Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump in Poland

with 156 comments

This is not just a win for Trump, but also a win for Trumpism.

“The fundamental question is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? If we do not have strong values we will be weak and we will not survive."

No other President would have said that. While Trump has done a lot of stupid stuff, especially with Obamacare, sometimes he does great stuff that moves the political discussion in a direction that would never have happened if Hillary Clinton or some other Republican (such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio) had become President.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 6, 2017 at 11:20 am

Posted in Uncategorized

156 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. And, chants of “USA, USA” break out as he approaches the podium…

    @BBCWorld’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/882922299363442688?s=09

    beancrusher

    July 6, 2017 at 12:21 pm

  2. The EU is trying veery hard to break Poland, CZ and Hungary. His visit is a welcome support. Brussels with the UK out and Macron in France is going full on 4th Reich mode. It’s horrible. Attempted gun confiscations (that will succeed some time in the future), forced Islamic immigration and dangerous regulations. What’s funny is that (for example) methanol re-categorization cost 50 lives in the Czech Republic a few years ago (we were forced to use less strict regulations) and so on. On top of that there are your standard job killing regulations. The only thing that is working for the EU is Germany’s good economic condition that leads to 3-4 % unemployment rate here, due to our factories being used by the germans (for low pay, lower than can be justified).

    bombexpert

    July 6, 2017 at 12:53 pm

  3. Also

    “We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.”

    Obama or Clinton would never have said that.

    WRB

    July 6, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    • Strong families and strong values…a replacement level birthrate. And a wall.

      Bill Gates is talking about the African tsunami.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4665198/Bill-Gates-warns-open-door-migration-overwhelm-Europe.html

      Is the tide turning?

      gothamette

      July 6, 2017 at 1:49 pm

      • This reminds me of when Bernie made some anti immigration arguments in some interview with vox. He quickly got a talking to and changed his mind. Let’s see if something similar happens with Gates.

        Magnavox

        July 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm

      • Gates campy silence in a way that a politician can be, nor can he be silenced in the way that Watson was. He occupies a unique position in not only American society but world society.

        The people who are saying this is too little too late r alt right losers. It’s not too little, and it’s not too late, it’s just right. It indicates that a man in his position can see that Western Civilization being inundated by Africans is a disaster.

        gothamette

        July 7, 2017 at 10:36 am

      • Let’s see if Gates continues to push the anti-immigration line. If he does, he will certainly be met with criticism from the media. They may not be able to silence him, but they do have the power to ostracize him and he may not be willing to pay that price.

        Lewis Medlock

        July 7, 2017 at 11:37 am

    • That speech was incredible. I mean, it was common sense, but hearing common sense coming out of a US President…“We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.”

      Yeah that was gold.

      Mike Street Station

      July 6, 2017 at 7:01 pm

      • What republican president going at least as far back as Reagan wouldn’t say that?

        magnavox

        July 6, 2017 at 10:04 pm

      • Oy, dictation woes again. The dictator interpreted can’t be as campy.

        I meant to say Gates can’t be silenced…

        gothamette

        July 7, 2017 at 10:38 am

      • Oy, dictation woes again. The dictator interpreted can’t be as campy.

        I meant to say Gates can’t be silenced…

        gothamette

        July 7, 2017 at 10:38 am

    • I don’t see that as being true. Obama spoke about values quite often, American, family, and otherwise.

      • Not in the context of defending the West.

        Rogal Dorn

        July 6, 2017 at 9:03 pm

      • Gates campy silence in a way that a politician can be, nor can he be silenced in the way that Watson was. He occupies a unique position in not only American society but world society.

        The people who are saying this is too little too late r alt right losers. It’s not too little, and it’s not too late, it’s just right. It indicates that a man in his position can see that Western Civilization being inundated by Africans is a disaster.

        gothamette

        July 7, 2017 at 10:37 am

      • Anytime Obama mentioned values, it was in a context of subtley disparaging the United States, and pointing out white privilege. He never mentioned it as a positive good in and of itself. I am willing to be corrected.

        gothamette

        July 7, 2017 at 10:39 am

  4. Trump does have these moments of greatness.

    Yakov

    July 6, 2017 at 1:04 pm

  5. I admit it. For 5 minutes I listened to Rush this afternoon. He claims that CNN is saying that Trump is unpopular in Poland, and that the gov’t had to bus “5,000” people in to cheer for him.

    Is this true, meaning, is CNN making stuff up?

    What’s the truth? I need the truth squad of LoTB to straighten things out.

    gothamette

    July 6, 2017 at 1:16 pm

    • Check Trump’s twitter later and he is gonna tell you haw many people he had.

      Yakov

      July 6, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    • 100% fake news. No buses. Check out Jack Posobiec’s twitter feed.

      He is there, and he don’t see no steenkin’ buses. On his twitter, the crowd is going wild for Trump.

      Dan

      July 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    • It is always a show. They are pre-selected and bused in.

      My Two Cents

      July 6, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    • As an immigrant from Poland, I can explain. It is true that the ruling party provided funding (and passes to the restricted area) so that each parliamentary deputy could bring 50 persons of his or her choice. It is also true that the square would have been full anyway. Trump is not unpopular in Poland.

      This is a fairly standard MSM tactic, they say something which is mostly true but in a way that will lead many readers/viewers to fill the blanks with something that is not correct.

      The internal Polish political maneuvering is rather complicated, the current government wanted to score points by appearing with Someone Important (generally, they suffer from a mixture of inferiority and superiority complexes). Trump’s visit was a victory for them, but at the same time they were not happy that Trump made a kind mention of Lech Walesa, whom the current ruling party (Law and Justice) hates. Generally, Law and Justice politicians are petty tyrants, but as far as the Muslim immigration is concerned, I agree with them 100%.

      WRB

      July 6, 2017 at 3:37 pm

      • Thank you WRB.

        Lion, thumbs up on your commenters. We get better info here than on the MSM.

        I didn’t realize that the current POTB in Poland hate Walesa. He’s a great man. But I guess prophets don’t have much honor in their own countries, or so someone wrote.

        gothamette

        July 6, 2017 at 7:57 pm

      • The ruling party and its supporters hate Walesa because of the emergence of an increasing amount of evidence he was a paid informant for the Communist secret police in the 70’s. Walesa for his part claims the evidence was forged by the ruling party, but it’s gotten pretty overwhelming and he keeps changing his story.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wałęsa#Wałęsa_and_secret_police

        snorlaxwp

        July 6, 2017 at 11:33 pm

      • No, snorlaxwp, the ruling party hates Walęsa because Walęsa accuses PiS of undermining democracy. But really it has nothing to with politics, it is personal and goes back to the fact that Walęsa was a hero and a leader resisting Communism back when the Kaczynski brothers were basically still just hangers on, and Kaczka will never forgive Walęsa for that.

        The irony in Poland is that lot of PiS supporters are the same old people who will tell you how things were better under Communism because back then everyone had a common purpose and there weren’t rich elites.

        Peter Akuleyev

        July 7, 2017 at 4:55 am

    • Looking at the stories Polish newspapers are publishing:

      Newspaper — (T)abloid/(B)roadsheet — Circulation* — Ideology* — Tone of Trump coverage
      *According to Wikipedia

      Fakt — T — 596,726 — Centrism, Populism — Mostly negative

      Gazeta Wyborcza — B — 437,013 — Liberalism — Nearly all negative

      Super Express — T — 312,656 — Populism, Nationalism — Mostly positive

      Rzeczpospolita — B — 194,123 — Conservatism, Liberalism — Nearly all positive

      Dziennik Gazeta Prawna — B — 148,867 — Centrist, Center-right — Mostly positive

      I also checked out Polish TV networks, which were mainly just reporting on it as a straight news story, but generally positively.

      My impression is that Polish views of Trump are about 60/40 positive/negative, up from 40/60 before his visit.

