She has sworn off dealing with the election until after both parties have their nominees in place next fall. But my disengagement from the spectacle has been less formal — my reactions vary through fascinated distaste, deep dismay, and disinterest, all of which combine to keep me from writing on the topic.
Before I explain my reasons fully, let me say this: Yes, I think it’s important that John McCain defeat whoever the Democrat nominee will be. So it’s time once again to hold my nose and vote for the Republican, and this year I will have to take an entire package of clothespins with me into the voting booth to accomplish the task.It’s important to keep either Democrat from winning. But it’s not as important as many people think it is, and the long-term effect on the political momentum of this country will be minimal.
The permanent political class in America has nailed our rudder in place, and the ship of state is headed in a direction that will not easily be changed. The media focus is on the presidential candidates, and the big horse race, and who’s in and who’s out, but the real decisions are always being made by others. Congress, the Federal Reserve, the nameless functionaries in the permanent bureaucracy, the mandarins of the MSM who determine what the average American believes about what’s happening — these are the people who control the direction the country is headed in.
Without a leader of real character in office, the presidency is just a bit of froth on the surface of things.
If Barack Obama is as bad as many people fear he is, he will have little effect in the long run. He’ll get a lack of cooperation from Congress, resistance from the bureaucrats charged with carrying out policy, plenty of bad press, and a rejection at the polls in 2012.
If he’s not as bad as people say, then he and Hillary are effectively indistinguishable. Each will hustle the country more quickly into socialized medicine and bankruptcy. Each will govern from the position of prim politically correct self-righteousness, and hand large chunks of major executive policy over to unaccountable transnational bodies such as the UN. Each will find in the EU a worthwhile model to emulate, and each will do damage to our national defense and American interests overseas.
But John McCain is just as willing as they are to let unchecked immigration continue. He has shown himself to be almost as much an enemy of free speech as either of his possible opponents. He’s no friend of small government, and he has no more plan to deal with the coming Social Security/Medicare catastrophe than any of the Democrats.
His only advantage, and it is a significant one, is that he is unlikely to flee from Iraq and Afghanistan, and will therefore postpone our overseas disasters for a few more years.
But none of the major candidates for President is addressing the most important and pressing problems that face us. Continued mass immigration and the imminent collapse of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state are our most urgent issues.
Ten years from now these problems will be cutting through our national politics like a scythe, and the issues which are preoccupying us today will be forgotten.
- - - - - - - - -
And none of the major presidential candidates has addressed these grave threats in any serious fashion.
For the past two and a half years I have been educating myself about the situation in Europe. Everything I learn adds to my conviction that Europe is the most important front in the struggle against the Great Jihad. It’s more important than Afghanistan, or Iraq, or even Iran, because the heart of the current conflict is the information war, and we are in the process of losing the information war in Europe, thanks to the active connivance of the EU.
All the great crises that will be coming our way in the next quarter century — our colonization by masses of unassimilated immigrants, the engorgement of our central government, our demographic implosion, the inevitable collapse of the welfare state, and the erosion of civil liberties — are also coming to Europe, and they are coming there sooner. In fact, in places such as Sweden and Britain, they have already arrived.
If you want to read the tea leaves and find out what will be happening in the USA in ten or twenty years, look at what’s happening in Europe right now. And what makes Europe doubly important is that the unassimilated immigrants there are not illiterate Mexican peasants, but Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa who are being radicalized by Wahhabist agitators, especially among the youngsters of the second and third generations.
When the “youths” reach critical mass in Western Europe, when the intifadas spread unchecked and spark inevitable civil conflicts, the fate of the entire West will hang in the balance, because the winners will be sitting atop German wealth, British technology, and French nuclear weapons. It’s not a game of small-stakes poker we’re looking at across the Atlantic.
And when you contemplate what’s happening here in our ghastly over-extended election season, all our brouhaha seems that much more trivial in comparison.
It’s not just a preoccupation with evanescent trivia, it’s a con game, and the American electorate is being scammed.
So you’ve got the Bammer versus the Hammer, and the Maverick versus both of them. But the game itself is rigged.Our game is three-card monte, and it doesn’t matter which card you point to, because it won’t be the card you think it is when it’s finally flipped over.
Not only that, your two bits will always end up in the pocket of the con man holding the cards.
30 comments:
I question this:
...
imminent collapse of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state
...
Things I've been reading seem to point towards a strengthening of the socialist state.
I hope I'm wrong, but our government looks to be stepping in to bail out private entities that should fail in the current credit correction. Expect an interesting couple three years.
