THE LAST TIME THE RUSSIANS WERE INVITED TO ENTER EUROPE WITH TROOPS

Friday, December 30, 2016

THE LAST TIME THE RUSSIANS WERE INVITED TO ENTER EUROPE WITH TROOPS

WAS BY US, IN WWII.

 

BUT ONLY THE US AGREED TO LET THEM STAY PERMANENTLY. (YOU CAN CANDY COAT IT, BUT FDR KNEW THE SCORE.) TERMS SEARCH: PATTON, MONTGOMERY, EISENHOWER, FDR, STALIN, TARGET PATTON, MORGENTHAU, THE HAUNTED WOOD

 

THE SECOND TO LAST TIME WAS BY FRANCE, AGAINST THE GERMANS AND AUSTRIANS, IN WWI.

 

THE FIRST TIME WAS BY THE BRITISH, AROUND AND BEFORE 1800, AGAINST NAPOLEON AND THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTIONARY REPUBLICS, THEN DOTTING THE LANDSCAPE.

 

PRIOR TO THAT THERE HAD BEEN THE POLISH PARTITION, WITH AUSTRIA ESSENTIALLY CUTTING THE DEAL WITH RUSSIA.

 

IAN MCKELLEN OXFORD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVH0nM4_IaU

RE CARD SERVICES ROBOCALLS CALLS I RECOMMEND YOU GET ENFORCERS AND SEEK THESE INDIVIDUALS OUT PERESONALLY

The defendants include: 1) All Us Marketing LLC, f/k/a Payless Solutions, LLC; 2) Global Marketing Enterprises Inc., f/k/a Pay Less Solutions Inc.; 3) Global One Financial Services LLC; 4) Your #1 Savings LLC; 4) Ovadaa LLC; 5) Royal Holdings Of America LLC; 6) Gary Rodriguez; 7) Marbel Rodriguez; 8) Carmen Williams; 9) Jonathan Paulino; 10) Fairiborz Fard; 11) Shirin Imani; and 13) Alex Serna.

I suggest drone strikes. Drones are expensive and illegal, but you can afford it.

TERRY GROSS MICHAEL MCFAUL RHODES SCHOLAR INTERVIEW

Terry: You were a Rhodes Scholar, right?

McFaul: Yes.

Terry: That must have been amazing!

McFaul: It was, Terry. I learned so much.

Terry: Where are you now?

McFaul: Stanford.

Terry: That's wonderful for you, Michael.

McFaul: Thank you, Terry.

Terry: Are you happy there?

McFaul: Yes, Terry.

Terry: Well it was a pleasure to speak with you.

McFaul: You didn't ask me about Russia.

Terry: Oh, I forgot!  It doesn't matter, Michael. My listeners can't understand it anyway!

Michael McFaul: That's a better job than Russian Ambassador!

Terry: Thank you for that Michael. Best of luck at Stanford.

He wrote his thesis on U.S. and Soviet intervention in revolutionary movements in southern Africa.

It would be hard to imagine a more useless, puerile, or obscure, topic for a dissertation. You would have to look long and hard to find something more irrelevant in international relations going forward.

Sergei Markov, his close friend... say no more....

McFaul is a kind of Russian version of Michael Pillsbury.

THE POETRY OF IDEAS

Poetry it is not.....

TERMS SEARCH

hacking

TANGLED UP IN BLUE BROOKS GOLDBERG

They don't know why we're so messed up.

They been queered....

Terms search: you been queered

I SHOULD POST THIS ONE EVERY DAY ENLIGHTENMENT FALLACY

Saturday, June 9, 2018

MAJOR PUNDITS WHO FLIPPED ON GLOBALIZATION THE LIBERAL PUNDITS' ZERO SUM GAME

MAJOR PUNDITS WHO FLIPPED ON GLOBALIZATION

It would be great for pundits like Friedman, Krugman, or Brooks, now to explain, in detail, to all, how these other now flipped pundits have blundered!