      Themes of positive coverage:

      * Trump visit was a big success for the government
      * Visit by POTUS shows that Poland important country
      * Trump gave world a Polish history lesson
      * Trump-hater Donald Tusk admitted visit was big success
      * Trump visited Poland b/c it’s among most important US allies
      * Opposition said gov’t isolating Poland on world stage, Trump proved it isn’t
      * Trump visit and speech show we don’t take orders from Germany/Merkel
      * Crowd liked speech

      Themes of negative coverage:

      * Trump/Polish first lady handshake snafu
      * Audience bussed in (most claim it was more to ensure cheering for PM than Trump)
      * Trump wasn’t hard enough on Russia
      * Crowd heckled Walesa
      * Speech was patronizing and condescending
      * Trump is populist, friendly w/ Putin, wants to disband EU and NATO
      * Pics of same 20 protesters, fugly Handmaid’s Tale women & Arab guy
      * Trump said he wants to raise our natural gas prices**
      * Trump/America only care about us if we buy their natgas & weapons
      * Melania & Ivanka are whores b/c they wore sleeveless dresses
      * Trump sure talked a lot about JEWS, prob b/c Ivanka/Jared are JEWS

      **When discussing America as an alternative natgas supplier, he apparently made one of his off-script asides about how he and Polish PM are both tough negotiators, and the tongue-in-cheek aspect was lost in translation.

      snorlaxwp

      July 6, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    • I work in Poland and most educated Poles dislike Trump and hate the government, especially in Warsaw. Poland has a similar cultural rift between younger educated urbanites and older small town/rural as the US. Since CNN gets most of its info about Poland from educated English speaking Poles, I am sure CNN believes it is true, put it that way.

      Peter Akuleyev

      July 7, 2017 at 2:40 am

    • join gab.ai you will get the truth !!

      ROBERT F GREER

      July 7, 2017 at 8:26 am

  6. Reading the DailyMail article on this. Trump was really playing up Poland’s history resisting nazi occupation. You know the references weren’t lost on Germany and the EU with regards to how they’re behaving today. I’ll bet they didn’t like that! haha

    destructure

    July 6, 2017 at 3:29 pm

    • As some Germans enjoyed pointing out, Polish resistance to the occupation was a total failure in military terms. The Russians had to “liberate” Poland.

      Peter Akuleyev

      July 7, 2017 at 2:43 am

      • Yeah. We know all about how the Russians “liberated” Eastern Europe. Truman should have nuked Moscow, too.

        destructure

        July 7, 2017 at 4:25 pm

  7. Neogaf not taking the Poland speech well.

    I see Trump forming a nationalist axis of the US, UK, Russia and the Eastern Euro states against the Evil Globalists of the EU and Canada.

    As for Trump being unpopular in Poland, yeah right. Just media bullshit.

    Trump is the anti Obama: whereas Obama was immensely personally popular, people hated Obamaism. Trump is personally unpopular but people love Trumpism. The media’s relentless focus on Trump’s personal unpopularity misses the forest for the trees. GA-06 shows that even though people dislike Trump, they will still vote for him.

    Otis the Sweaty

    July 6, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    • Trump is only personally unpopular among those with snooty sensibilities.

      Andrew E.

      July 6, 2017 at 4:53 pm

      • That’s a gross oversimplification. Wanting an eloquent leader, who doesn’t mud-sling like a 2nd grader and can command respect from educated people, doesn’t make someone “snooty.” That’s bottom of the barrel thinking.

      • Wanting an eloquent leader

        Obama was eloquent. Romney was eloquent. Nation wreckers both. Truth is what matters. Trump speaks truth.

        Andrew E.

        July 6, 2017 at 10:16 pm

      • “Wanting an eloquent leader.”

        Sometimes the circumstances favor directness over eloquence. Patton was direct not eloquent yet he romped all the way to Berlin. Washington was polite not eloquent. George Marshall was exceedingly direct his orders to Eisenhauer stating simply: “proceed to Europe. Defeat the enemy.” Trump is a Marshall.

        Hamlet the great hesitator was eloquent. So was Obama (of a sort). Eloquence can be overrated.

        Curle

        July 7, 2017 at 9:48 am

    • Trumpism is just whatever people want to see in all of Trump’s contradictory bullshit, so of course it’s popular. But whatever Trumpism is, it’s certainly not Trump’s governing philosophy.

      Magnavox

      July 6, 2017 at 6:28 pm

      • Oooooo that darn trump! I hates him, I hates him!

        Fagnavox

        July 6, 2017 at 9:29 pm

      • Will you be my friend, Fagnavox? Noone else seems to like me but I think we’re on the same wavelength.

        Magnavox

        July 7, 2017 at 12:51 pm

      • Ok whoever did “Fagnavox” that was hilarious! Thanks!

        Mike Street Station

        July 8, 2017 at 2:37 pm

      • Mike,

        Ok, whaddya think of Magmarox or Ragnarox?

        gothamette

        July 10, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    • Well, that sounds good, unless Russia and China form an axis. Someone on Unz wrote that. I have to say I pay little attention to Unz nowadays but I do give it a scan now and again for lulz.

      gothamette

      July 6, 2017 at 7:58 pm

      • Well, that sounds good, unless Russia and China form an axis. Someone on Unz wrote that. I have to say I pay little attention to Unz nowadays but I do give it a scan now and again for lulz.

        Who was that idiot?

        Russia-China is not 1930s Germany-Japan.

        Russia-China is Molotov-Ribbentrop.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 6, 2017 at 9:12 pm

    • Trump is unpopular among educated Poles, don’t kid yourself. If Trump plays nice with Putin at the G20 he will quickly become unpopular with the rest of Poland.

      Peter Akuleyev

      July 7, 2017 at 2:45 am

  8. Trump might yet become a great President. Certainly, he is infinitely better than Clinton or any of his Republican opponents.

    bob sykes

    July 6, 2017 at 4:19 pm

  9. Strong families and strong values would require a very socially conservative moral environment with taboos against things like divorce, abortion, etc. In short, the kinds of things that evangelicals want. But Lion, you’re generally against this sort of social policy.

    Tom

    July 6, 2017 at 4:36 pm

    • I’m against conservatives being against abortion. I’m in favor of promoting the importance of marriage.

      • I’m not sure you can have natalism and strong families without some sort of taboo against abortion.

        Tom

        July 6, 2017 at 7:31 pm

      • Why not? Doesn’t make any sense. This anti-abortion thing is new, people before the 20 century didn’t care about that stuff.

      • People just seem to be emotionally wired that way. When abortion is morally permissible and sanctioned by the state, natalism loses its luster and status.

        There wasn’t safe abortion before the 20th century, and abortion wasn’t commonly practiced. Many women used to die during childbirth.

        Tom

        July 6, 2017 at 8:57 pm

      • Why not? Doesn’t make any sense. This anti-abortion thing is new, people before the 20 century didn’t care about that stuff.

        Obviously they cared if the made it illegal. And eliminating infanticide was a also a cardinal achievement of christianity.

        There wasn’t safe abortion before the 20th century, and abortion wasn’t commonly practiced. Many women used to die during childbirth.

        I’d much rather keep abortion, do more to ensure that poor people don’t have children, and tax wealthy childless people to encourage responsible natalism. There’s no reason we can’t have abortions and a quality over quantity style natalism.

        magnavox

        July 6, 2017 at 10:03 pm

      • There’s not much indication that those sorts of technocratic policy measures create a culture of strong families and natalism though, especially since they secularize and de-sacralize marriage and childbearing.

        Tom

        July 7, 2017 at 1:47 am

      • Abortion can be pro-family. Being able to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome or other serious developmental problem would benefit families (and taxpayers), as would aborting a fetus when a family is on a poor financial footing or the woman is still in school. A single mother has a much harder time attracting a mate and starting a traditional family.

        Mark Caplan

        July 7, 2017 at 8:31 am

      • Abortion and infanticide were so regularly practiced in the Greco-Roman world with abortion being so hazardous to women and infanticide being used to terminate females that sex ratios reached 100 to 140 in some locales. First century Christians forbad the practice resulting in a higher percent of female Christians and a resulting greater number of births to Christian families.

        https://roosevelt.ucsd.edu/_files/mmw/mmw12/RodneyStarkReconstructingRiseofChristianityWomen.pdf

        Curle

        July 7, 2017 at 10:08 am

      • “anti-abortion thing is new”

        The pre-modern equivalent of abortion was infanticide.