Bear --
When I say "imminent", I mean "within a generation". It's us Boomers who will do the bankrupting when we retire and get our hip replacements triple-bypass surgery at public expense.
It will happen even sooner in Europe. Places such as Sweden and Britain will be in serious trouble within 5-15 years, especially if the rate of immigration continues to accelerate.
The collapse of Western welfare systems is inevitable, and is driven by demographic trends and simple economic principles. There's no way around it.
Baron,
You hit the nail on the head with this one. I, too, have felt that it doesn't seem to matter who is in the White House. The ship of government, propelled by the vast bureaucracy, have been sailing towards socialism/collapse of Western Civilization for over 50 years. I try and get optimistic when a Reagan comes along, but it doesn't last long.
As I've written before, totalitarianism/Islamism/Communism are like cockroaches. You can crush a few cockroaches, but when millions are coming at you at once you eventually lose.
I agree with you in regards to the US.
Regarding Europe, look how long the USSR lasted. Even after they "broke some eggs".
What spooks the heck out of me is this: how far will the gangrene advance between now and then?
Our economy is very strong and I expect it to correct. But with so few savers in proportion to debtors and with our means of production willfully sent elsewhere, there is a possibility that we'll face worse than the Japanese real estate bubble.
Again, I very much hope I'm being a chicken little.
I think the wars in the middle east are useless. Terrorism could be prevented with border security at any point--that it isn't proves this war isn't about self-defense, but more PC social experimentation and irrational universalism. Because of this, McCain might even be the worst candidate of the three.
Excellent post, Baron, but where is your faith in Science and Technology? Won't they save us from any need to maintain generous immigration rates, and just about everything else? If this article
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/
population/pc0044.htm
is on target we can expect our political and cultural leadership to join in urging *increased* mass immigration to offset the declining birthrate of Western (and just about all other) civilizations. Even China. How else to maintain the service economy and welfare apparatus?
The power players you mention have their own vision of how the human experiment will develop over the next few decades and beyond. Probably there is little disagreement among them. On a broader scale this corrupt vision is globalism-- global markets, global regulation, global welfare and all the rest. I am not convinced that this outcome is ineluctable but at present the forces of opposition would appear to be strong only in their intellectual determination. Will this be enough, by Internet contagion and small political gains (in good years), to eventually push back against darker forces?
[Sorry I could not get the hang of "create a link", must have missed something]
I personally don't think importing massive numbers of immigrants from 3rd world countries to prop up our social welfare systems is an ideal solution unless we're willing to also give up our nations altogether. Germany for example won't long remain Germany if its population is replaced by Turks. To me, maintaining the integrity and identity of nations is worth whatever sacrifices are required to prevent the need for massive immigration.
What if we of European stock were to sacrifice North America to the Latin invasion if Europe were to open its arms to tens of millions of young European-Americans to restock its population and support its elderly population? Seems like a win-win. Europe remains European in stock and also gets some young workers to support its elderly population. It also would import our much more entrepreneurial attitudes. I'm sure me and my family would be better immigrants to Europe than Abdul and his family.
Regarding population and social security...what right do those that choose to remain childless have to Social Security benefits? As currently structured, Social Security is in reality a wealth transfer from those that work to those that have retired. If I produce at least two children, to replace myself and my wife, then I have theoretically a claim to the SS contributions of my own children. If out of 100 married couples only 50 couples produce children, let's say 2 for the sake of simplicity, then the next generation consists of only 100 children to support 200 adults. In my opinion I have a greater claim to Social Security than a childless couple because I sacrificed to raise the next generation of SS producing adults. I made an investment in the next generation by having children, raising them, supporting them, educating them, etc. It seems to me that childless couples are getting a free ride in the current SS construct. It may not seem so in a nation of hundreds of millions of people but if demographic trends continue then the burden on the next generations of adults will only grow larger. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that will eventually have to collapse.
The childless snobs may look down their noses at those of us that have kids but without us their financial futures would be at risk.
Note: after the first part of my post (above) I should have inserted "sarc./off". Sorry for any confusion. I think the promise of science is simultaneously horrific and wondrous.
Charlemagne-- abolishing SS is an interesting idea. I don't think childless citizens should be punished for not bearing children, but the whole scheme robs people of their earnings. On that basis the criticism against SS can be leveled against the government and not at each other. In the meantime encouraging couples to have children is a good idea for many reasons.
