hitler must have had our Madlaine Albright’s thoughts:-’what is the use of a perfect war machine if you do not use it’?)
I think we are comparable to the Nazi empire, at least in our arrogance, aggressivness and brutality. And, that will be enough take us, too -to our grave before our time.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Spartacus,
Yes, of course, Spain, England, and France all claimed the area that became known as the Carolinas, but any--any--historian knows that there were NO Spanish settlements that lasted above St. Augustine. I was speaking, if you will go back and read my original message of where I live (NOT Florida, NOT New Orleans)--North Carolina. And except for Indians, there were NO Spaniards settled within 500 miles. So, yes, I wish you a blessed Advent also, and good reading in American history.
By the way, I must insist once again, I am by no means anti-Hispanic. My doctoral work was in Spain, I spent four years there, and a year teaching in Argnetina. I am fluent in Spanish and have travelled in Latin America, where I have friends. But North Carolina has never been a Hispanic colony, and frankly I do not want to to become one. For me it is not a matter of what religion Mexicans may profess; it is a matter of the culture that I am part of hinc et nunc.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Peter,
The “what ifs” of history are inherently uncertain, yet they are also extremely fascinating. My guess is that your estimate of Germany’s durability is too optimistic. Look at the situation in the late 30s: the Nazi elite was rapidly becoming heavily corrupt (Goering, Goebbels); a serious split was opening between the army and the SS and the economy was being strangled by a growing, ever more intrusive government bureaucracy.
I doubt if the system could have survived Hitler by long. The factional quarrels among the Nazis were so intense that with his authority gone either a civil war or an economy-paralyzing gridlock in decision-making would have been very probable. What this would have led into is difficult to say. Most likely a period of stagnation and chaos followed by a new effective dictator—i.e., something quite similar to what happened in Russia.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr.Boyd D.Cathey worries are legitimate
but,I am afraid, the trend is irreversible as far as the immigration is concerned, even if its illegal aspect is eliminated.
Mexicans are already millions in this Country and they multiply much faster than the ‘Anglos’, so it is only a matter of time before they fully assert themselves, politically and economically.
The situation could be called a typical case of the Imperial Indigestion.
The greed was enormous to swallow California, Texas, N.Mexico etc from Mexico (in fact, one third of that entire country) without ever worrying about the social, cultural or spiritual consequences of that imperialist act. Material proffit was always American supreme goal (Marx would have gloated over this as vindication of his ‘capitalist contradictions’).
In my modest opinion, we shall have to accomodate the Hispanic Culture if we want to avoid ‘males mayores’.
Anyhow ,Spanish is a lovely language, why shouldn’t every American learn it?
In Switzerland almost everyone speaks three.(Have you been to Switzerland, if not ask Taki)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I read Mr. Raimondo’s latest article on antiwar.com about the huckster and have one question:
What happened to the cigarette, man??!??!!!!?!!?!?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
re: new pic.
You look sad in that pic :(
Like the, “have you seen my puppy? I losted it” kind of sad.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
From demographer Dr. Jose Sanchez:
“Except for a small number of pure European blood, 30% of Mexicans are Amerindian, and 60% are Mestizo. We are not Western. We are of Aztlan.”
And others seem to agree:
“We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation.”
“Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes…”
“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”
– Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza
“Around the year 2040, whites will become a minority in the United States and, believe me, it will be ‘payback time’.”
- Pro-Immigration Activist, Jorge Sanchez
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Kari Konkola,
My knowledge doesn’t go further than my experience as a young boy in a nazi-occupied Balkan country. All what I know is what I’ve seen and heard from the conversations among adults.
You wont have any arguments from me. What you say about nazi corruption is very believable although it is quite new to me.
I havent found a serious study about Nazism yet and admit the last thing I read was Speer’s book, which, as I remember, was rather self justifying. There is still such a jewish stranglehold on the subject that I have given up on it.(More than sixty years after, our decrepit democracies are arresting people for their opinion about it) There are, of course thousands of disgusting Hollywood movies to feed those who want to see only in black and white (stuff for Hillary Clinton)and which annoy the hell out of me, for their distortions of the reallity gone by.
Thanks for the information I shall keep it in mind.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Is it even possible to be a follower of Rothbard without being a psycho-sexual cripple? Raimondo is a Rothbardian Leninist who is incapable of analyzing the political landscape rationally. This site attracts bitter, delusional, irrational throwbacks? Quess what: Paul has absolutely no chance of winning any primary. Even he knows that!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What astonishes me about Goldberg’s screed is the venom he
vents on civilized political entities such as the Habsburg Empire,
which both Mises and Hayek thought of themselves as having been
privileged to live under. Why does Goldberg believe that the
Habsburg ‘liberal empire” imposed some terrible burden on classical
liberal economists, who had defended it in war? As for his dumb
comments about the evil “Huns,” what else should one expect from a
minicon media darling? In comparison to PodII and Oprah, Jonah is
a veritable polymath.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Peter RV et al,
I already speak Spanish, so if your pessimistic prediction is correct,
I should be okay! However, I am not a pessimist, and I believe that
there is still an opportunity to reverse the current immigration
patterns...maybe not a great chance, but a chance nevertheless.