        The Greco-Romans widely practiced infanticide (“exposing” their infants). The Christians, from whom the West still retains a lot of sensibilities, considered it abominable and reduced the practice, even if it was never eliminated.

        There’s evidence that higher fertility was a huge part of how Christians came to dominate the Mediterranean. After the first century or two of Christianity, fertility may have been more important for Christianity’s spread than conversion, at least among the core settled peoples of the Empire.

        Wency

        July 7, 2017 at 10:50 am

    • A taboo against divorce and abortion doesn’t mean that they are completely illegal.

      gothamette

      July 7, 2017 at 10:41 am

  10. I noticed that Ann Coulter has described this speech as maybe the best by a US President on US soil. I suppose Kennedy’s speech in West Berlin is the most famous, but I have today been watching Ronald Reagan’s speech given to the British Parliament in 1982. Along with the odd ironies that fate has thrown up, such as Reagan saying that historians of the future will note that it was not the West that invaded Afghanistan (the Soviet invasion being a recent event) there is within the first few minutes an extended reference to Poland as being at the centre of European civilisation whilst praising it for being at the forefront of a battle for freedom, this being the era of the Soldarity movement and so on.

    Seeing Poland today, now part of a different transnational bloc, with a different President now extolling it for upholding a different kind of freedom is strange indeed, but very welcome. Many people in Western Europe no longer have any idea of what living in a monocultural, Christian European nation is like. Mark Steyn has made the point recently that it may be difficult for Europeans in the future to take part in a struggle for their culture when they have no idea what it is they have lost. But as long as white nations like Poland and Hungary remain then there is the chance that the deteriorating situation further West will cause people to think again about where we are heading and look to places lke Poland as an example of how things could be.

    I don’t know if Trump’s speech was the best, but I doubt if there’s been one more important.

    prolier than thou

    July 6, 2017 at 5:05 pm

    • The Anglo Sphere (the core of the British Empire) has already seen its sun set for good. All empires die, when lazy natives take pleasure, while barbarians overrun them.

      JS

      July 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm

    • But as long as white nations like Poland and Hungary remain then there is the chance that the deteriorating situation further West will cause people to think again about where we are heading and look to places lke Poland as an example of how things could be.

      Except the self hating countries are still super wealthy and developed while Hungary and Poland are both middle income. Noone is going to look at them as a model of immigration policy for the same reason that noone is going to look at Mississippi as a model of conservatism.

      Magnavox

      July 6, 2017 at 6:47 pm

      • You’re showing your leftist colors here. Angela Merkel’s stupid immigration policies aren’t why Germany has great infrastructure and plenty of social capital to waste on virtue signaling, all of which will suffer from it. Most of those refugees and migrants the EU has inflicted on their countries will be chronic welfare cases, when they aren’t blowing up dancehalls and reducing social trust within the communities they leach onto.

        Richard

        July 6, 2017 at 7:11 pm

      • I think the refugees and immigrants are terrible for these countries but it will be years before they have a significant national effect. And there is obviously something already wrong with Hungary and Poland that they have so many problems. Some former soviet countries such as the Czech Republic already have higher median standards of living than the US, so that’s no excuse.

        And I’m not a leftist, not that there’s anything wrong with being one.

        magnavox

        July 6, 2017 at 9:58 pm

      • Mississippi is one of the blackest states in the union. Maine and Idaho would be better examples and those states would be the dream states of most middle class families if climate was less severe. Quality of life is what people care about. It has already gotten to the point where Central Europe is more pleasant to visit as a tourist than Western Europe. Differences will only get more pronounced in the future.

        PerezHBD

        July 6, 2017 at 11:11 pm

      • It has already gotten to the point where Central Europe is more pleasant to visit as a tourist than Western Europe.

        I don’t know what you’re basing that on. And Germany is considered to be in central europe anyway so….

        Tourists in the US have no problem visiting New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and other cities filled with far more dysfunctional populations than anything that exists in any european cities.

        magnavox

        July 7, 2017 at 1:53 am

      • “Tourists in the US have no problem visiting New York, Chicago, Philadelphia.”

        Really? I live in the West Coast and the only coastal areas on the Eastern seaboard I’ve any desire to re-visit are south of D.C. I visited NYC a few years ago but only to humor a female companion who’d never been there. Last time I was in Chicago was for business in the 90s. Total dump. I see no reason to return. NYC was also unimpressive. On the other hand I’ve chosen to vacation in Europe 3x in the last decade. Most of my West Coast friends and colleagues choose most anyplace, especially Europe, over the NAM ridden dumpy Northeast. I have to imagine tourism to the cities you mention is only a fraction of what it could be if they were as pleasant as many European cities.

        Curle

        July 7, 2017 at 11:35 am

      • The Most Visited Cities In The US
        Rank City No. Of Visitors
        1 Orlando, Florida 48 million
        2 New York City 47 million
        3 Chicago, Illinois 45,580,000
        4 Anaheim/Orange County, California 42,700,000
        5 Miami, Florida 38,100,000
        6 Las Vegas, Nevada 36,351,469
        7 Atlanta, Georgia 35,400,000
        8 Houston, Texas 31,060,000
        9 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 30,320,000
        10 San Diego, California 29,600,000

        http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-in-the-us.html

        Most of my West Coast friends and colleagues choose most anyplace, especially Europe, over the NAM ridden dumpy Northeast. I have to imagine tourism to the cities you mention is only a fraction of what it could be if they were as pleasant as many European cities.

        According to the commentors on this website the great cities of western and northern Europe are also NAM ridden dumps now and that Moscow and Warsaw are only great cities left or some other insane thing.

        Magnavox

        July 7, 2017 at 5:11 pm

      • My comments regarding American cities and the Anglo Sphere are true. Forget NAMs for a minute, most English Speaking cities are unimpressive visually on the ground level. Even the graffiti art in NYC is lackluster, if you compare it to the sophistication found in Montréal.

        JS

        July 8, 2017 at 11:44 pm

      • The French Speaking province of Canada is the closest you can get in terms of a European vibe in North America.

        JS

        July 8, 2017 at 11:47 pm

    • “I noticed that Ann Coulter has described this speech as maybe the best by a US President on US soil.”

      Not being petty or trollish here, but was she/are you referring to the speech in Poland? Cos that’s not US soil.

      gothamette

      July 6, 2017 at 8:00 pm

      • I meant on European soil.

        prolier than thou

        July 7, 2017 at 8:00 am

  11. Off-topic, but this is the first MSM article I’ve seen that correctly describes how “alt-right” has had its meaning changed over time, and that when Bannon praised the alt-right he was thinking of something different than what liberals believe they know.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-alt-right-branding-war-has-torn-the-movement-in-two/amp

    The alt-liters come off as pathetic me-tooers, though, more interested in qualifying themselves to smirking liberals than telling those bastards to stop fucking up America. My advice to them is ignore the Spencerites and focus your energies on opposing the left and the GOPe. If the “New Right” is just going to think of itself as a mellower, “not that” version of the Alt-Right then it’s a trailing shadow of a more powerful force, and is doomed to irrelevance. My politics easily match up more with theirs, but honestly a lot of these New Righters come off as nauseating. Lucian Wintrich deserves to get punched in the face.

    Richard

    July 6, 2017 at 5:16 pm

    • The self-hating countries are as rich as they are because of the enormous concentration of wealth among a few. As Wayne Gretzky said, don’t look where the puck is look where it’s going to go. Where will these countries be in 50 years.? Where will France be? Where will UK be? Where will we be? Hungary might still be firmly in the middle, but it will still be Hungary.

      gothamette

      July 7, 2017 at 10:44 am

    • The self-hating countries are as rich as they are because of the enormous concentration of wealth among a few. As Wayne Gretzky said, don’t look where the puck is look where it’s going to go. Where will these countries be in 50 years.? Where will France be? Where will UK be? Where will we be? Hungary might still be firmly in the middle, but it will still be Hungary.

      gothamette

      July 7, 2017 at 10:44 am

      • The only self hating country with high levels of concentration of wealth is the US, which hates poor people and white people. All the other self hating countries just hate white people.