The rationale by left wing politicians for massive immigration is a sham. If you're serious about marshaling a work force rather than Democrat voters, then you do not allow them to bring their elderly parents along who have never paid a penny of taxes yet soak up health care dollars (in Europe and Canada) and social security. Their expenses more than cancel out any taxes paid by their offspring.
You also do not import or allow self-selection of people who are illiterate in any language or who do not even speak the host country's language as their education costs are burdensome and there are so many qualified candidates.
You do not import people at a rate greater than can be successfully assimilated and you do not encourage multicult, working against assimilation.
Finally, you encourage your native population to stop aborting on a whim so you don't have to replace the missing citizens (around 50 million) from the costly candidates above.
A generous welfare policy accompanied by uncontrolled immigration is unsustainable. The have-nots will swamp the haves rather than improving themselves and/or their home countries.
I, too, used to be vehemently against mass Mexican immigration to the United States until I recently had a conversation with a very intelligent friend. He pointed out that, without Mexican labor, large portions of the economy would collapse. Restaurants and farms would be hit particularly hard.
His suggestion was to seal the border (since that is a national security risk) but vastly increase legal immigration from Mexico. He also suggested granting amnesty to those immigrants already here illegally, since it is better to have them in the system than not.
I understand the various problems with those immigrants who refuse to learn English, etc. But if they are willing to learn English and adopt our values, what's the problem?
Am I missing something?
Zarxos - I believe your friend is misguided, or is just trying to justify allowing the southern invasion. Yes, the restaurant, farm and construction industries would be hit hard. But they would adapt pretty quickly. Still, it would be a net cost to the economy for a while. On the other hand costs for schooling ILLEGAL alien children would plummet. This would allow counties to lower property taxes. Crime would decrease. Medical costs forced on states would plummet. Many other costs of supporting these ILLEGAL aliens would plummet. This would be a net benefit to the economy and far outweigh the short term correction in the other industries.
However, this is all besides the point. The fact is these people are here ILLEGALLY! What other laws should we chose not to enforce? I realize I am yelling into a hurricane force wind, so no one will hear, but is we just enforce the laws we have on the books against employers the vast majority of illegal aliens would self-deport. Plus, we would no longer be slapping the legal applicants in the face anymore.
Ask your very intelligent friend if importing Mexicans, increases GDP per capita, or lowers it.
Your friend would be right if Mexicans were treated like real slaves, thus not being part of the capita in GDP per capita.
As it is, they consume more than they produce.
Sure, you think you get cheaper vegetables, cab fares and restaurant meals, but that's only because you don't consider the costs transfered to your tax sheet.
Calculating the true costs of anything is near impossible in a socialized society.
A solution is to let immigrants pay almost no taxes, while not being allowed to recieve any kind of public services or aid beyond basic security (police, fire fighting).
Another solution is to throw the costly ones out, thus forcing employers to invest in machines instead of slaves. Raise wages too.
As is so often the case, the Baron presents a post that will drive many to opine.
I'm heartened that many are coming to the understanding that the immigration policies of Europe and the US are driven by the SS policies adopted by the developed world.
In the US this goes back to the Ted Kennedy sponsored Immigration Reform Act of 1965, perhaps the most important feature of our intentioned trend toward socialism. We now have more sub-Saharan African immigrants than were ever brought here as slaves back in the day.
We look about us daily and think, "This is not what I'm used to; this is different than when I was young", yet we continue to expect it to be the same tomorrow as it was today.
Perpetually at the risk of repeating myself, I am wont to say "history is the best predictor of the future". Britons didn't expect the Saxons and Danes. Then they didn't expect the Normans.
We think of our nations as static entities; unchanging and permanent. History screams at us that this is not so.
My beloved America today is far different than my boyscout days of the 60s. We now face the twin pending disasters of Islam and socialism and without the necessary political heart we will fail to continue--like a childless family.
We desperately need to reverse course on key elements--the very first being energy. We can be self-sufficient and, in so doing, stop our funding of our enemies. We can come to a fundamental understanding that our social programs are untenable. We can build the fence.
We could.
But I doubt it.
Baron, your understanding is as I would have written my own, excepting that you do it better. But my conclusion concerning the election is different.
If all these things are true, it may be better to break down now, and conceivably make repairs, then further down the road when we are weaker still and our challenges are only greater. McCain is the Trojan Horse carrying the virus that is in its active stage across his often mentioned "aisle".
Great post, Baron. I couldn't agree with you more, especially with regards to Europe. If Europe falls to Islam, it's only a matter of time before America does.
