The “Isms” That Bedevil Bush
On reading George Bush's discourse to the New York Economic Club last week, Cicero's insight came to mind: "To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child."
With Iraq entering its sixth year, the dollar sinking to peso levels, the economy careening into recession, and 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens roosting here, Bush alerted us to what really worries him:
"I'm troubled by isolationism and protectionism ... (and) another 'ism,' and that's nativism. And that's what happened throughout our history. And probably the most grim reminder of what can happen to America during periods of isolationism and protectionism is what happened in the late—in the '30s, when we had this America First policy and Smoot-Hawley. And look where it got us."
Let us try to sort out this dog's breakfast.
First, America was never isolationist. From its birth, the republic was a great trading nation with ties to the world. True, in 1935, 1936 and 1937, a Democratic Congress passed and FDR signed neutrality acts to keep us out of the Italo-Abyssinian and Spanish civil wars. And FDR did say, "We are not isolationist except insofar as we seek to isolate ourselves completely from war." But how did staying out of Abyssinia and Spain hurt America?
As for Smoot-Hawley, it was a tariff enacted in June 1930, nine months after the Crash of 1929, which occurred, as Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize for proving, when the stock market bubble, caused by the Fed's easy money policy, burst. Smoot-Hawley had nothing to do with a Depression that began in 1929 and lasted through FDR's first two terms. This is a liberal myth, probably taught to Mr. Bush by New Deal Democrats at the Milton Academy.
America First was an organization of 800,000 anti-interventionists formed at Yale in 1940 by patriots like Gerald Ford, Potter Stewart and Sargent Shriver, backed by John F. Kennedy, to check FDR's drive to war. Herbert Hoover supported it, and its greatest spokesman was the Lone Eagle, Charles Lindbergh.
But America First did not make policy. FDR did. And it was FDR who, by cutting off Japan's oil in July 1941, rebuffing Prince Konoye's offer to meet him in the Pacific or Alaska and issuing a virtual ultimatum on Nov. 26, 1941—to get out of China—that propelled Japan to its fatal decision to attack Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7.
Isolationist is an epithet used to smear those patriots who adhere to Washington's admonition to stay out of foreign wars, Jefferson's counsel to seek "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" and John Quincy Adams's declaration that America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
Does Bush regard these statesmen as blinkered isolationists?
Protectionism is the structuring of trade policy to protect the national sovereignty, ensure economic self-reliance and "prosper America first." It was the policy of the Republican Party from Abraham Lincoln to Calvin Coolidge. America began that era in 1860 with one half of Britain's production and ended it producing more than all of Europe put together. Is this a record to be ashamed of?
Compare protectionism's success to Bush's record.
Since 2001, he has presided over the seven largest trade deficits in history, the loss of 3.5 million manufacturing jobs and the collapse of the dollar, and added but one-fifth of the private sector jobs Bill Clinton created. Gold has gone from $260 an ounce to $1,000, oil from $28 a barrel to $100.
"Nativism" is another smear term, dating to the early 1850s and the Know-Nothing Party, which sought to halt immigration after millions of Irish flooded in after the famine of 1845. It carries a connotation of xenophobia, or the fear and hatred of foreigners.
Thus does Bush tar critics who deplore his dereliction of duty in failing to defend this nation's borders against a Third World invasion that may turn this republic into a Tower of Babel.
From 1924 to 1965, there was indeed little immigration. Does that make Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Kennedy knuckle-dragging nativists? When JFK took office, we were as united and strong a country as we have ever been. How did we suffer from not having 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens here?
In smearing as nativists, protectionists and isolationists those who wish to stop the invasion, halt the export of factories and jobs to Asia, and stop the unnecessary wars, Bush is attacking the last true conservatives in his party.
Which is understandable. For after the judges and tax cuts, what is there about Bush that is conservative? His foreign policy is Wilsonian. His trade policy is pure FDR. His spending is LBJ all the way. His amnesty for illegals is Teddy Kennedy's policy.