        Even if Hungary is the number one country in the world in 50 years, if they only got that way because every other country destroyed themselves Hungarians are still pathetic and the only thing worth emulating is their immigration policy. On everything else you should still copy Norway, even if Norway becomes a third world shit hole.

        Magnavox

        July 7, 2017 at 1:23 pm

      • As Wayne Gretzky said, don’t look where the puck is look where it’s going to go. Where will these countries be in 50 years.?

        Too many people are in denial about this.

        Notice all the childless “elites” that are cheering on this massive population replacement.

        Someone made a list and it was almost all the so called leaders in the West.

        They want America, Europe and the West to die off like their personal lineages and be replaced by Africa and Islam!

        They are basically sociopaths.

        Rifleman

        July 9, 2017 at 2:43 am

      • I dunno. I think they just want to make money & think the rest of the world does as well.

        gothamette

        July 9, 2017 at 12:52 pm

      • I dunno. I think they just want to make money & think the rest of the world does as well.

        And the Japanese and Chinese don’t. Why aren’t those countries wide open to Africa and Islam?

        And how does importing all these low IQ, black and brown muslim MALES help them make money? Can’t they “use” that labor back in their home country?

        And what about the open borders “Pope”? Is he a money grubbing capitalist as well?

        Rifleman

        July 9, 2017 at 1:50 pm

      • Will you calm down?

        gothamette

        July 9, 2017 at 3:33 pm

  12. You sound like an Obama supporters circa eight years ago. Obama turned out to be a complete run of the mill centrist democrat so they were forced to harp on about how inspiring and great his speeches were to gin up excitement among his Hope and Change supporting base.

    Magnavox

    July 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm

    • except illegal immigration really *is* down by over 70%. Refugee admissions really *are* down by 50%. The travel ban really *is* in effect. Deportations really *have* doubled. Some H1B abuse really *has* been curtailed.

      It is simply reality that Trump has begun the process of destroying the immigrant community. Even Vox admits this. You are just yelling at clouds.

      Otis the Sweaty

      July 6, 2017 at 7:31 pm

      • If they know that illegal immigration is down by 70%, why don’t they just stop them while they are counting them? How do they figure that out?

        ttgy

        July 6, 2017 at 9:48 pm

      • And Obama improved lots of things compared to Bush (and compared to a hypothetical McCain presidency), but he was still a huge disappointment to his non deluded supporters. And Obama played a much bigger role in actually writing his speeches, so the pro Obama people were more rational on that account.

        magnavox

        July 6, 2017 at 10:00 pm

      • I dont want illegal immigration down. I want it ended. I dont want refugee admissions halved. I want them ended. I dont want deporations doubled. I want them all gone as soon as possible.

        johnBeck

        July 7, 2017 at 12:23 am

      • And Obama improved lots of things compared to Bush

        Libya, Egypt, Syria, the resulting destruction of Europe, drone wars etc. Yeah, I’m no Bush fan (turned against him in 2005-6 and now regard him as one of our worst Presidents for the Iraq War if nothing else) but Obama nearly completed the destruction of everything patriotic Westerners hold dear. But it’s true that McCain would have been worse since he’s literally insane and would have launched WWIII. We are beyond fortunate that Obama was too lazy to do more damage than he did.

        Andrew E.

        July 7, 2017 at 12:42 am

      • I can walk around Manchester, NH and see that it is already a far less white city than it was 20 years That is not going to change. “Refugees” and the countries affected by the travel ban are drops in the bucket, demographically speaking. Those are not the populations changing the US irrevocably. The new Americans are already here.

        Peter Akuleyev

        July 7, 2017 at 2:52 am

      • That is not going to change.

        We’ll see about that.

        Andrew E.

        July 7, 2017 at 9:33 am

      • Morons here complaining that Trump hasn’t destroyed the immigrant community in 6 months.

        Destruction of the immigrant community will take decades. Trump has begun the process and is constantly accelerating it. That is enough.

        Otis the Sweaty

        July 7, 2017 at 12:36 pm

      • This cannot be true. Bill Kristol and the MSM assured us during the campaign that such reductions were impossible. That Trump was lying when he said this. And, the respectability of MSM statements, as we all know is always backstopped by university professors who posses ‘academic authority’. Do you own a newspaper or posses academic authority? Thought not. Your opinions are therefore, by definition, non-respectable and not worthy of consideration.

        Curle

        July 7, 2017 at 12:50 pm

  13. Trump is already great. Certainly better than where Reagan was 6 month in. So far we have deregulation, Kate’s Law, Johnson Amendment, the end of PTT, Gorsuch and border crossings down by 80%. MAGA

    B.T.D.T.

    July 6, 2017 at 6:54 pm

    • He also got us out of the Paris Agreement.

      ttgy

      July 6, 2017 at 9:46 pm

  14. I wonder if Bannon wrote that.

    Trump needs to keep this shit up and back off twitter ffs..

    Kaz

    July 6, 2017 at 9:42 pm

  15. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”

    Those are the founding values of this country. Are those the values Trump wants to defend?

    mikeca

    July 6, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    • “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

      .
      .
      .

      With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

      Does mikeca support our values as laid out by the Founders?

      Andrew E.

      July 6, 2017 at 11:05 pm

      • This is a quote from the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays which were published to convince people to approve the draft constitution. Like any opinion piece, they represent the opinion of the author and not necessarily anyone else. The essay this is quoted from was written by John Jay.

        The Declaration of Independence was drafted and agreed to by many of the founders, not a single person.

        mikeca

        July 6, 2017 at 11:56 pm

      • This is the preamble to the Constitution…you know, the actual law of the land, not the Declaration of Independence.

        map

        July 7, 2017 at 1:24 am

      • The declaration was a press release. Nothing more. The constitution is the organic law of the land. The preamble is guidance. The declaration is an explanation to the European states and contains no binding law.

        Curle

        July 7, 2017 at 4:29 pm

      • Addendum: The Declaration’s claim that all men are created equal is perhaps the most intentionally misunderstood line in history. It was a reference to the still potent belief, advanced by the British crown, that King’s had a Devine right to rule. The sentence was a refutation of that notion.

        Curle

        July 7, 2017 at 5:03 pm

    • Those are some of the founding values, but certainly not all of them. Christianity for example and family and hard work larger in the minds of most of the founding people.

      MikeCA, the author of those words was the biggest jackass you could find, an arrogant prick who was an early manifestation of everything wrong with limousine liberals today. The author of those words bloviated about equality while running a massive slave plantation. The author of those words glorified the French revolution in which he the aristocrat surely would have lost his head. The author of those words was a glutton who consumed more greedily than almost anyone alive in his era, who left behind massive debts from imported French wine and luxurious goods of all kinds. The author of those words’ main money-making scheme was to sell slaves, but he still couldn’t raise enough money because he was such a hedonist. If we could meet that guy today he would no doubt be an unpleasant left wing hypocrite and agitator.

      Keep jerking off to his words if you must, but remember how opposite his words were from the way he actually lived.

      I much prefer Washington, a man who was actually worthy of respect and honor, a man who said a lot less and actually did a lot more.

      Dan

      July 6, 2017 at 11:22 pm

      • a glutton who consumed more greedily than almost anyone alive in his era, who left behind massive debts from imported French wine and luxurious goods of all kinds.

        This actually describes Washington more than Jefferson (although him too).

        snorlaxwp

        July 6, 2017 at 11:57 pm

      • Most of the founding fathers came from Christian background, but many had rejected the literal story told in the Bible. When they came to write the Bill of Rights, the first sentence of the 1st amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

        The founders intentions are clear. You are free to practice Christianity or any other religion, but you cannot use the government to impose your religion on other people.

        The sentence i quoted in the Declaration of Independence has been called “the most potent and consequential words in American history”. Jefferson and many of the other founders owned slaves. Abraham Lincoln promoted the view that this sentence represented the moral standard to which the United States should strive.

        More than 200 years later we are still striving to live up to the moral values exposed in the Declaration of Independence.

        mikeca

        July 7, 2017 at 12:35 am

      • MikeCA – Either you are too slow or too dishonest to admit teality, but culture and people matter a lot. Neocons have expended great blood and treasure to give our systems to primitive people with other religions and it is always a total failure. They cannot figure out or admit why. Why do you come to an HBD blog when you ignore its consequences?