Another point: there seems to underlie at least some of the discussion,
at least on the part of a couple of posters, that Mexican/Latin American immigration into the USA is a “good thing” because it brings
in more Catholics, and that will somehow help reshape the USA. As a
traditionalist Catholic myself let me differ: most of the Mexicans I encounter
here in North Carolina (and it is a sizeable number) carry with them
only the most rudimentary mix of Catholicism and native cults. Despite
what some “conservatives” suggest, once here they become pawns of the
Left, their Catholicism notwithstanding. I don’t think wishful thinking
or pandering will change that.
I do not mean to criticize those who come looking for work and a better
life; I don’t blame them. But immigration is not the panacea that some
seem to suggest to cure our moral ills. It is and continues to be
destructive of what is left of our social fabric and can only engender
more serious problems in the future.
I do, however, blame the larger employers and businesses that lure
these poor people across the border, house them in less than human
living conditions, and exploit them for all they are worth.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Well, this rebuttal pretty much dispenses with the ideological claptrap that the Neocon Review is spewing out. I am convinced that the Neocons are trapped in a WWII worldview that they cannot escape--somehow, their arguments always reinvigorate that paradigm.
Please have them roll up the shades in the Ivory Tower and peer out the window. While many of the “backward” societies are trying to modernize their infrastructures and obtain foreign capital, the USA is utterly defocused on the “war” and chasing “bad guys” around the globe. Their “means” to this end is to centralize and control everything (internally and externally) in a vain attempt to capture an Empire. Their only interest in technology is to empower the enforcers; meanwhile, the USA rots from inside, smothers within intolerable bureaucracy, and becomes less competititve. Americans are becoming like drones--waiting for the next order from Washinton to see how much water they can use in their toilets.
The Neocon/Neoliberal agenda may be wrapped in the rubric of international gamesmanship and brokered treaties, but the real goal is to establish a lofty perch for the Emperor and his handmaidens so that they can play with all the “little dominoes” of the world. Of course, long ago, I remember Buckley endorsing “drug freedom” (probably has changed since then)--no surprise, because it’s clear that he and the Neocons are smoking something powerful.
Their system cannot work--because people and nations are not going to tolerate it for long. Capturing an Empire is one thing--then one has to maintain it. Decentralization and modernization, with ample economic/personal freedom, are much stronger antidotes for America’s ailments. Soon, the American people are going to see the Neocon/Neoliberal charlatans for what they are--and they’ll be greatly disappointed with the visage.
The “blowback” is coming, fast.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Once again, I support Ron Paul’s candidacy.
However, let’s all get realistic. Here is a telling article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071217/pl_afp/usvote2008youth
The end says it all:
<>
26% of “young Republicans” support Rudolph Giuliani.
The VAST VAST majority of Americans want to live under communism and WAR! Americans are a sick, sick group of people, and anyone that still wants to identify himself with them deserves what he gets.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
<<...most of the Mexicans I encounter
here in North Carolina (and it is a sizeable number) carry with them
only the most rudimentary mix of Catholicism and native cults.>>
I agree. But even if 10% of them are truly devout Catholics, that is at a rate of 10+ times more devout to the Faith than the natives of North Carolina and the rest of the South.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Rudee is falling like a rock the whole race is in turmoil.The Republican party is on the verge of collaspe.The way I see this race right now, it could go any way. Ron Paul has a lot of money a good message,and a great bunch of agressive supporters.Bush is a cancer that the good doctor must excise.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I feel a need to point out that not all of us from NC share Dr. Cathey’s concern with the preservation of what he refers to as “his” culture. Personally I think it was a fine thing my father’s parents were allowed in from Denmark and my mother’s grandparents from Ireland, despite the impact that may have had on the culture of central VA. My Irish forbearers in particular were often viewed as worthless rogues who would have nothing but bad influence on “American” culture. Well, they did contribute to change, as did the Danish, the Poles, the Chinese, the west African slaves, and all the others who have come here over the centuries. I do not fear cultural change because culture is constantly changing. The adaptation our species is so good at will continue apace, whether individuals like it or not. Plus I am not all that fond of the culture we have now, in NC or the US in general. This is why I support Justin’s efforts and the candidacy of Dr. Paul, even though I may disagree on some specifics with both of them. We _need_ cultural change, toward a more libertarian future.