Two-thirds of the nation says we are on the wrong course. Two-thirds rejects NAFTA and amnesty. Two-thirds wants out of Iraq. Two-thirds rejects Bush. Bush says that people are being misled by those wicked old isolationists, protectionists and nativists. At least he and Poppy will have something to agree on in retirement.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
While PJB's article is interesting, the comments are better. Even the Man of a Thousand Names - today he's Claudius Flavius Julianus - was good for a laugh. And Robert Reavis' rundown of Bushisms was priceless!
To: John Rutowicz and G.S.
"Since you are such a brave Superman, why don’t you use your real name?"
Why don't I use my real name, because silly little christians like you would use it to punish my family and friends. As for being a 'homo', well, that is just silly name-calling...And name calling isn't nice... Just ask pastor Haggert... Or the many other christian homos...
As for my bravery...please...where is your bravery... Picking on a poor defenceless freedom-lover like myself...
Concerning the NAZI reference... I do have sympathy for the cause they were fighting for, however, I do fault them for the fact 'they failed'...
Now, if you want to have a real conversation, then stop the childish insults, read a real book for once (not just the good book) and pull out of the little alterboys long enough to make an intelligent post.
By the way, since when has it become unfashionable to dislike and distrust the jew... Oh! That's right... Since they took over the media and brainwashed you poor, inept little christians...(oh! sorry about the name-calling...)
I am a true Southerner, cut from the cloth of my great grandmother's father that surrendered with the 47th Alabama Infantry at Apamatox.
The "Old South" was a christian society that provided a classic education to their children as proven in the many magnificant letters of history written by the troops during the war of "Northern Agression".............RECONSTRUCTION was part of the "Dumbing Down" of the South, inorder to hold it back indefinately. This plan combined with huge doses of guilt poured out on the traditional Southern offspring created exactly what the Northeastern Cosmopolitians wanted.(An ignorant culture of people willing to die to prove their worthiness in a phoney union). 2 Quick points:
1. Ignorant does not mean stupid, but "Without information."
2. Research the % of Southern soldiers that have served in America's wars sence the war of Northern Agression?
Northeasterners recognized early on that if they "Owned the South's clergy, they could manipulate their ignorance based on their strong faith and national commitment!"..............How many pathetic TV evangelists have groveled inorder to sit at the King's table, and led their Southern Flock astray for their personal ambitions?........Because of the ignorance factor, the SOUTH buys into the MSM "Official State Position". But, the internet is changing things, and "Washington" knows that time is running out on their canon fodder. Young Southerners are now learning the truth about the last 150 years, and NOT developing into the "LINCOLN WORSHIPERS OF THE PAST"!...............When the old die away, the new will say "F*#K YOU Yale graduates! Fight your own wars!"......And without the SOUTH, the Pentagan is screwed! Bush knows this, and now needs MEXICAN CANON FODDER!"
Flavius Claudius Julianus,
Sparta was far smaller than is the US. It's Constitution might... not be compatible.
The city I live in is far larger than I understand Sparta to have been...
I thought I was man of a thousand names. I distance myself from this impostor - Flavius Claudius Julianus. Every now and again a moth heads towards the 'one' light - and tries to be me - the Actual man of a thousand names. What can I do? That's life. If I ever found a name I liked - believe me, I'd stick with it. Sadly I'm like that little kid Mike'ie from the commercial a number of years back in that - I don't like anything. I like my cave. I like walking. I like reading. I like the sun. I don't even like Navrozov ... and I should. Go figure. I don't like anything. I kid. No, no I don't. No wonder I don't like Bush or neo-cons'victs (except they're not in prison.) No wonder. I walk along with you no love like our love they say - but then one day - it all was lost (of course) somewhere along the way..... Well, take heart we're still very young. Very, very young. Just the other day I was saying to king Cyrus... 'let's send them somewhere to build something, it's getting a little bit thick around here...Let's call it the 2nd Temple (as in our fiction) rather than the first.' And we LAUGHED. It worked! ... I walk along with you, along the avenue... No love like our love they say........
Beck, if you're who I think you are, you've been lost for a good while in the Chronicles write backs
If you're ah having problems as you seem to be: habit, pursuing a goal, studying something rigorously, and physically excercising in a similarly rigorous manner can be beneficial...