        Dan

        July 7, 2017 at 6:02 am

      • “MikeCA – Either you are too slow or too dishonest to admit teality, but culture and people matter a lot. Neocons have expended great blood and treasure to give our systems to primitive people with other religions and it is always a total failure. They cannot figure out or admit why. Why do you come to an HBD blog when you ignore its consequences?”

        Culture, people and values all matter. Culture and values are passed down from our families and our institutions, but not from out genes.

        The neocons are/were naive intellectuals who simply did not understand people outside the USA. The neocons were shocked when Hamas won the election in the Palestinian territories. Bush stopped talking about how a lack of democracy had created terrorism in the Middle East.

        The problem is not really Islam, it is Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia’s financial support of Wahhabism that has spread it thought the Sunni world. Of course Trump went over to Saudi Arabia and heaped praise on its leaders. Who knows if Trump has ever heard of Wahhabism or understands Saudi Arabia’s promotion of it. It is the Saudi oil wealth that has funded the rise of Wahhabism, al Qaeda and ISIS. American leaders have been afraid to confront that issue head on.

        The neocons were too busy with their crazy plan to create permanent US bases in Iraq from which the US could project power through the Middle East. The necons were just too naive to realize the Iraqi people would never stand for that.

        mikeca

        July 7, 2017 at 1:19 pm

      • Whether Lincoln can be described as a Christian is a matter in considerable doubt. And his constitutional knowledge was rudimentary.

        Here’s a good summary explaining why the Declaration is useless as an interpretive guide to the nation’s organic law.

        https://www.google.com/amp/blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/07/the-declaration-of-independence-and-constitutional-interpretation/amp/

        Curle

        July 7, 2017 at 4:41 pm

      • Jefferson wasn’t even remotely a liberal in the modern sense. This was a man so opposed to the glorification of the individual that he opposed erection of monuments even to himself. You do the great man, likely our greatest, a severe disservice as does Mikeca with his butchered interpretation of the Declaration.

        Curle

        July 7, 2017 at 5:08 pm

      • I think blaming all the problems in Islam on Wahhabism and Saudi oil money is just a way for the Left to continue in their delusions and protect the reputation of their precious Arabs. From another perspective, the House of Saud can be seen as social reformers who have dragged a very conservative people kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. A lot of the common people of Arabia are a lot more conservative than the Saudi family. And ISIS is not based on Wahhabism but Salafism, a movement to return to the beliefs and lifestyles of the Salaf, the first generation of Muslims that were the companions of Muhammad. It may be that a lot of the more conservative interpretations of Islam have been funded by gulf states, but that was perhaps inevitable in the post colonial era as the native Islamic culture gradually reasserted itself. Colonialism is over, and that is afterall what the Left wanted, so it seems a little hypocritical for them to complain about what the natives choose to fund with their money.

        DataExplorer

        July 8, 2017 at 10:27 pm

    • Wonderful words Mike. I hope you are aware of the fact that the academic left has now thoroughly demolished and deconstructed the reputation of the writer of those words. He is now officially a rapist and a slaveholder. So who cares what he wrote under the influence of French revolutionist ideology?

      gothamette

      July 7, 2017 at 10:47 am

      • I am aware of that. Jefferson’s record on slavery is mixed. He personally owned hundreds of slaves that worked on his plantations and factories, but he also recognized the harm that slavery did to both the slave and the master. In early drafts of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson tried to include a section critical of King George for promoting slavery in the colonies. That section was removed by Southern delegates.

        Jefferson several times proposed abolishing slavery, usually gradually. He tried to stop the expansion of slavery into western territories, but most of those proposals failed. Jefferson ultimately allowed slavery to spread into the Louisiana Territory in part to prevent a South Carolina secession.

        During the 18th century western attitudes on slavery changed. England outlawed slavery in 1706. By the late 18th century most European countries had outlawed slavery. Jefferson recognized that slavery should be abolished but it was politically difficult to accomplish and would split the fragile country apart.

        Why did Jefferson continue to personally own slaves? He was a large landowner and his plantations competed with other large landowners that used slaves, so he probably felt if he personally freed all his slaves that would destroy his business. If everyone had to free their slaves, then Jefferson felt he could compete with hired labor.

        mikeca

        July 7, 2017 at 3:59 pm

      • Slaves for Jefferson, as for most plantation owners of the time, were no more owned outright than homes purchased with subprime 30 year ARM mortgages. Jefferson was wildly in debt and slaves were collateral. You can’t just give away collateral.

        This highly emotional fake dispute is like most of the other moral panic fake disputes of American history; including fake claims that the declaration was some sort of operational guideline for the federation; the fakery of John Marshall’s jurisprudence especially in Hunter’s Lessee; the fakery that the war was fought to end slavery; the fakery that ‘all men are created equal’ applied to anything beyond divine right of kings ideology. Take the red pill already and read Edgar Lee Masters. Mencius is correct. American history as popularly presented is an outrageous sham.

        Curle

        July 7, 2017 at 6:38 pm

      • “Slaves for Jefferson, as for most plantation owners of the time, were no more owned outright than homes purchased with subprime 30 year ARM mortgages. Jefferson was wildly in debt and slaves were collateral. You can’t just give away collateral.”

        That’s false. You’re right that you can’t give away collateral, but slaves were owned, not as collateral, but as property, unless they were dower slaves. Do some research.

        gothamette

        July 8, 2017 at 11:20 am

      • The claim that Hemings was raped is purely opportunistic. There’s no evidence that the relationship was anything but consensual except for opportunistic conjecture that since it needn’t be consensual it wasn’t. Hemmings was his ex wife’s sister. It is entirely plausible that they both were attracted to each other.

        Curle

        July 7, 2017 at 9:53 pm

      • Actually, there’s no evidence that Thomas fathered any of her kids. The descendants of Madison refuse to take a DNA test. The descendants of Eston are Jeffersons, but we don’t know which one.

        gothamette

        July 8, 2017 at 11:21 am

      • Edgar Lee Masters? LOL.

        Master wrote his Lincoln hating biography, “Lincoln: The Man” in 1930 as the great depression was beginning. Master’s blamed the economic collapse of the depression on the Republican Party and believed Abraham Lincoln was to source of that evil. Master was a big fan of Stephen Douglas of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the 1860 Democratic candidate that lost the election to Lincoln.

        A quick review of history. In 1860 Lincoln and the Republican party ran on a platform of not interfering with slavery in the states but outlawing slavery in the western territories. The Democratic party split and ran two candidates, but Lincoln probably would have won anyway. Lincoln was not even on the ballot in some Southern states, but he carried all the free states and that gave him enough electoral votes.

        The Southern states were convinced that banning slavery in the territories would lead to the eventual end of slavery as more free states were admitted. In Dec. 1860 before Lincoln was inaugurated in March 1861, the Southern States voted to secede from the union. If you don’t think this had anything to do with slavery, go read the South Carolina “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union”. The causes were the failure of some Northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, the election of a president (Lincoln) who was planning to outlaw slavery, and “increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery.”

        In Lincoln’s March 1861 inaugural address he argued the constitution did not recognize secession so the Southern states could not actually secede from the union. Lincoln repeated that he did not intend to end slavery in the existing states that allowed it, only in the western territories. Lincoln said he did not plan to invade the Southern states, but he would defend federal property in the South.

        The South sent a delegation to Washington to try to purchase federal properties in the South and negotiate a peace treaty. Lincoln refused to negotiate because he refused to recognize the Southern Confederacy.

        On April 12th the Confederacy began an attack on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina forcing the garrison to surrender.

        The attack on Fort Sumter rallied Northern opinion against allowing the South to secede.

        Master somehow thinks that Lincoln tricked the South into attacking Fort Sumter because his plan all along was to invade the South and destroy it.

        Master was just blinded by hatred of the Republican party. He wrote the book in two months with almost no research on Lincoln.