My work puts me in contact with people of Hispanic descent on a day-to-day basis. Some of them are fantastic people, some of them are a-holes. Interestingly enough, the same is true of the “white” people I meet, and the “black” ones too. Even the “yellow” ones ! Rather shocking, huh ? One of the things that is notable about the Hispanic people I meet and work with is they are very commonly poorer than those of European descent. Even among those making good wages, many send the lion’s share of their new found wealth to family south of the border. Most if not all of the statistics cited by Caucasian detractors of Hispanic immigration are attributable to this economic situation and/or the inevitable instability of recent immigration. Certainly we need to have control of the borders to keep out those who would harm us, but that would be a lot easier if we stopped wasting money and manpower in tar pits like Iraq. For that matter it would be a lot easier if we had a more open and rational immigration policy, as it would curtail the illegal trade
I say let them come. More people to buy the goods I purvey, more eager to get ahead workers for my employ, more high-energy people (as almost all immigrants are) to enhance our culture. Let them come, free up the economy from its current straitjacket of war and taxation so there would be work for all willing to do it, and then you would see a country (and a culture) really bloom.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree whole heartedly with Pancho Villa. Not with what he says, which is nonsense, but with his attitude. He prefers Mexicans, I prefer whites.
We can get along famously as long as he and his preferred people stay south of the Rio Grande.
Yours truly Davey
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As my Mexican colleague here at our law firm in Houston says, the process is “la Reconquista.”
Pues, Cara al Sol.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Erik Christensen:
North Carolinians--and Southerners in general--have historically
had little problem with welcoming and integrating immigrants who
came to these shores in smaller numbers. Indeed, there were Irish
Catholics who settled in and around Halifax in the 1820s, Moravians
who settled in Forsyth County, Germans in old Rowan County, etc. We
are indeed a composition. But in those previous settlements we are
not talking about the kind of mass immigration that we have and are
witnessing currently. Estimates of illegals in North Carolina now
range from 300,000 to about one half million, and growing every day.
This, I would suggest, is quite different from most of the earlier
in-migrations to the state.
The problems I suggest, which is both economic and cultural, are quite
real, Mr. Christensen. You may see more dollars coming into your
pockets (and I would expect an orthodox libertarian to say such things).
But there are far reaching cultural problems in towns like Siler City,
Zebulon (which is close by), and smaller eastern towns. Crime rates
have skyrocketed (with Hispanics being a major cause for it), the “free”
medical care rendered in hospital emergency rooms has (according to
the heads of Wake Med Center and others) means that citizens are paying
hundreds of dollars MORE each year, our schools are providing “free”
education to thousands of illegals’ children, etc., etc. And there
are more subtle changes as well, in media, in social relations, etc.
Not only that, but, despite the silly pipe dreams of some GOP and
“conservative” strategists, the Hispanics who come north are not
the proto-traditionalists that some would have them be. Every statistic
that I’ve seen gives the lie to this. Their religious practices are
a rudimentary mix of Christianity and native cults (and even if 10%
practice traditional Catholicism, the other 90% quickly overawes
that portion). The leftwing Demos see Hispanics as a sure way to insure
a Demo majority for the forseable future; I think this is undeniable.
Yes, I said “my” culture, and I reiterate that I believe that every
culture has the right to defend itself and preserve itself. I do not
blame so much those who come north looking for a better life. But they
are attempting to change my society, and change it in ways that I
dislike. I oppose those changes, and I’ll continue to do whatever I
can to stem the flow of illegals.
Let me reiterate for the last time that I have always thought of myself
as a Hispanophile. I spent nearly five years in Spain and Argentina,
earning a doctorate in history and teaching. I admire Hispanic culture
and the traditions of Spain (and the Counterreformation!). But the
present immigration of illegals into the USA is NOT going to restore
America or bring a great rebirth of the traditional Catholic faith
in our benighted country. THAT, it appears to me, will only happen
when American citizens convert.....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A reader over at Lawrence Auster’s site, View From the Right, provided a link to Ron Paul’s position on immigration, one point which reads as follows:
“Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.”
One is still left wondering what “true immigration reform” consists of for Dr. Paul, but it’s clear that Mr. Arias was way off-base in his claim that Paul supports the legalization of 60 million new immigrants (over whatever span of time). I was lazy in not checking this out on my own, but at a website like Lew Rockwell’s there ought to be a little more attention paid to basic facts. Lew did not do his friend a service.
LINKS:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
http://www.amnation.com/vfr
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks so very much, Michigander! You’ve given an answer, or at least
most of one, to my original question, and I do appreciate it!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Crime rate soaring in North Carolina?
Better check your statistics!
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nccrimn.htm
The murder rate has dropped from a high of 13.5 per 100,000 in 1972 to a 6.1 per 100,000 in 2006. The lowest was 6.0 per 100,000 in 2003.
Since 1992, aggrevated assault (what can be considered “attempted murder") has dropped from 447.7 to 289.1 in 2006.
As a matter of fact, since the early 90’s, every crime rate is down, except for vehicle theft. Even the ghastly forcible rape rate, which steadily climbed until the early 90’s, is down.
Local crime rates may be higher, but it can be shown that overall, crime rates have decreased in Carolina del Norte since it has become increasingly Hispanic.
As for “free health care”, “free education”, etc., your argument is against communism, not immigration.
Also, the “culture” you wish to protect has long since been dead. It died 142 years ago. The culture of the west, the “cowboy culture” is the future - el cultura de charro es la futura.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Andrew Capp,
The PERCENTAGE OF CRIME in NC committed by Hispanics has risen, Mr. Capp, and
forms a substantial (out of proportion) percentage of the total crime
rate. And, as to the figures you cite, they are, I must say, highly
suspect. Certain kinds of inner city crime (e.g. burglaries, robberies, etc.)
have gone UP per Hispanics, not down, just the kind of crime that gangs engage
in. In addition, it is undeniable that a larger portion of traffic accidents are caused by Hispanics in proportion to the general population, and a majority of these do not have or carry auto insurance).I can cite examples, if you wish, of Durham, Raleigh, and some larger metropolitan areas. And even in smaller cities,
like Clayton down the road from me, the number of Hispanic gangs in
the past ten years has mushroomed from 2 to over 20...and don’t tell
me that the purpose of these gangs is to form scholas for Catholic
Mass!
Yes, I argue against “communism” regarding the free health care given
to Hispanics. And let me ask you: would YOU oppose extending health
care--"communism" as you call it---to these folks? Yes, I do oppose
using taxpayer monies for this service to illegals. But do you,
Mr. Capp, support this “communism”? I would imagine, given your “open
borders” suicidal approach, that you would favor this. After all,
shouldn’t you be consistent since you obviously desire the destruction
of what is left of “my” society [By the way, you are partially correct
about what you say...much of it has disappeared since 1865, but I
refuse to give up the remainder, okay?]
I really must ask you: why are you even ON this list? Your views are
so definitely PC, leftist, as to defy explanation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
HA!
ME? “PC leftist”?! Absolutely NOT!
OK, first let us examine the crime statistics for Raleigh.
http://www.disastercenter.com/northcar/crime/7638.htm
In 1995 the murder rate was 7.9. In 2005 the murder rate was 5.7.
In 1995 the rape rate was 43.2. In 2005 the rape rate was 26.5.
In 1995 the burglary rate was 1,528.5. In 2005 the burglary rate was 916.7.
Accross the board, crime is down in Raleigh, NC.
Let us now look at Clayton, NC.
http://www.disastercenter.com/northcar/crime/7438.htm
As in all smaller towns, the crime rate tends to be a bit “chaotic”, with the rates jumping around, depending on a few events, such as a double homicide, which can skew the numbers drastically.
In 1995 the murder rate was 17.9, with only 1 murder. In 2005 there were no murder reported in Clayton.
The rape rate was 17.9 with a single rape reported in 1995. In 2005, the rape rate was 16.2, with 2 rapes reported.
In 1995 the burglary rate was 1,883.5. In 2005 that rate stood at 1,099.0.
Clearly, despite an increase in Hispanic immigrants, crime is down in both Raleigh and Clayton. Your fear of a Hispanic crime wave is overblown. Do not be a victim of government propaganda, which is simply used to control your emotions and actions.
As for traffic accidents caused by Hispanics, I have no data, nor do you. However, just based on anecdotal evidence, I would guess that fewer Hispanics carry automobile insurance compared to “Whites” but that Hispanics have automobile insurance a greater rate than Blacks.
As for “free health care” and “free schools”:
Hospitals are, by definition, charity, and should be run by charities, with the ability to pay being determined and agreed upon between both charity and receiver. Likewise with schools. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO “PUBLIC MONEY” GOING TO EITHER OF THESE INSTITUIONS. A Mexican that moves to Clayton, NC should pay his own way, with NO “PUBLIC MONEY”. Get in an accident, and can’t pay his medical bill, perhaps his fellow parishioners can pay what they can, perhaps the hospital is run by the Church and can work something out with his parish, etc. But NO money should come out of anyone’s pocket by force. THAT is not “charity”.
It is kind of hard to call me “PC leftist” when I support the removal of Protestant churches and schools from my parish, a la the Edict of Fountainebleau. Ah, a man can dream, can he not?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Andrew,
I’m afraid we shall have to differ on crime stats. My information
comes from Sheriff Donnie Harrison (a hard core conservative, sheriff
of Wake County) and recent published stats for Durham (in the Raleigh
News and Observer). And you have not addressed: (1) the precipitous
rise in the number of Hispanic gangs, nor (2) the stats (cf. Wake
County Sheriff’s Dept.) regarding traffic accidents and lack of
insurance which are available from the sheriff’s office. And, in
communities like my Wendell, Zebulon, and yes, Clayton, certain
types of crime have gone up, certainly amongst Hispanics, I would
maintain.
I agree with you about hospitals (and schools). But don’t you see
that if such a rule were in place, many illegals might well return
to Mexico, etc?
In any case, I don’t think any of this would make any difference for
you; you are so negative about the USA that anything that would continue
to further the disintegrative process you would probably welcome, am
I not right?
Actually, as an old line Confederate I nominally would favor dissolution
but I’m not sure that that would help much in our present state.
Nor do I think that all of those immigrants that you adore so much
are going to be in any way the “salvation” for this country. As I
said earlier, ONLY conversions of the citizens hic et nunc will do
that.
In any case, let me wish you una feliz Navidad, y el deseo que cuando
llegue a tu casa la gente buscando a robarte, que no te quejes
mucho! Pues, lo has pedido!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Boyd D. Cathey refers to: “Yes, I said “my” culture,...”
That reminds me of the bug exterminator that I encountered who wanted to nuke Iran because “they” were going to come over here and bomb “his” shopping centers and elementary schools.
I suggest that if you want to defend and protect “your” culture from that “worsen"ed Mexican culture, then don’t buy any tejano cd’s and don’t put up pinatas at your grandkids birthday parties and stay away from Taco Bell and don’t drink Margeritas. I personally will continue to enjoy the contributions which Mexicans have made to “my” culture.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Jonah Goldberg Takes on Ron Paul
Posted by Justin Raimondo on December 16, 2007
‘Jonah Goldberg’s critique of the Paul campaign – published in the dead-tree version of National Review—is surprisingly respectful, but, alas, he gets several things wrong: heck, he gets just about everything wrong...Goldberg takes issue with Paul’s foreign policy, which he insists is “today called “isolationism.”’
What’s wrong with isolationism? If you saw a nasty welfare recipient fighting with a nasty street person, would you interfere? Israel is our biggest welfare case by far and the Palestinians have been street people ever since the Zionists dispossessed them by force from their homeland. It isn’t our fight, although, since Israel was not exist if she weren’t sucking mightily at the US taxpayers teat, perhaps we have an obligation to help the Palestinians.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin, despite the shortcomings that your analysis in this blog post highlights, I found Goldberg’s article quite interesting in many respects. When was the last time someone like Goldberg described Rothbard as “brilliant?” In fact, the majority of the article’s first section was pretty fair – infinitely better than the usual strawman and smear combination typical of those of Goldberg’s ideological persuasion.
You, Lew and Ron should congratulate yourselves; the movement you’ve nurtured and grown is becoming too strong for these old tactics. Goldberg is among the early detractors to recognize this, but there will be others.
I suggest that you take the core of this blog post and make it into a major article.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am always puzzled at people who have (rightfully) a great contempt and disdain for contemporary American culture and yet fear that immigrants will change it. If only! The real problem with culture is that American culture is taking over the whole world and reducing everything to the same materialist, consumerist common denominator. Our friend Nergol has pointed this out in his posts on another theme in this forum as have recent Popes - albeit more diplomatically.
Most immigrants, especially Latin Americans, are already half assimilated when they arrive and will unfortunately be completely assimilated in a generation or two. If in the process, they can provide a little variety in food and music and a few more processions in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe, that’s all to the good. Change the dominant language of the US to Spanish? I wish, but not a chance. Become puppets of the left? Sure - just like every other American, willingly or not. The US is the biggest leftist enterprise on the world stage today.
Will these brown-skinned Indo-Americans cause the disappearance of white Americans? This is the concern of the racists; skin color is the only culture they know. When I have suggested on a couple of occasions in the Chronicles forums that they do their share to continue the white race by procreating white children, they quote Garrett Hardin on the “tragedy of the commons” and whine that they shouldn’t have to compete in their own country with the fertility of immigrants. These people are condemned by their own Darwinian standard. They’re too lazy to survive.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I say arrest them both and distribute their property; that is bomb Israel and Palestine, force them both into prisons/concentration camps, and turn the property over to illegal Mexican immigrants to the United States. Kill two birds with one stay, I say.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Rocky Eades...I leave the pinadas and Taco Bells to you, kind sir.
“My culture” most definitely does NOT include the WalMarts, strip malls,
new developers’ “paradises” that are destroying the land I love. No,
it does not include those things; it does NOT include the Chamber of
Commerce Republicans, the ostrich-like “conservatives” who think that
a panacea for what ails America is to import millions of Amerindians
with but minimal skills simply because they may have been baptized
in the same Church that I was. Such idle dreams will get you into a worse
stew.
For longer than many johnny-come-latelies I opposed the destruction of
communities, the selling-off of the agricultural South to get-rich-quick
developers in league with big government socialist statists. As a
resident of Europe (and then Argentina) for over nine years I did,
indeed, witness the importation of the very worst features of “coca
cola” culture and its deleterious effects, so I don’t really need to
be lectured on that. Indeed, a number of years ago I wrote (for a French
rightwing journal) an article on Cardinal Pedro Segura of Sevilla, who
in 1953, condemned Spain’s “apertura” to the USA and NATO as a “sell-out”
to the worst features of “Yankee” culture.
Of course, we could go back to the automobile and television as virtual
enablers of this process, but I would be the first to admit that it
has been “my own people” who have been largely responsible. I take no
joy in that, nor do I in any way defend it. Rather, like some of the
other posters I heartily condemn it.
Oh, and by the way, I don’t listen to Tejano music...I’m a member of the
Wilhelm Furtwangler Society, and my taste turn to European opera and
symphonic music, in addition to Gregorian chant and polyphony, and
occasional Southern ballads and a bit of bluegrass. As I said, “my
people”....you don’t like it, tough.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Just a note:
“Tejano” music is actually German(ic), ergo “European”.
The Germans that settled both Texas and [northern] Mexico brought with them their music, and influenced their Mestizo neighbors, and Tejano/Norteno music is the byproduct.
If one is against Tejano/Norteno music, then one is against the traditional music of the German(ic) people, and can be seen as being anti-European.
This is why someone like me that has been influenced by both Catholic Germans and Catholic Mexicans takes offense to general anti-Mexican sentiment. It seems no different to me than general anti-Irish, anti-Italian, anti-Polish, etc. anti-Catholicism that pervades this REVOLUTION called the USofA.
Why is it when I walk into La Suprema, a chain of panaderias in metro Atlanta I am more reminded of Europe than when I walk into the very few American bakeries that are still in business? Could it be that Mexican culture is more European (and refined) than American “culture”? According to the anti-Mexicans, that is impossible, but they have never stepped foot in a bakery like La Suprema. Why not? Because they are in Mexican neighborhoods, which, despite statistics to the contrary, are relatively safe. Their attitudes are formed by their ignorance.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
For God’s sake, gentlemen . . .
If the immigration debate above is
characteristic of the conversations taking place within the
ranks of Paul supporters, we may as well hang onto our donations and
make sure our passports are current. It never ceases to amaze me how
these types of arguments arise between people who inhabit the ‘old
right’, paleoconservative, what have you demographic.
If our side doesn’t somehow manage to carry the day - and soon - the
number of immigrants to this country, legal or not, will be
irrelevant because the country will have ceased to exist (to the
extent that it hasn’t already).
Stop eating your own . . .
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Is America an empire at all? It certainly isn’t in the sense that Rome was. Our foreign garrisons are there by invitation and negotiation; we’ll pull them out if asked, as we did in the Philippines...”
We sure aren’t like Rome. Caesars once marched at the head of their troops; Emperor George “Nero” Bush contents himself to prance around in a flight suit with padded crotch and fly a jet a few thousand yards onto an aircraft carrier. His Petroneus is driven around NASCAR tracks in an SUV while crowds cheer. Big deal. Iraq wants our foreign garrisons out, but Emperor George Bush isn’t listening. Also, Rome didn’t take orders from Judea, but our Senate trembles when AIPAC speaks.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Andrew Capp and all you Aztlan members who for some reason have
decided to inhabit these confines:
You can continue talking until your collective faces (or whatever
other portion of your bodies) turn blue. You can argue that “Tejano”
music is actually European, or that Amerindians are the Lost Tribe
of Israel, of whatever you want, for all I care. I again repeat, your disenchantment
with the USA (a disenchantment that I in large part share) is driving
you to something far worse than what presently afflicts this benighted
nation. And I want no part of it.
I believe that most who read these posts, indeed most folks who identify
themselves as “paleo” or traditionalists would reject your arguments.
We have strayed far from the original question asked about Ron Paul, but perhaps the
responses give some idea of the utter confusion within even those
confines of the Right and shed light on just why the prophecies of
doom that some of you earnestly desire to come about, may indeed
transpire.
So, go renew your memberships in Aztlan...but be prepared for those
of us not willing to go along.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This website is getting tedious and tiresome.
I’ve had all the Catholic heresy and Mexican
mythology I can stomach.
Justin, the barnacles at this site just won’t
allow any conversation. Perhaps you should
start to post somewhere else?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There are some great posts (as usual) but finding them is getting harder and harder.
I’ll have to go back to my old method. Copy the thread to MS Word, delete all “Andy Capp” aka “Sid” posts and those of his “friends” and start reading.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Andy Capp = Sid = Promoter of White-Self-Hatred
Mexicans are extremely anti-European. Only a very small % of them are of pure Spaniard blood.
Most are either Amerindian or mostly Amerindian (Mestizo). They recognize themselves as children of Aztlan.
Let’s see what the founder of La Raza has to say on the subject:
“we’re a new Mestizo nation.”
“Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes…”
“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”
– Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am not a libertarian, but I will be voting for Ron Paul. I think
his message, in general, transcends strict libertarianism.
@ John Ball: What hard historical evidence do you have that
Germany needed to be crushed by military force? What justification
did the United States have for warring against Germany in World
War II?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am an immigrant from Germany married to an immigrant from Mexico, and we are both grateful for the invitation the America people extended to us. In our opinion the American people have every right to only let those in, they invite, just as your neighbor has every right to show you the door if you are uninvited.
America has vast, wide open spaces that are the envy of the world. However, just like you do not need to open your spacious home to your neighbor, who has too little room for his ever enlarging family, Americans should decide for themselves, whether they want to assume responsibility for the neighbor’s surplus of population.
Immigration is, when the people are invited. If they come uninvited, it’s called an invasion, and it does not make any difference if they come in tanks or in trucks.
The contention that the nominal ownership of the American West by Mexico, which did not even last 50 years and was almost 200 year ago, gives Mexico a right to these areas is laughable.
If they are a “Volk ohne Raum (people without space)”, they can try to take it away from the present population the way it has been done since time memorial: March in, kill or expel the locals, settle and defend it. This is the way the present USA was formed, and for that matter every other nation on earth, with Israel being the latest example. But any country that lets go and submits without a fight to such an invasion, probably does not deserve to be there in the first place.
So Americans, what shall it be?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Herr Hoermann,
You are confusing people’s property with one another.
If I invite a Mexican family to live next to you, by way of renting them the house that is next to yours, how is that infringing on you? You don’t own your neighbor’s house, and it’s best you not covet it either.
This thing you call “America” does not own the buildings and land occupied by these people called “Mexicans”. If you are suggesting that this thing called “America” be the one to decide to whom capital and land will be rented, then you should admit to yourself, and everyone here, that you are, by definition, a communist.
Are you prepared to do so?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Capp:
You are obviously confused about the concept of a nation state. There are certain commonalities between the individual members of that nation, be they the common ownership of public lands and treasuries, or the acceptance of certain behavior written in law. And just as any individual member in your household is not free to rent out half of his or her room to an outsider without the consent of the family, or have him seated at the family dinner table without that consent, uninvited foreigners are not allowed to stay without the consent of the people living there.
The right to determine who will be a member of a nation is called sovereignty. If a nation gives up that right, it ceases to exist.
Last time I looked, Americans liked to keep their sovereignty.
At the same time, I certainly would agree that every member should have the right to secede from that community, form their own country on the land they own outright and then invite anybody they want. But I assume that this is not the underlying idea of those that advocate unlimited illegal immigration, or of the Mexicans clamoring for “reconquista”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
<<You are obviously confused about the concept of a nation state.>>
No, I am quite aware that it is a communist idea, and especially dangerous when applied to man-made constructs such as the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, China, etc.
<<There are certain commonalities between the individual
members of that nation>>
What commonalities are there between me and, say, a Protestant Negro?
<<uninvited foreigners are not allowed to stay without the consent of the people living there.>>
However, I, as property owner, am “head of the household”, and I can invite and kick out any guest I want.
Once again, you are confusing “the government” with an individual practicing private property rights. That, sir, is communism.
<<I certainly would agree that every member should have the right to secede from that community, form their own country on the land they own outright and then invite anybody they want. But I assume that this is not the underlying idea of those that advocate unlimited illegal immigration, or of the Mexicans clamoring or “reconquista”.>>
This is where you are absolutely WRONG. For here I am, advocating unlimited Mexican immigration, and my underlying idea is one of government by tiny localities, one “nation” divided into THOUSANDS!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Andy Capp is what Communists would have called an objective ally. Although he claims to be and may indeed believe that he is a conservative his actions and opinions are contrary and aid those he is ostensibly opposing. With the exception of his fixation on the RCC and railing against the dissolute,degraded polity and populace of the United States I have yet to discern anything conservative about his posts. Loyalty to anything save his church seems to be beneath his dignity and he seems impervious to reasonable, factual argumentation. Let me ask you this, Andy, if Mexicans were white and protestant would you love them less? And if the answer to my question is yes, why are you such a bigot?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
<<if Mexicans were white and protestant would you love them less?>>
“Love”? I would love them no differently. However, I do not agree with, or “love” their culture, their beliefs. I am on the record stating that I hate Protestantism. I hate no one person, but I do hate their sins.
<<why are you such a bigot?>>
Well, yes, I guess I am a bigot. I am sorry that you are offended. But we can not all be Cultural Marxists such as yourself and try and not offend people. That IS what you were getting at, was it not? That offending people hurts your feelings? That we should all just be tolerant of our differences and “get along”?
Anyway, WHY am I a “bigot”? Because I believe that I am right and those that disagree are WRONG. That is, I believe the Catholic Faith to be the One True Faith, and Protestantism to be guided by Satan.
<<Loyalty to anything save his church>>
If an organization works against the Church, should I remain loyal to that organization? Are you recommending moral relativism? Of course you are! My what a good little communist you make!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Capp:
I am under the impression that you try to rebut my statements without having read them. Or do you assume that nobody else has anything worthwhile to say except you, so it is beneath your dignity to even read other comments before answering?
1. You state that nation states are communist constructs. Since they were present thousands of years before Marx started that particular ideology, and even go back to the tribal structures at the beginning of mankind, you declare communism a natural desire or state for men. I could not disagree more.
2. I describe commonalities as “the the common ownership of public lands and treasuries,”, so where do you get the idea to question “What commonalities are there between me and, say, a Protestant Negro?” You make no sense
3. You are not the “head of the household” of the nation state, you are a member of that family. Nobody elected you head of the household. If you want to exercise that power on your private property, you are absolutely right, and I suggest that you might want to secede. But when you do, please do not have your “guests” travel on the public property of the nation state that you just left, or have them sit at the common dinner table (public services).
4. Knowing and even respecting a many of those Mexicans you want to invite to your property - I certainly understand their desire to find their fortune here - I can only tell you that you will find very few supporters of your idea of a “thousand tiny localities” among them. Most of them will throw you overboard at the first opportunity and claim your property. It’s just human nature.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Not to play Ramus but does this mean that you support the IRA because although they were Communists they were also Catholic. I mean according to you that pretty much trumps all other considerations, right? Can you even begin to understand how your barking mad, can’t think, won’t think arguments don’t do justice to either catholicism or conservatism? Or is that the point of your posts?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Andy Capp
Not to play Ramus but does this mean that you support the IRA because although they were Communists they were also Catholic. I mean according to you that pretty much trumps all other considerations, right? Can you even begin to understand how your barking mad, can’t think, won’t think arguments don’t do justice to either catholicism or conservatism? Or is that the point of your posts?
Good points Herr Hoermann
Sorry for the double post BTW.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
<>
With that I agree whole heartedly.
<<Most of them will throw you overboard at the first opportunity and claim your property.>>
At that point, the property owner has every right to defend his property, even to the point of lethal force.
<<although they were Communists they were also Catholic.>>
The IRA was a nominal Catholic organization. Do I support a united Ireland? Quite frankly, I don’t give a damn. I doubt very seriously that an Irishman of 100 years ago, much less 1,000 years ago, would have at all supported the secular government of Ireland today. Just as I don’t support “Christian democracy”, I don’t support the IRA, secular government, etc.
What kind of government do I support?
Tribal - I answer first and foremost to my father, my mother, my brothers, my uncles, my aunts, and my cousins. If I do something that shames them, I am ashamed of myself, and vice versa. I don’t not murder and rape because “the government” tells me not to. I don’t do those things because God tells me and my family not to do such things.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
please do not have your “guests” travel on the public property of the nation state that you just left, or have them sit at the common dinner table (public services).
THAT is what I agreed with “whole heartedly”.
I don’t know what happened to the original text…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hillary Clinton: “I’m King of the World!”
Was Bill Clinton the only guy in history to run for
el’Presidente because it would look good on his
wife’s resume?
What a double standard, no? Imagine if she was
el’Presidente first - would it mean then Bill ought
to be, it’s his turn?
I’d rather vote for the Austrailian Dame Edna.
Dame Edna: “I’m Queen of the World!”
________________
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between” Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went