Let Glaser show, for example, how Pillsbury is flatly wrong, for example... how we should either let China in or keep China out of the G-7. It doesn't matter which she chooses, for my argument.

This is called jamming the flipped pundits up the unflippable pundits' asses!

Guess what? Folks like Ms Glaser, Friedman, Brooks, got no where left to turn.

Take Glaser: 
Do we disengage from China, exclude them from G 7? Most of your shit is made there.
OR:
Do we engage with, include China, admit global defeat?

Folks like Glaser are in a no win, heads they win tails you lose scenario of our own long term making.

My favorite examples are the ones who insist that we just haven't globalized quite enough yet! 

Let's just call it
The Liberal Pundits' Zero Sum Game!
or
The Conservative Pundits' Zero Sum game!

SAME LAME TAME BLAME GAME

Take Brooks: How did our meritocracy Brooks crowed about then suddenly let us all down?

They are like cornered rats on a derelict ship with a hungry cat on board.

RE HACKING THE MENU IMPERATIVE

Saturday, December 31, 2016

RE HACKING THE MENU IMPERATIVE

RE PUTIN US HACK CLAIMS INDECENT SHOW HOW WE KNOW LEOPARD MAN HACKING DIALOGUE

Putin: "So they hacked our Embassy for hacking! So what?"

Lieutenant: "Don't we hack them too?"

Putin: "No. Soon Trump lets us hack all we want!"
Lieutenant: "Why?"
Putin: "He's a Leopard Man too!"

Lieutenant: "I get cooking pots!"
Putin: "We eat journalists. Too many of them: Jungle Forces."

DEIN KAMPF

RUSSIA CAN TAKEOVER EUROPE NOW ANY DAY OF THE WEEK DUMB AND DUMBER

The responsibility, in the end, after WWII, rested with us.

1. We not only failed to support, but opposed, the still barely limping along European Empires.

2. We not only failed to support European political integrity itself, but made a deal with Stalin to carve up Europe in his favor, not only against Europe's interests, but also very strongly against our own.

Now they need to go under the Russian heel.

Why?

Because in the fullness, the judgment of history, the verdict of history, as Professor Kaiser likes to phrase it, like the American South after the Civil War, that is what they have brought on themselves and now deserve.

THE EU NEEDS TO DISINTEGRATE RATHER THAN ENLARGE

Friday, June 7, 2013

THE EU NEEDS TO DISINTEGRATE RATHER THAN ENLARGE

These are generally not good candidates, with the exception perhaps of Iceland,  even for nationalism, much less EU ism.

Call it Austro Hungarian Empire ism. We all know how that turned out, EVEN THOUGH, AS KENNAN POINTED OUT, it was nevertheless better than anything that has come after......

DK CURRENT POST EXCERPT WOMENS RIGHTS

One might subtitle this excerpt:

"How the Womens' Movement queered the Democratic Party, and gave the government to the Republicans"

See Brooks, Goldberg, NYT, today...

"...But although some of these decisions also fueled Republican rhetoric, they cannot be compared in their political impact either to Brown or to the court's next big move Roe v. Wade in 1973.

"I supported abortion rights early in 1973, as I do now, but I was startled in January of that year when the Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Constitution contained an implied right to abortion.  This was not the first step towards legalization of the procedure. Both New York and California--then our two largest states--had passed laws legalizing it in recent years, and it was certainly possible that other states might follow.  And to find the right to abortion in the Constitution, the Court had to rely on a relatively obscure doctrine of "substantive due process," which allowed it to declare a right that was not enumerated in the Constitution.  It was not, in short, immediately obvious to an intelligent lay person--and I continue to think that it is not obvious--that Roe V. Wade was in any sense inevitable given the text of the US Constitution.  It is equally clear, in my view, that the Constitution does not ban abortion.