        Edgar Lee Masters may have been a great poet, but “Lincoln: The Man” tells you much more about Masters demons than it does about Lincoln

        mikeca

        July 7, 2017 at 10:56 pm

      • Lincoln ran, as did most Republicans, not in the issue of slavery but instead in support of Hamilton’s ‘American’ system; i.e., allowing the government to overtly adopt not neutral policies related to business but to use tax revenues and regulatory powers to support favored businesses like the railroads It is notable that Lincoln avoids slavery altogether in his inaugural campaign (initiating the campaign) as opposed to his inauguration speech (following the campaign). And even then Lincoln was reflecting Northern concerns with cheap negro labor that might migrate North as well as a desire to break the back of the ‘slave power’ that was the muscle behind blocking nationwide protective tariffs (seen as THE econimic necessity by the North). This is why the Corwin Amendment proposing to enshrine slavery forever in the constitution passed Congress with Lincoln’s blessing and majority Republican support. A recent survey of surviving campaign records evidences that eliminating slavery was a rarely mentioned topic by campaigning Rs whereas the American system and the protective tariff were the most mentioned topics. Lincoln was only interested in slavery as far as it propped up those blocking the protective tariff whom he sought to destroy. The Northern states were very hostile to ex slaves whom they effectively barred from migration North and whom their representatives worked for 50 years to colonize elsewhere slave or not. Masters, whose father was a business partner of Lincoln’s former law partner was closer to those with first hand knowledge than any of the railroad financed hagiographers and his account is far and away the account most consistent with the historical record.

        I’ll also note that your understanding of the battle over state admission is similarly flawed. The South rightfully objected to the unconstitutional innovation of seeking to let congress determine the content of state constitutions, given that the federal government was a subordinate entity, in terms of organic law, to the states.

        Masters description of the perception at the time regarding Lincoln’s conduct re Sumpter is also more consistent with the historical record than your fables. Please read up on the experience of the hesitating states like TN who accepted the legality of secession but who voted to secede only after Lincoln began mobilizing a war effort against the seceding states. The record of the secession convention is crystal clear; Tennessee seceded (as did others) because of Lincoln’s exercise of illegal war powers.

        Further, the record is especially clear as to the legality of secession. Marshall’s and Story’s professional reputation was the worst of any Supreme Court justice ever in the period following the opinions rejecting the previously dominant and singular compact theory. The rejection of Marshall’s jurisprudence was so overwhelming that it was simply ignored by both the states and the federal administrations up until Lincoln exercised his rehabilitation at the end of a gun.
        Marshall was so scorned, reviled and mocked for his inventions that he was forced to adopt a pseudonym so he could attempt to defend himself in the press given that nobody else would stand in his defense at least until Lincoln came along looking for pretext for war.

        Curle

        July 8, 2017 at 1:29 am

      • @curle,

        I’ve been reading about the CW widely. Here’s another alt-right lie, that mainstream scholarship hates the South and blames it for everything, and yada yada.

        It’s actually part of mainstream scholarship that the issue of secession was a genuine constitutional question, and that Lincoln’s object in calling up 75K volunteers with the fall of Fort Sumter was get the secesh states back into the Union, and not to free the slaves. That didn’t come until way later. And don’t bother pointing out that four of the states in the Union were slave states. I already know that, and so, I suspect, did Lincoln!

        gothamette

        July 8, 2017 at 11:24 am

      • “The claim that Hemings was raped is purely opportunistic. There’s no evidence that the relationship was anything but consensual except for opportunistic conjecture that since it needn’t be consensual it wasn’t. Hemmings was his ex wife’s sister. It is entirely plausible that they both were attracted to each other.”

        In modern SJW parlance, Hemings couldn’t give consent because of the power difference between her and Jefferson. So it’s rape by modern standards even if she wanted it.

        Mike Street Station

        July 8, 2017 at 2:52 pm

      • “That’s false. You’re right that you can’t give away collateral, but slaves were owned, not as collateral, but as property.”

        I think we agree but are disagreeing on words used. If I purchase a home with no money down have no equity in it and have a 30 year mortgage and I attempt to give it away and cannot make the payments to the bank subsequent to giving it away the bank will enforce its right in the property by seizing it. If Jefferson owned the slaves outright and did not offer them as collateral, no problem. If they were security on a loan, they effectively cannot be freed without substituting some other form of collateral. If you have some substitute form of collateral, then by all means free your slave. But, Jefferson was notorious for always having creditors at his heels and it was the norm of the time for the plantation owners to be deeply in dept. Slaves were typically used as collateral on those debts because they were assets. For whatever it is worth, some of my familiarity with this topic comes from reading the papers of John Hartwell Cocke who was one of those who assisted with settling out Jefferson’s estate and who took possession of Monticello after his death and who attempted to keep the property in family hands by various means. Cocke was also one of Jefferson’s creditors and Cocke’s decendants still have a large collection of Jefferson’s personalty. Cocke’s diary references the ‘scandal’ of Jefferson and Hemmings.

        Curle

        July 8, 2017 at 6:40 pm

      • @curle,

        Cut it out. The issue that was tearing the country apart from the Mexican war on was slavery. Several states threatened to secede if Fremont was elected in 1856. The election of Lincoln was a pretext. I really don’t know what Lincoln said during the election about the issue. I read eclectically and the actual platforms of the parties are of no interest to me at the moment. But the subject that was tearing the country apart was slavery. Read THE IMPENDING CRISIS by Fehrenbacher. Every day, in the Congress & Senate, the issue was slavery, slavery, slavery. Slavery was written into the Confederate constitution. This was no secret at the time. If Lincoln didn’t mention it during the campaign, it’s because he didn’t have to.

        gothamette

        July 9, 2017 at 11:27 am

      • The platform of Lincoln and the Republican Party was to not allow any more slave states into the Union, ending the Missouri Compromise. Lincoln was a pragmatist about it and not a radical abolitionist. Lincoln strongly believed in maintaining the union.

        By modern standards, of course, a pragmatist about ending slavery would be considered a racist, and probably even the most radical abolitionists of the time would be considered racists by today’s standards. I’m sure the vast majority of abolitionists believed that whites were inherently superior to blacks, they just believed that blacks were humans and it was evil to enslave other humans.

      • I think that’s a good summary in today’s terms. In 19th Century terms, it was all about the Anglo-Saxon white man. The war was between the two major factions of Anglo-Saxon white men about who would control the majority of land in English-speaking North America, the Dixie slaveocrats or the Yankee north. The North won, deal with it.

        gothamette

        July 9, 2017 at 12:54 pm

      • OK, because of “curle” I looked up the Republican platform of 1860.

        http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29620

        It mentions slavery five times. Read it. I don’t know if Lincoln called much attention to this in his stump speeches, but it doesn’t matter.

        LOL, read this:

        “9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic ”

        The platform was a stark declaration of war against slavery. There is no other way to read this. The South took that as a declaration of war against them. That was their choice. I guess they were right.

        You are, like the rest of your friends on the alt-right, a liar. Your words are not even wrong. Still, I won’t ignore you entirely, because you bring up interesting topics.

        gothamette

        July 9, 2017 at 11:42 am

      • Curle, why are you trying so hard? The South wanted to keep and EXPAND slavery.

        Lincoln wanted to prevent it’s expansion and preserve the United States as a single nation.

        Done.

        Southern traitors had an inferiority complex about their dirty system so they were extra sensitive to any slights from Northerners.

        The Southern Confederates did a terrible thing for a terrible reason.

        Southern slave owning President Andrew Jackson made it clear 30 years earlier that Southern traitors deserved to be lynched.

        http://www.unz.com/isteve/andrew-jackson-anti-states-rights-nationalist/

        “Van Buren wrote in his autobiography of Jackson’s toast, “The veil was rent – the incantations of the night were exposed to the light of day.” Senator Thomas Hart Benton, in his memoirs, stated that the toast “electrified the country.”Jackson would have the final words a few days later when a visitor from South Carolina asked if Jackson had any message he wanted relayed to his friends back in the state. Jackson’s reply was:

        “ Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.”

        Rifleman

        July 9, 2017 at 2:11 pm

      • Actually, even after the war they hadn’t learned their lesson. Read Jack Hurst’s book about Bedford Forrest. After the CW, Forrest wanted to import more blacks into the south. Asked where they would get them from, he answered, “From Africa.” I don’t have the book with me but you can look it up. Presumably he meant pay for Africans to be shipped to the South, with his money.