I am with you on this one, Dymphna. It is so ugly, so misdirected, that real stories happening around us are not being covered. Think about it. What is the coverage of politics today but a festival of hearsay? All the news reported about the candidates focuses on what they say, what was said, who said what about which candidate...NOT NEWS...til I go in and pull the trigger...I mean, the lever. Suicide just the same...in a manner of speaking.
This B Boomer - after having witnessed men of honor "stiffed" by the R. Party both state and national (W. Dannemeyer vs. M. Huffington comes quickly to mind - we got D. Fienstein because of it!) (that race was the first to show me that there was no difference in the parties) this "froggy" can no longer hold her nose.
Sometimes situations have to become REALLY bad before people finally open their eyes. Better now, while I'm still young enough to fight.
"British technology, and French nuclear weapons"
Yes and we Brits have nuclear weapons too. In the past I have been anti-monarchy but I have done yet another about turn.
I have come to the conclusion that as the military swear allegiance to the Queen there would be an intervention to establish the status quo. Also bearing in mind the considerable "establishment" that would never allow Britain to fall to Islam.
I believe if it got that close the Brits would be on the streets and the military would step in.
I have posted today on this matter:
England 2018, Civil War II
Rohan and Chris --
I don't think you can say that companies would adapt "pretty quickly" without the cheap labor. They have become completely dependent on them, and a sudden loss of them would be catastrophic.
And the benefits which you describe would only occur if all of the illegals actually leave, which is by no means guaranteed. I suppose if you enforced extreme sanctions on companies which hire illegals, it might be possible, but there are just so many of them now it is rather unrealistic to think that anything could make all of them leave.
Ray,
Comments like yours present a ray (sorry) of hope to those of us who are used to the P.C., Multiculti pronouncements of Her Majesty's government. If you could give us an idea of what the average bloke thinks about the EU/Eurabia mess it would be greatly appreciated.
"Yes, I think it’s important that John McCain defeat whoever the Democrat nominee will be. So it’s time once again to hold my nose and vote for the Republican, and this year I will have to take an entire package of clothespins with me into the voting booth to accomplish the task.
It’s important to keep either Democrat from winning."
Good to know! You are a real friend of Europe and a real American Patriot, Baron!
" But it’s not as important as many people think it is, and the long-term effect on the political momentum of this country will be minimal."
Here I do not agree Baron. And as a Portuguese I have no vote whatsoever in this internal matter of yours. But I too have a right to own an opinion and I am going to say this because I feel I may influence you positiveley.
Whereas I do agree with your analysis, Baron, I think you forgot one thing.
You are analysing it all based on "what's happening today", based on your current "knowledge of the world".
You are forgetting something greately important: THE EVENTUALITY OF A CATALYZING OR CATASTROPHIC EVENT like a New Pearl Harbour or a new 9/11 or a civil war in an European country or a mass expulsion of "ethnics" from an European country or a big conflict in Latin America or a "reaction" of Serbia - God be praised! - or a islamist government in Pakistan.
How would the candidates react and who will suit us the most?
Concearning immigration, imagine all the "blacks and hispanics" getting united to atack innocent female whites in L.A.
Who would react more prontly in order to restrict immigration? Barak Hussein Obama?
You missed that catalyzing/catastrophic event and you can not do that. It is a terrible mistake.
I would really like all of you people to think about my words and to go vote for McCain. Not because he is perfect, but because he is the most likely to not turn against America. Do not waste your votes in third parties because that will only strenghen the Democrats. Please, people, think about my words, and let me know weather I am right or not!
After all, I do not know that much about America.
Think fellow Americans, think!
"What if we of European stock were to sacrifice North America to the Latin invasion if Europe were to open its arms to tens of millions of young European-Americans to restock its population and support its elderly population? Seems like a win-win. Europe remains European in stock and also gets some young workers to support its elderly population."
Charlemagne,
well, it would be perfect but... can you do that??? You are a white Nationalist. You better fight to create the land of that book... "Imperium". Consisting on Europe, Oceania, North America and Southermost South America. Well, now lets face the reality because that is why I love Gates of Vienna.
"if we of European stock were to sacrifice North America to the Latin invasion"
Ohh... and Julius Ceaser was what? A Native American??? Many of the so called Hispanics are indeed Western. Brasilians, Cubans, Argentines, even some Mexicans. Not all of them belong to the third world you know?
Actually I consider myself to be both of Latin origin (at least in culture) and of European stock, so I find a bit offensive to say what you said in such a great blog as Gates of Vienna. Cameron Diaz is also blond and Latin and, despite she is, well, what she is, many "Latins" who live southwards of you could pass as normal American citizens (And I would like to give a "especial wellcome" to Cameron Diaz). I find it not to be racism because I think that a person of European stock is usually more culturally western than an amerindian. I am hoping you to understand that.
Charlemagne,
I admire your logic on the Social Security. I do agree. But what disturbed me was that paralel:
Social Security = SS (remember WWII?)
Zarxos,
A company that builds itself on the back of illegal labor doesn't deserve to survive because their business plan is essentially flawed. They've survived only be cheating the system, breaking the rules, and keeping their fingers crossed that the party would continue. As we Americans have become fat and lazy we've bought into the game by having our yards cut rather than cutting them ourselves, having our cars washed, eating out more than we could otherwise probably afford, etc.
I have no sympathy at all for a business that fails once it is forced to play by the rules.
Afonso,
I certainly meant no offense and am fully aware the idea of population swapping is indeed ludicrous. Perhaps I'd had more wine last evening than I thought! I was merely being provocative to make a point, the point being that the West is being overrun and we are aiding in our own destruction and seem to be unwilling to do much about it and radical ideas may prompt a few not so radical yet serious ones. I'm also very aware of the ethnic makeup of most South American nations, however, the "Latin" invasion the US is subjected to is predominantly from the Mexico and the northern most countries of Latin America which also happen to be the countries with the largest Amerindian and mestizo populations.
I actually considered moving to Argentina some years ago. I dreamed of a ranch on the Pampas...
I've never considered myself in any way to be fixated on ethnicity and certainly doubt anyone would accuse me of racism.
When I was in the 7th and 8th grades I lived in a small town in Arizona named Holbrook. The town was predominantly Hispanic and Navajo Indian. I, and several of my white friends, had Mexican-American girlfriends and buddies and we never gave it much thought. It was perhaps normal for that small town that everyone would get along and exist as a single community. I don't recall there ever being any racial or ethnic issues among the students.
When I was in 9th grade we moved to Phoenix and I went to Tolleson Union High School and it too was predominantly Hispanic but was very different than where I had come from. I remember one day coming home on the bus and watching a group of Mexican-American kids beating up on some 'wetbacks' as they were calling them. Why were they fighting? Because the American kids didn't like the new immigrants even though they were all of Hispanic origin.
I remember riding in my good friend Pedro's lowrider. He used to keep me up to date on his hydraulics and trunk space sacrificed to batteries. He was a bit of a goofball and not affiliated with the many gangs at the school.
There was this Mexican-American girl in my science class I had a crush on named Gloria and finally got the nerve up to ask her out. She said no and said that she didn't date white boys.
I never had any animus towards Mexicans until they started disregarding our laws and our sovereignty, started demanding rights for which they had no claim, started forming racial grievance groups like La Raza, MeCHA, LULAC, et al to try to position themselves as victims in need of government special favors and protection.
What is the solution? Honestly I don't think there is one either for Europe or the US until the fighting starts. We are all too afraid of being labeled bigots and so silently sit by as our nations crumble in front of our eyes. We lament the collapse but know we can never rally enough of our fellow citizens to prevent it.
Before I had kids I actually considered not having any because I didn't want them to live in the gloomy future I see ahead. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic but I don't see much cause to be an optimist.
Ok - I've rambled on long enough. Time for bed.
Afonso - SS=WWII never occurred to me. In future I will use SSI, which, I believe is correct.
Good post, Baron.
I sometimes can't help but wonder if the West is just getting what it deserves.
Yes, Charlemagne, I agree. I was more concearned about some other readers than with you, in particular.
"I actually considered moving to Argentina some years ago. I dreamed of a ranch on the Pampas..."
Boy, I have already considered this too!!! Not in the pampas but maybe in Buenos Aires, Montvideu or South/Southwestern Brazil, where (I think) one has all the first world "conditions" with third world prices. And boy, the girls there are astonishingly beautifull too. First class.
"She said no and said that she didn't date white boys.
(...) started forming racial grievance groups like La Raza, MeCHA, LULAC"
Well, despite knowing that it has "something behind", I can not see much evil in this proper situations. If you want them within your borders, you will have to accept their singularity. You will not have the labour force for free...
And, actually, you didn't offended me at all.
On the Social Security acronym:
OASDI is formal and stands for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program.
Or SSA for the original Social Security Act; also works for Social Security Administration.
All this data from Wikipedia seems to indicate that the program is excessive at any rate.
Post a Comment