"For proponents of abortion rights, however, the Constitutional issue was secondary from the beginning, while feminist conceptions of rights were primary.  1970s feminism refused to allow women to be defined by their role as mothers and insisted, in effect, that the choice to become a mother should be theirs alone.  No less an authority than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her confirmation hearing, declared that without the right to abortion, women could not be equal to men--presumably because men did not have to face pregnancy.  And as tribalism (including tribalism based on gender) has taken over our politics, liberal women have become more and more insistent that the right to abortion is as fundamental as any right in the Constitution, whether it can specifically be found there or not.  Yet that view, obviously, has never won the assent of many millions of Americans who reject abortion on religious and other grounds--including millions of women.  That presumably is why the language of the abortion rights supporters has continually evolved, from pro-abortion to pro-choice to, now, "reproductive rights."  Perhaps some ambivalence even among supporters of abortion has also played a role in this.

"A vehement anti-abortion movement became a pillar of the Republican coalition in the 1970s, as the Republican Party successfully created a new majority in the 1980s.  Many on the left undoubtedly believed that opposition to abortion would fade with the passage of time, but that has not happened...."DK 


Of course the Civil Rights Movement came first, and made the Democratic Party the Party of blacks. This was what really sent them in droves to the Republicans. Professor Kaiser fails to mention that in his current post, but he has referred to this important point in the past.

Once the Womens Movement got under way, it was the wedge for other fringe movements, LGBT, etc, which only further queered the Party.

REMEMBER KELLY ROBINSON AND ALEXANDER SCOTT?

RACIST UNIRACIALISM UNIRELIGIONISM GLOBALISM MELTINGPOTISM

Saturday, December 10, 2016

RACIST UNIRACIALISM UNIRELIGIONISM GLOBALISM MELTINGPOTISM

Civilizationalism has become a racial slur under modern American uniracialism, which goes well beyond even the old American multiculturalism, to a whole other unheard of level, and is itself a form of racism, although still well disguised, in that it defines all racial distinctions, for whatever reasons, be they civilizational, national, religious, traditional, historical, ethnic, cultural,  political, or social, other than uniracialism as racist.

 

That is also why uniracialism is also racist, but in a new way, and is an important implication: uniracialism actively discriminates, both religiously, socially and politically,  against each and every distinct race, either now in being, or ever in being in the past.

Liberty, equality, fraternity, unirace, unitarianism, meltingpot ism"

Call it radical globalism, radical uniracialism, scientific humanism, it goes by many names, many more than this, glibalist liberalism, multiculturalism, atheism, etc., democratic globalism, a myriad of descriptive terms spring to mind, unitarian universalism, etc, Enlightenment Humanism. 

Soros had called it, criticizing Popper, with reference to freedom of the press and speech, The Enlightenment Fallacy. Here's an old post also referencing DK:

Saturday, June 8, 2013

See A kindred spirit

David Kaiser's post, some time ago, re Soros, etc.

This was my favorite quote from Soros (in Kaiser's post):
 "Popper’s hidden assumption that freedom of speech and thought will produce a better understanding of reality is valid only for the study of natural phenomena. Extending it to human affairs is part of what I have called the 'Enlightenment fallacy.'" 

A great insight. Commenting on Kaiser's current post, one might also call it the Free Press Fallacy, or even, say, The Drew Pearson Fallacy.

I would just call it The Karl Popper Fallacy, and let people wonder how far I mean to go on that.

I would add, to the elements of Soros' Enlightenment Fallacy, a faith in free, open, Smithian, (and eventually global), markets. 

Yet, this addition sets me off from Soros and his, otherwise, and in other contexts, quite globalist tendencies. 

Most liberals are not nationalists, deep down, but rather anti nationalist globalists, nowadays. It was not always so. 

Let's put it this way, the Nazis gave nationalism an unnecessarily ugly rap. 

(The Bolsheviks somehow avoided this type of bad rap, largely because of the gross ignorance and naivete of Western regimes, and their conservatives, and their liberals.)

I would just advert, momentarily, to a great small book by Butterfield, in the enlightenment context, The Whig Interpretation Of History. (Maybe I'm just stuck, Tory like, on Regius Professors of History, or just stuck on Regius anything.)