        Hurst’s book goes into the gruesome logic of slave capitalism: as cotton appreciated in price, black lives mattered — a lot. Slave owners felt great about increasing black birth rates. Of course they did, more blacks meant more money for them. It wasn’t until the end of the CW that it dawned upon them that this money making scheme was backfiring.

        I have never ever read about a more deluded lot.

        gothamette

        July 9, 2017 at 3:39 pm

      • Does anyone know if Winfield Scott owned slaves? None of the books I read say anything about that.

        gothamette

        July 9, 2017 at 3:45 pm

      • Party platforms are wish lists designed to include something to appeal to each nook and cranny of the party. Past R platforms, at least of fairly recent vintage, included such topics as fighting the teaching of demonology in schools. Remember your local elected running on that topic? Of course not, that’s why historians have taken a closer look at the topics the electeds ACTUALLY ran on. Historians are well aware that national platforms are not a proxy in any serious way for actual campaigns. They are unreliable. And during the 1860 campaign the emphasis of R candidates was on instituting the American system and lowering tariffs by the instrumentality of destroying the slave power that blocked it. Did they use the most hyperventilating moral panic arguments when and where they imagined such arguments might work? Of course, but what recent scholarship is uncovering is their ambiguity making such arguments on the campaign trail where their constituents were far from abolitionist radicals. Even after the war, slavery was seldom mentioned in the letters of Union soldiers. It was of interest because lowering tariffs was of interest and the slave power was blocking that. This is, by the way, entirely consistent with the eventual acts of the R Congress 1) approving a constitutional amendment making slavery permanent in slave states; and 2) effectively leaving the ex slaves to die by almost 25% of their total from starvation and disease during reconstruction and under the control of the Union Army.

        The way to answer a contract question is not to debate the wisdom of its terms you already agreed to but its meaning. Of course, parties without leverage under the terms if the document, in this case the constitution, seek to relitigate the deal they previously agreed to where it fails to give them the leverage they seek. The state admissions fights were clear cut battles over whether Congress should seek to exercise authority over the creation of the organic laws of the states; entities the federal government opposed. The Feds had no business interfering in the organic laws of any state at its creation or otherwise. This very seminal principle was at the very heart of the original secession from Britain announced through the Declaration. Imagining the desirability or undesirability of slavery to be a matter if such overriding importance as to suborn the very idea of organic laws created by popular sovereignty is to miss the point of the American revolution not to mention the constitution entirely.

        Lincoln was a coup leader. The South was using the constitution to defend its interests. Lincoln had other plans, plans to which the constitution was an impediment and he pursued his plans by engaging in an illegal war.

        Curle

        July 9, 2017 at 4:23 pm

      • What exactly is the benefit of trying to convince people that Lincoln wasn’t anti-slavery?

      • Curle, why do you obsess on writing massive walls of text to support irrational, misguided arguments?

        You neo-confederates are deeply disturbed. You go to elaborate extremes to willfully misrepresent reality and justify stupidity.

        Why? Think for once what you are defending. It seems to be in your blood. Here’s a quote from the great General Sherman from just before the Civil War:

        “You people of the South don’t know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them?

        The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with.

        At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.”

        Rifleman

        July 9, 2017 at 6:17 pm

      • “What exactly is the benefit of trying to convince people that Lincoln wasn’t anti-slavery?”

        I’m not.

        The longest running and most significant conflict post ratification of the constitution up to the Civil War was the compact question which manifested in several settings including banking, property rights, court jurisdiction and slavery and almost always involved some manifestation of Hamilton’s American System ambitions. The battle was between the victors at the constitutional convention (compact system) and Hamilton’s American System advocates (of which nobody was a greater believer than Lincoln). The compact folks held the day for most of the interwar period which is why Marshall’s American System jurisprudence was simply ignored in this period, as if it had never occurred.

        Edgar Lee Masters shows Lincoln’s life long dedication and work on behalf of the American System by way of explaining how Lincoln seized on the morally volatile slavery issue to build a coalition dedicated to destroying the federal compact in order to advance the American System. Slavery was just a tool he employed.

        The consequences of Lincoln’s actions explain the anomaly between the government described by the founders and our huge modern administrative state. That would-be conservatives have been so easily deluded into missing the forest for the trees is tragic and self-sabotaging.

        Curle

        July 9, 2017 at 7:08 pm

      • curle’s comment of 7:08 PM is an example of neo-Confederate confirmation bias & delusion. Of course, a society that was created via constitution (and let’s not forget, articles of “Confederation”) is going to be debating the nature of that confederation/constitution endlessly. That’s no secret. It’s also a fact that after the northern states accomplished gradual abolition, after the acquisition of territories in the Mexican War, after the gradual spread of Anglo culture in the rest of the continental area not claimed by the British, the slavery issue became THE issue that tore the country apart.

        Denying this is purely delusional. As the for crack about platforms being wish lists, I guess that’s why the South threatened to secede in 1856, and did so in 1860-61. Right. Rifleman, I leave curle to you.

        gothamette

        July 10, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    • @mikeca,

      “All men are created equal” is one of the founding values of this country. It is an abstraction. In reality, the country, or rather States, that the DoI led to, practiced a form of Anglo-Saxon nationhood with Jefferson’s airy talk in the background. Slavery was legal in all the colonies that became states. In the northern states, which gradually abolished slavery, blacks were, at 1% of the population, brutally segregated and discriminated against. Read Leon Litvack’s NORTH OF SLAVERY for the facts.

      Re Lincoln and his attitudes towards blacks, he always thought they were inferior, and up until the end, entertained schemes of “colonization,” which is a nice word for deportation. Lincoln excusers and idolators contextualize his words up the wazoo, such as the guy here:

      https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/what-lincoln-said-at-charleston-in-context-part-one/

      but you can’t get around them. Yeah, I know, the Lincoln idolators keep claiming he was always a Radical Republican at heart, but I don’t buy that. He sincerely detested slavery. But sincerely detesting slavery and really believing that “all men are created equal” are two different things.

      In any case, using one quote to prove a point is bad faith arguing.

      gothamette

      July 8, 2017 at 11:30 am

      • Lincoln was from what was at the time the American West, Illinois. Oregon and California were the FAR West.

        Lincoln in retrospect was a White nationalist who wanted the West to open up for White Americans as free families.

        He didn’t want the corrupt southern slave system expanded there. He probably didn’t want free blacks going there either in an significant numbers.

        Rifleman

        July 9, 2017 at 1:55 pm

      • No, he didn’t. Read Leon Litwack’s book. There were laws against the free movement of blacks everywhere except New England. (Hardly any blacks lived there, and those who did were very discriminated against economically, even if they had formal rights.)

        gothamette

        July 9, 2017 at 3:35 pm

      • That line in that last entry should read ‘entities from which the federal government is composed’ not ‘opposed’

        Curle

        July 9, 2017 at 4:28 pm

  16. what does Lion think about Larry David’s daughter Cazzie? Would he convert to Scientology for her?

    Otis the Sweaty

    July 6, 2017 at 10:42 pm

    • Why are you always asking Lion if he would convert to Scientology for women who aren’t Scientologists?

      Hermes

      July 7, 2017 at 12:06 am

    • because Lion said he would convert to Scientology for Ivanka Trump.

      Otis the Sweaty

      July 7, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    • Men should not convert to a religion for women. Women must adopt the religion of the man.

      Panther of the Blogocube

      July 7, 2017 at 2:45 pm

  17. Lion, I finally listened to the whole speech and you are seriously reading between the lines if you want this to be some kind of anti immigration pro white thing. It was extraordinarily generic republican pablum. I was shocked that Stephen Miller wrote it. Yes he mentions borders, which I guess is somewhat distinct but remember that Trump’s idea of strong borders still doesn’t mean lowering legal immigration. And it still doesn’t mean screening based on identity or even skills.

    Ooooh he said radical Islamic terrorism. Oooh he said that NATO members should spend 2% of their GDP on defense (even though the US spends 3.5% and has a lower median standard of living than most NATO members).