And I'm seeing Kinism move in my direction now. You might like wearing that hat, everyone needs a hat. And hats keep us warm from the cold winds of the abyss, as does a nice sweater to warm the heart. (poor attempt at speaking as you do
)
Frank I don't know if i'm who you think i am - however good comments. you're someone to follow or at least their advice. good. i'm almost there out of my own lostness. very good. i'm getting strong now... like rocky. thanks for your comments. good work. now that i've said that...i'm knocking on wood.
you're in good company... here's Parmenides:
... but you should learn all:
the untrembling heart of unconcealment, well-rounded,
and also the opinions of mortals
who lach the ability to trust what is unconcealed.
so thanks Frank, for being frank. I can take it...
the aletheia...
good.
Mr. Beck
I shall not be branded an imposter... I am unique and not in the habit of pretense.
Have a pleasant day!
Frank,
I understand the United States cover a larger area than did Sparta, scale shall not be an issue in the America of the future. --As long as it is homogeneous.
Dr. Wilson,
Your words:
"The United States were not meant to be a democracy or a republic. They were meant to be a federal union of republics. Actually, they were not even “meant” to be. That is what they naturally were. If you are going to talk about the origins of the U.S. then the first requirement is to get this part right. Understand that the Republican nationalists did the first and greatest destructive act by perverting the federal government from a limited collaboration of states into a centralised government with no limits upon its power. If you dwell on the republic degenerating into a democracy you are missing the main point."
In the quote supra lies the crux of the history of these States united: what those states (republics) in their relationship to one another should be (have been) and what that relationship has become - usurped by a general government and the elites who came to control it.
Flavius Claudius Julianus,
it will with regard to monarchy imo. Not that I favour mass voting as we have now, but moderations can be made.
---
James Beck,
Like Rocky? heh, very funny. Naw I meant such might make one feel better. But yea I guess I, a random stranger, am certainly not the one to take advice from...
The rigorous studying adds structure to the mind if you're stressed, and the habit/routine is used by a lot of folks to stay efficient.
If not you then someone in here has been focusing on the uncertainty of the meaning of life for years in here, without seeming to make any gains towards such a goal, which is to be expected because there'll never be any certainty outside faith, which is concealed as you say... The solution if faith is rejected might be to learn to appreciate what is and to give it its value, or to allow nature and/or society to provide meaning and value.
Anyway, I didn't mean to bring you into the spotlight, just thought that might be useful advice. I'll return to meddling in my own fairs now though.
Flavius my apology. You are unique. Now that the human genome has been mapped completely - wow - no two of us are identical except for identical twins. And even the identical twins at least have different fingerprints. Amazing. You have a good sense of humor too I suspect or are at least a good sport. If there is reincarnation I hope to come back as an investment banker making $5 Million per week like the big shots do. I doubt there's a gene for it though. You know the old joke: It's not who you know or what you know, but who you are... Err well, no it's who you know. (Humor, sort of.) How dumb am I, in putting them down. Sad.
Except for wanting to opt out of WW II, I agree with Mr. Buchanan completely.
Isolation and nativism have been tarnished. Xenophobia is a phobia. Nationalism has a bad reputation. Do you all realize that there is no positive word for protecting and loving our culture?
Patriotism is, perhaps, an exception. But it does not give us values and direction because it is not overt about its historical and cultural roots.
The only approved "ism" these days is multiculturalism. This is positive because it believes we have no core culture. Its motto, "celebrate diversity" seems like a ploy to undermine our core culture.
Culturism values cultures. It recognizes that the West has a core culture. Unlike patriotism, it can provide direction. Our culture provides values. Forced marriage and Sharia can be officially banned via culturism's rules.
Culturism also notes that Mexican culture is not the same as ours. It gives us a positive rational reason to discuss limiting immigration.
Failing that, culturism allows us to push our values, because it recognizes we have them.
Such positions are not racist, they are culturist. We need to make leftists eat their words. Diversity exists and really is important. So while racism is illogical, culturism is necessary.
Finally, since culturism, by definition, values majority cultures, it does require us to go make other nations conform to Western ways. Culturism ackowledges international diversity. Just as Saudi Arabia protects its unique culture, we must do the same.
Pat is right, all the "isms" have been hijacked. We need a positive "ism" to express our views as well as counter multiculturalists and those who call everyone who notes diversity a racist.
http://www.culturism.us
"Do you all realize that there is no positive word for protecting and loving our culture? ... We need a positive "ism" to express our views..." -John Press
Yes. Attitude isn't everything or absolute but it is one of the essential keys to both personal and societal health. We don't have our own media currently as a nation but even if we did it would require a conscious effort not at happy-propaganda but avoiding our apparent propensity for and imbalance toward self-loathing. Given time & being why is this inclination in that direction the case in our civilization/culture at this point or juncture in TIME ... i.e. self-loathing?
Is it merely that we are dominated today by judaica and unconsciously or subconsciously their famous 'self-hating' is manifested inevitably? No this phenomenon at this point in TIME is also a part of the larger civilization/culture [probably] as well. If so *why at this juncture, or at this point in time or at this time of our being?
Well in dealing with Being itself so far in time it has been prudent to put a lach or lock on our ability to trust unconcealment as beings. ... It then is also experienced TODAY as a lack of an ability to trust unconcealment. ... But there's a back and forth. Beings move in time but time also moves Being and thus how beings intuitively experience or feel they want and actually ought to be. ... This isn't new in that our whole cultural experience moving forward as a civilization has been predicated APPROPRIATELY on Plato and Aristotle and all of Greek culture and they all dealt with this issue of Being. ... And they anticipated what might be next in time when the time came where we human beings are concerned. They took it as far as they could at that time and THAT time has lasted per se all this time until about now.
It means we don't abandon the past or tradition but build upon it toward listening to how we need to be next. That's why there's also a fixation at the moment in judaica with what is the 'authentic.' But the question has to be formulated appropriately which is - what is authentically next? The judaic has been influenced by the West and conversely to some extent a lesser extent the West has also been influenced by the judaic. Being itself (at least in our civilization) as it has been moved along by time seems to be nudging us beings in the direction of being more familiar and familiarly content with (as Parmenides referred to it) our unconcealment.
So if we as a microcosmic group who frequent this site for example or as a larger group with more popular spokespeople like Pat are looking for our own ism these days. Perhaps it ought to be referred to as Beingism, not humanism or human beingism per se. ... Because the tenet being expressed here by myself is that Being itself is moved along by time. ... And now going back to Plato as he pointed out: the Being of beings themselves is not a being per se. ... So yes we are human first and foremost [obviously] and hinged upon everything that preceded in our past. But now we are charged at this point in time with exploring how to be within our own *unconcealment rather than hidden because hidden means also to too large an extent hidden from ourselves. Life previously in civilization has been of *necessity a game. But what I am suggesting is we are approaching the doorstep in time and of a time now when it is no longer too early for Being. ?
Previously and understandably since it wasn't yet time to even broach this fact (that time also moves Being itself) and thus the fact of how it is today or about to be today - to even broach this was considered or held to be a mistake in *method - and correctly so since at that time it WAS untimely. But now there's an afterglow happening today from the past 'as if' it is yet timely to consider this a mistake in method...which is ok since we're in transition or approaching transition.
That's why people like us still get such automatic resistance. However Beingism as a positive ism : is suggesting it is now a mistake in method NOT to broach this and start to become more familiar with it and with ourselves in our unconcealment. Because there is nothing so powerful not only as an idea whose time has come (because sometimes they come and go if only matters of fashion.) But really there may not be anything so powerful as a way of Being once time has actually moved it and subsequently us to another relational moment in time with it. ... A priori to Being if you believe in God, G-d or an inceptionary source great. But who can look into the FACE of God and live. While more modestly BEING itself requires that we live in harmony with where time has moved it. Correct?!
This is something we can only sense since Being too [like God] will always be both a given and an enigma. But unless and until we begin to do THIS all of the other isms out there now or most of them like globalism etc. are only vain attempts at prolonging our Being as it No longer is. ... Thus it is not us standing in the way of the *common isms today. Rather they are doomed to failure now by where Being itself is at presently. Well that's my opinion or sense of Being as it is now. Be there dudes or be square?!
John Press @ 64 wrote: "The only approved 'ism' these days is multiculturalism. This is positive because it believes we have no core culture. Its motto, 'celebrate diversity' seems like a ploy to undermine our core culture."
It seems that way because that's exactly what it is. Consider: if equality is the highest good, as liberals say it is, then wouldn't the ultimate in equality be the sharing of a common culture among all men? But liberals take the other tack: their "equality" amounts to "separate but equal," a doctrine that in other contexts they profess to hate: each man should be able to have his own culture, but not have it be valued less than the next man's.
This doctrine is incoherent, and the reason it's incoherent is because it's not built upon a desire for equality. It's built upon a desire to destroy.
"This doctrine is incoherent, and the reason it’s incoherent is because it’s not built upon a desire for equality. It’s built upon a desire to destroy."
Well, of course. Once they realised how unpopular their bloodthirsty and Sadist campaign could become if it were carried out immediately and literally (as in the French Revolution), they had to disguise their agenda with buzzwords to seduce the masses. Some of us would call such blatant misrepresentation "lying"--and of course we all know the name of the Liar.
ditto NGPM & James Newland... all of these common and in my opinion dated 'isms' multi-culturalism, globalism ... shall evaporate 'like dew before the morning sun' as they are - precisely because the ground in which they are grown now is one of and for BEING'ISM, as articulated above in post # 65. I no longer feel it is too early for being... and the other 'isms' of the past... only thrive in another ground, and one that in being pro-game and appropriately so in the past, are now anti-being [inappropriately so] in the present. I think people are beginning to sense this. Again like thinking itself it is something we do anyway and in doing it consciously it is something we at first only noticed and later became able to refine. So it is with the ground of Being when it shifts again in a similar manner. Fascinating. I'm only noticing it and naming it first. I didn't (of course) create it. We didn't create the ground upon which we stand.
That would be nice, but there are at least 110 criminal aliens roosting here. Official figures made by the usurpers in our government don't count the spawn. The number of criminal aliens is so big, the only solution is to declare war on Mexico, evacuate all the aliens, and chase down those guilty of capital treason for "aiding and abetting" the enemies of these United States by importing them here. Whatever happened to our sense of right and wrong? Genocide of America is a big wrong.
I meant 110 million alien invaders.
James Beck, interesting and deep. I use Plato in culturism. But I mainly use him and Aristotle to show that philosophy used to be concerned with man in the context of his polis. Post-Kantian philosopher's praise of the universal has really messed us up. Universal rights being the prime example.
I trace multiculturalism, perversely enough, back to the Puritans. It isn't a major emphasis. Their searching their excellent souls for sin and wanting to be humble shares more with multiculturalism than Judaica.
Of course you might ask, "why then did we not see it much earlier?" The modern manifestation, in my reading, of multiculturalism comes from the communist Frankfurt School. They came here as Nazi refugees. Marcuse was huge in the 1960s. His "repressive tolerance" is THE blueprint for PC. It says not allowing non-progressive voices is the only way to progress.
Puritanism only sets us up to be willing to adopt multiculturalism. Neither Islam nor China would go for it. The Frankfurt school sought to undermine the West. Their work was designed to destroy us and will if we do not jettison it. Intellectual battles are important. That is why I think culturism can help.
We need unity based on the fact that we have a shared Western culture.
"The Frankfurt school sought to undermine the West. Their work was designed to destroy us and will if we do not jettison it. Intellectual battles are important. That is why I think culturism can help.
We need unity based on the fact that we have a shared Western culture." -John Press ... I agree. They [Frankfurt shcool] today in this country are the neo-cons, and their cousins/twins the neo-liberals. And their great funding source and hammer is A.I.P.A.C. the Jewish-Israeli Lobby in the U.S. They also have the MEDIA here and the pols for the most part in Washington. ... I agree intellectual arguments are important but they know what they are doing and do so willfully and in a comprehensive i.e. totalitarian fashion. So that it seems to me, although I may be wrong, that they put you on the Titanic know it's headed at full speed through the ice zone (they're not on it) and your intellectual arguments, although important, and unity on board the great ship is salutary - it's like rearranging the deck chairs at this point?
They also have academia. They are in the minority, yes, but they are a well organized team with the same purpose vs. a much larger population of sort of lone rangers and mavericks who don't usually tend to play well together. They also have Wall Street and the Fed. I mean, do you see what I'm saying... what 'chance' have you, short of divine intervention? Though I agree with you and have decided your efforts are necessary both personally and as a part of the collective. Sure. ... And being more 'intellectual', which indeed I ought to be is important, except it's like an exercise on a treadmill for the mind like push-ups for the body. Where does it get us toying with the deck chairs of the mind so to speak when the captain of the great ship ought to be under house arrest or the boiler room where the engine is at commandeered and slowed or shut down? Again, I'm probably alarmist. I say what I say but prefer, frankly speaking to follow folks like yourself and the editors of this site who are probably or are often more erudite and of greater equanimity dispositionally? At least that's my guess.
I see how Plato and Aristotle are respesented by yourself and that is also accurate, for this reason too. Although Aristotle relied on Plato's ontological position that Being is the most universal but also the emptiest of concepts (in other words it doesn't have the character of a *possible being). And so genus therfore is to be considered higher due to the actual material content of its manifold generic concepts/& beings. I.e. A Saddam Hussein can legitimately be a true son of his Sunni people and still a Shia or Jewish nightmare, and of course vice versa. Thus Aristotle agreed that only in a vague or vacuous regard does the universality of Being obviously surpass the universality of genus. But Aristotle posited the unity of Being and genus on a case by case basis exists too (obviously) without changing the universality of Being in toto and so it allows for Aristotle's unity of *analogy. That's because Aristotle wanted to set the stage for exploring the problem of Being itself. Rather than simply assuming that since it is the most universal concept it must be the clearest and needs no further discussion. ... For example you see morons like our western leaders pontificating all the time 'as if' their universalist perceptions and moral schematics i.e. schemes usually are a 'given' for all...And clearly need such universal acceptance worldwide. When in Fact nothing could be farther from the actual. Plato would agree that of course nothing in that regard could be farther from the actual. Except he felt or intuited Being to be a universal but *empty concept and thus it gave him license to simply imagine Forms (i.e. mere verbal knowledge) that were/are the progenitors of what we experience in our world and he brilliantly described then what he imagined to be the case.
Medieval ontology mistakenly in my opinion considered the concept of Being a 'transcendant'. In my opinion if there is a transcendant God or G-d - then Being as it pertains to our world therefore could NOT be a transcendant, obviously, in so far as Being is still a part of our dimensional world of height, width, depth and time. I intuit or think or feel that I notice that on a case by case basis in terms of the genus considered time actually moves Being itself and thus the beings in the category of said genus. This would also 'make sense' since we are all similar but *different. And this phenomenon happens - because Being itself is also within time and subject to whatever sort of evolution is going on here!?! as well. ... But the mistake of medieval ontology in its considering Being transcendant has led to the puritans and to the frankfort school in so far as they may or may not be sincere about their universalist notions allowing for the possibility of multi-cultural societies (both Plato & Aristotle would agee there's no such 'animal'.) But Frankfort may be conscious of the mistake and surreptitiously utilizing the error as a carrot & cudgel in moving all of the rubes around for its own purposes. If I'm conscious of it, arent' they? ... But the puritans in their religious fervor were 'sincere' or *real phonies (i.e. phonies who don't know that they are.) Because the puritans believe (unlike Aritotle who wanted the problem discussed and explored) that first Being is transcendant which is silly on its face because it could not be transcendant in terms of the supernatural God they were thus associating Being with. And secondly that their universalist notion (which for them is *reality) is also knowable. ... When you combine stupidity with hubris or spiritual pride you get a puritan who is at least not a barbarian per se, so there's the good news there. Right? When you combine stupidity with hubris of a secular nature you get a member of the Frankfort school; unless of course they know about this mistake or Error too and are only utilizing it in a very refined & totalitarian way to coax and hammer the rubes over the head and have their own way with them. If 'they' i.e. the Frankforts as it were are in fact more civilized than the general population or the rubes maybe that too is some sort of 'good news.' ? Given a choice I'd prefer the puritan. He's at least more harmless and to some extent cut from the same cultural cloth as the rest of us.
Wouldn't you prefer the religious phony to the secular & surrpetitious phony?
Anyway what I'm insinuating in my post above this post, which you responded to - is that short of divine intervention you may be 'saved' or at least the situation mitigated by the fact that time is moving Being again where our genus is concerned. And so this may to some extent move those-along with you-with whom you are in opposition and who are surpassing or dominating you, at least organizationally and directionally back to parity? If, as I'm guessing it's no longer too early for Being. Then those who play within civilization as if it is only a game (and was in fact prudent to do in the past and up till now) will have to adjust too. That's good news, if so. BEING. We may be young but it might be ready for us and versa vica?
Of course lets also stick with the deck chairs and unity on board - who knows maybe we'll miss the next iceberg?! Do we have enough life boats?! Cheers.
Mr. Beck,
clearly you're not whom I was thinking you were... disregard the previous 2 posts. My excuse: reading/posting in a hurry
Apologies... >.> There is a poster in here who posts odd things, but your posts are clearly stated and undeserving of the mistaken identity. (Perhaps then I'm the one who needs to follow his own advice 
) I'm a fool for my haste - what I can follow of your posts are brilliant, I can't see how I made the mistake now.
That matter settled:
The elitist statement you make here is spot on:
To overthrow them, a similarly unified and well organised minority/elite must form. However... I don't think Mr. Press agrees with you on the identity of the elite.
Jews should prefer pro-Jewish whites to anti-Jewish immigrants. And I'm starting to see them switch over, e.g. with culturalism. However, their power in the US and history of dominating on the left is unsettling, and I certainly don't like that they have different foreign ties than do Europeans or that they identity far less weakly with Europeans and perhaps with America than do those Europeans of other nations. Hopefully we can both work together with such concerns appropriately considered, else we might both be driven from the US.
I liked these too:
Today we have the Way of the Cross univeralism combined with a seemingly selfish sole concern for one's own immortal soul compounded by willful ignorance. And on the other side, a similar secular and pagan manifestation albeit more materialist.
And spread out among them are a few of us sane humans with some healthy attachment to fellow humans and the material world.
I never cared for the idea of being ruled over by an elite that is less than honest with me either.
James Beck,
the term I've heard used is 'ancestral traditions,' and I've closely associated it with Kipling's The Stranger.
"Jews should prefer pro-Jewish whites to anti-Jewish immigrants. And I’m starting to see them switch over, e.g. with culturalism. However, their power in the US and history of dominating on the left is unsettling, and I certainly don’t like that they have different foreign ties than do Europeans or that they identity far less weakly with Europeans and perhaps with America than do those Europeans of other nations. Hopefully we can both work together with such concerns appropriately considered, else we might both be driven from the US." - Frank
Hey Frank - thanks to people like you who Can understand me I'll keep my nome de plume. No it is my *real name James Beck - is there really such a thing-?-a real name - except for those of our genus possesed of language. jews are cool or have been, as it were, slightly in advance -not much- so they're backtracking to who they are more than not. Funny. Life. I like enjoy smacking them around a little bit...they smack me around and when they do i presume they enjoy it? Life. I have a minority of jewish genes, for which i'm grateful, they're in the minority. When i feel self-loathing, i assume it's the jewish genes having good taste for a change. I doubt it's a lynching mob of the European genes. Yeah i'll stick with me from now on so as not to confuse you - i'll just post under the above monker.
Now that i've said that... my experience has been that the trolls will start posting under my name, sadly. i wish they'd Get a Life?! whatever. Does it really matter Frank? ... Let's hope so of course - albeit probably not. Don't despair... what possibly could be a better argument for the spiritual? ... wuv, ya. [oh, no now they'll send me to therapy.]
I'm similarly mixed: I have little wars inside between the Celts and English, then occasionally a Frenchman will break free and chaos will ensue. Then out of the chaos comes the voice of the Southron: Ethnogenesis! Thankfully I've not yet discovered any Yankee blood.
I like the Celts the best though, so I usually pretend I'm fully Celtic... A Celt living in the Southland. No one likes the English nowadays anyway, nor whites for that matter. It's the One Drop Rule in reverse: one drop ethnic and you can get in line for reparations (as opposed to one drop and you're excluded.)
Back to the meaning of life... I recall wandering around my dorm room in college for a few days half mad after a biology *cough* evolution *cough* class had presented what appeared a fairly tight case for evolution, the final ah bit of sealant was how we could have gone from unicellular organisms to multicellular... Suddenly my Christian leaning theism was shattered, and I couldn't find meaning... I won't go into the details of what thoughts led me out of this wilderness, but this type of thing is maddening... and though all must face this uncertainty and fear of the abyss, most don't seem to fully comprehend it or perhaps are simply wise enough not to face it.
It's refreshing to talk to someone who forms his own opinions, who thinks, even if our thoughts don't count (since we might be outside the current American culture... which would be a love of McDonald's of course!! - McDonald's being inspired by the American moral center wherein all meaning is derived: I consume therefore I am, the purpose of life is pleasure, and when in doubt blame whitey.)
we're all "nuts" (or therabouts)... sorry i usually can only read me, imperfectly. this is all like a workout on a treadmill, 'as if' someone said it's 400 miles to Philadelphia and we all somehow believed getting on the treadmill and running the 400 miles on the meter would get us there.
sorry. i'm bailing out -
more accurately... everyone else jumped, i'm landing my plane and going Home. there is NOTHING else. sorry. your Endorphins are plummeting now... get them Up again elsehwere or have wine... you won't notice.
funny... go to a comedy club. Or read navrozov... now i appreciate him. no wonder chronicles grabbed him.
Lol.
Mr. Buchanon is once again direct on target.The dissatifaction with the state of affairs in this country is palpable.Most people i talk to aren't very hopeful about the future of the nation.Endless war,loss of liberty,down-sizing,off-shoring,importation of foreign "slave labor",pension and benefit cuts,unaffordable healthcare,a controlled press,and plummeting dollar are all combining to bring America to its knees.The fact that a small group of chosenites are the main manipulators is lost on the average joe 6-pack who yell loudly for their team on the weekend.Neither party will change anything because they're both bought and paid for.The only candidate who might have reversed this ugly trend and saved the situation has been selectively marginalized by the controlled MSM.Can't have someone abolishing the Fed or the IRS,or restoring liberty, can we?The choices we're to be given include a mulatto muslim marxist with a white-hating "advisor",a communist bi-sexual,power-hungry whore or a mentally unstable,closet-liberal,free trade,open borders sell-out torture victim.Either way count on more illegals(soon to be legalized),more war for a foreign country,more bad economy,more resentment from the rest of the world for sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.The yankee empire has alot of chickens coming home to roost in the near future,and when they all lay their eggs,this hen-house of horrors will collapse like a house of cards.The Iceberg has been sighted, and thanx to the captain and crew,we're headed straight for it.
@ 36 I think you have a good instinct but a warped vision of what would make America successful.
I think we should have any citizen owe two years of service to the country. Men and women alike should have to complete this by age 26 but not be allowed the traditional 'draft' exemption of attending college. There should however, be an exemption for those completing high school until age 20 for various and sundry reasons. Women have the same ability to contribute to a great country.
I believe the American version of democracy will work better when the population is truly heterogenous; with no remaining large homogenous groups bent on sustaining their self-interests. So perhaps your program of purity could be turned inside out, require cross-breeding of all minority types until no one persons descent is truly remarkable from any others. Probably we are closer to this reality and it'd be easier to attain.
In addition, I truly have no understanding of all of this conversation about "true freedom" being related to the south. What I do know is that I could possibly listen to a southerner for more than 20 seconds if we bred out that irritating accent of theirs.
COMEON427,
you're quite the deep thinker...