In a similar vein, the ideas of the Founding Fathers, as Bailyn has pointed out, owed more to radical Protestantism, and the common law, (one could also add commercial self interests, including, preponderantly, smuggling, tax evasion, and slavery) than to enlightenment ideas per se.

Term search, if so inclined eg: Popper, Lorch

JUDICIARY JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

https://works.bepress.com/roger_craig_green/1/

GREAT STUFF THE OLD CURMUDGEON COMMENT DK

As you have said here, “returning the Supreme Court to a lesser place in our system might make for a healthier democracy.” However, this is not what the so-called “conservative movement” has in mind. Instead, the goal is to revive the version of substantive due process embodied in Locher v. New York, whereby the Supreme Court struck down laws infringing on “economic liberty” or “private contract rights.” Lochnerism reigned from 1897 to 1937, during which it was used to strike down labor laws and much of the early New Deal. Once thoroughly discredited, Locherism has been enjoying a comeback. In 2012, four justices voted to strike down the Affordable Care Act, which Justice Goldberg rightly characterized as Lochnerism.

The “conservative movement” – let’s call it what it really is, a radical movement underwritten by plutocrats with no sense of social obligation – can see the writing on the wall. The influence of older white voters is fading, so power needs to be held by undemocratic means. The first bulwark is the Senate. Because the Constitution awards two votes per state without regard to population, the Senate was controlled in 2015 by 54 Republican Senators who received 20 million fewer votes than their 46 Democratic colleagues. The second bulwark is gerrymandering, which tilts the field in the House. The third bulwark is voter ID laws, the "cleansing" of voter registration roles, and other voting barriers targeted at Democratic voters. The fourth bulwark is unlimited dark money which, in the name of free speech, permits plutocrats to buy elections. The fifth bulwark is, or soon will be, the Supreme Court, standing ready to invalidate any liberal proposals that manage to be enacted into law despite the other impediments. The Court has already opened the door to unlimited dark money and indicated its indifference to gerrymandering and voting barriers.

SHE THINKS HER DAD'S FUNNIER

because he's her dad!

At least she is loyal!

RE PROFESSOR HOWARD 2008 DISCUSSION

Sunday, April 27, 2014

RE PROFESSOR HOWARD 2008 DISCUSSION

http://www.oxfordchabad.org/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/630648/jewish/Prof-Sir-Michael-Howard.htm

..."The first problem that I myself face is, why was it the Germans who did this ? Here again I must explain where I am coming from. My mother transmitted to me not only Jewish blood, but the German culture imbibed and loved by her own parents. I feel at home with the German language (though I can barely speak it), with German poetry and German music, as I do with no other. So for me, even after I have explained it, it remains something of a mystery. After all, the Jews were no more unpopular in 19th century Germany than they were anywhere else in Europe. If one had been told , say in 1900, that the Holocaust would occur forty years later and asked to guess where it would happen, Germany would certainly not have been the first choice. That would probably have been Russia, where the pogroms, admittedly on a small if brutal scale, gave some indication of the intensity of racial prejudice in at least some regions of the Tsarist Empire. But Russia, it was generally admitted, was still semi-barbaric.. When she had caught up with the West, as she seemed rapidly to be doing, incidents like these would surely sink back into her troubled history. But next on the list would probably have been France, where at the turn of the century violent and endemic anti-Semitism was finding expression, not only in such works as Edouard Drumont’s La France juive   and the circulation of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but in the official victimisation of Captain Alfred Dreyfus with the consent of the entire French establishment and half the electorate....."


It contains a more well considered treatment than his brief remarks on this subject  in "Structure and Process In History".

LIBERACE COLLINS SUBSTANCE APPEARANCE (NOT SUBSTANCE PROCEDURE)

Jefferson:

"We hold these truths to be self evident": appearance.

"These are not truths at all, and are not at all self evident": substance.