    I will say that he has almost completely stopped doing those weird unscripted asides which is good. But that also makes the whole thing seem that much more generic.

    magnavox

    July 7, 2017 at 2:00 am

    • And I got news for you but both the Hillary Clinton and the post vox interview, totally cucked Bernie Sanders immigration policies on their sites prominently mentioned strong and protected borders. So that language is totally deracinated and meaningless in our current political environment.

      magnavox

      July 7, 2017 at 2:04 am

    • And a major theme of the speech was the war on terrorism. Why didn’t he ever just point out that Poland doesn’t have islamic terrorism because they never let any muslims immigrate? Maybe add that the US could learn something from that. Instead he talked about all the wars and battles that have to be fought. The whole idea of the war on terror is predicated on the idea that just forbidding muslim immigration is too simple and cheap so that we need a much more expensive and elaborate response that funnels trillions of dollars to the appropriate parties instead. So it was pro immigration in that sense.

      magnavox

      July 7, 2017 at 2:18 am

    • Umm, Peter Beinart seems to get it and yet you can’t.

      The West is not a geographic term. Poland is further east than Morocco. France is further east than Haiti. Australia is further east than Egypt. Yet Poland, France, and Australia are all considered part of “The West.” Morocco, Haiti, and Egypt are not.

      The West is not an ideological or economic term either. India is the world’s largest democracy. Japan is among its most economically advanced nations. No one considers them part of the West.

      The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white. Where there is ambiguity about a country’s “Westernness,” it’s because there is ambiguity about, or tension between, these two characteristics. Is Latin America Western? Maybe. Most of its people are Christian, but by U.S. standards, they’re not clearly white. Are Albania and Bosnia Western? Maybe. By American standards, their people are white. But they are also mostly Muslim.

      .
      .
      .

      So when Trump says being Western is the essence of America’s identity, he’s in part defining America in opposition to some of its own people. He’s not speaking as the president of the entire United States. He’s speaking as the head of a tribe.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/trump-speech-poland/532866/

      Andrew E.

      July 7, 2017 at 10:30 am

      • In 25 years, the wisdom of his words will be apparent, but I’m not sure we’ll be able to do anything about it.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/07/muslim-activist-linda-sarsours-reference-to-jihad-draws-conservative-wrath/

        I provide the link to the Washington Post not merely for the content but to draw your attention to the contempt that the writer has for the mere thought that anyone would be upset about what Sarsour said.

        gothamette

        July 7, 2017 at 11:17 am

      • Again like many of the commenters here you wouldn’t think of liking someone that rte media tells you to like but don’t see any problem reflexively liking whoever they tell you to hate. Beinart makes a retarded argument Trump is a racist monster for using the term “the west”, as though he somehow invented it, so therefore Trump is great.

        Magnavox

        July 7, 2017 at 12:50 pm

      • Wrong again Magnavox. Shocking!

        No, Beinart correctly understands that the term ‘Western Civilization’ has a specific, historical meaning that is non-inclusive. And he correctly recognizes that Trump is identifying Europe and America with the West. QED.

        To Beinart that’s racist. But Beinart is a moron. It’s not racist, it’s just true.

        Andrew E.

        July 7, 2017 at 2:21 pm

      • So Trump is great because he says that the US is a western society in some speech in Warsaw? That’s the standard we’re using to evaluate presidents.

        And then why is it that I’m a white nationalist but am somehow a piece of garbage to everyone here?

        Magnavox

        July 7, 2017 at 5:16 pm

      • “So Trump is great because he says that the US is a western society in some speech in Warsaw?”

        No, genius, we’re not saying he’s great. We’re saying it’s great he said it.

        gothamette

        July 8, 2017 at 11:32 am

      • And when Obama or others speak of multiculturalism they are speaking for a tribe or collection of tribes with resource interests advanced by degrading the primacy of the settler tribe represented by the term West.

        The problem here isn’t Trump it is our inability to effectively ID the resource interests being served by the modern day Bolsheviks or to use Sailer’s term coalition of the fringes. As the Holodomar shows, coalitions of the fringes can murder with the best of them.

        Curle

        July 8, 2017 at 2:04 pm

      • Oh dear, curle, you fooled me. I thought you had a brain for a few seconds. Lion, this is standard alt-right brain rot.

        “And when Obama or others speak of multiculturalism they are speaking for a tribe or collection of tribes with resource interests advanced by degrading the primacy of the settler tribe represented by the term West.”

        Jews.

        “The problem here isn’t Trump it is our inability to effectively ID the resource interests being served by the modern day Bolsheviks or to use Sailer’s term coalition of the fringes. As the Holodomar shows, coalitions of the fringes can murder with the best of them.”

        curle shows his obsessions here. The Holodomar was a man-made famine. The man who made it was Stalin. He had nothing to do with the fringe. He was the dictator of the Soviet Union. And somehow, his Georgian ethnicity is never held against him, the way the ethnicity of the Jews who worked for him is.

        Lion, if you are gonna run a place where ideas are showcased, familiarize yourself with them. And I won’t be browbeaten into not pointing this shit out.

        gothamette

        July 9, 2017 at 11:20 am

    • “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” he said. “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

      Magnavox, I’ve come to the conclusion that you really are a troll. What Republican president would have said the above?

      gothamette

      July 7, 2017 at 11:14 am

      • Clinton and Sanders both said they were for strong borders. Every single educated person says that the US is a western society and every single main stream political figure works within a western intellectual framework.

        Trump precedes the quote by talking about terrorism and countering Russian expansion, two completely bipartisan issues. Trump follows that quote by talking about his dedication to the military industrial complex, the very essence of the deep state supported by both parties and the entire political establishment.

        What am I missing?

        Magnavox

        July 7, 2017 at 5:22 pm

      • You’re missing so much, it would be a waste of my time to school you here.

        gothamette

        July 8, 2017 at 11:18 am

      • He wasn’t just talking about borders. He was speaking of the fundamental superiority of values, and of intellectual products. “We write symphonies.” Well, actually, I don’t, but the point, which you evidently missed, is that there’s a difference between a society produces men who write symphonies and a society that produces people who twerk.

        gothamette

        July 8, 2017 at 11:34 am

  18. Beautiful speech frop Trump. East european are very pro white and anti-muslim. I have a polish friend (with german grand parents ….) i don’t invite anymore in Paris because he keeps saying France is Affen Land (monkey country) because of who you know … I can’t keep up with so rude comments even if there were true .

    Bruno

    July 7, 2017 at 5:30 am

    • Because of the snowflakes like you France is a mess.

      Yakov

      July 7, 2017 at 7:08 am

      • Ah, yes. I remember that one. Another classy move by the Russian. And they pay and they pay and they pay. Then they ask, “Why beel so beeg? We can’t pay so much.”

        Of course it was not Stalin or even the lesser lights like Brezhnev who dollarized the Russian economy. That only came later under Yeltsin and Putin. A rather questionable move if one pauses to consider the consequences, which of course they did not. Or should I say, “could not?”

        The Shepherd

        July 7, 2017 at 1:59 pm

      • Yeltzin and Putin have betrayed and robbed the Russian people, obviously. Don’t conflate issues, man. The light show is just an example of healthy white hooliganism, that’s all.

        Personally, I beleive that the office of the president has to be respected and would accord Obama the highest respect in public.

        Yakov

        July 7, 2017 at 5:22 pm

  19. “On February 14, 1861, President-elect Lincoln told an audience in Pittsburgh that he would make a new tariff his priority in the next session if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4.”

    “1860 election

    The Republican party included a strong pro-tariff plank in its 1860 platform. They also sent prominent tariff advocates such as Morrill and Sherman to campaign in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where the tariff was popular, by touting the Morrill bill. Both Democratic candidates, John C. Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas, opposed all high tariffs and protectionism in general.[7]

    Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documents the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election.[8] Abraham Lincoln’s record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill, he notes, helped him to secure support in the important electoral college state of Pennsylvania, as well as neighboring New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.

    On February 14, 1861, President-elect Lincoln told an audience in Pittsburgh that he would make a new tariff his priority in the next session if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4.”

    Curle

    July 9, 2017 at 4:45 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: