Category Archives: EU

John McCain: George Soros’ Favorite Republican

BAB's A List, Conservatism, Donald Trump, EU, Foreign Aid, John McCain, Neoconservatism, The State, The West, UN

By Dr. Boyd Cathey

Senator John McCain has renewed his war of words with the president. McCain just received something called the “Liberty Award” at the hands of his close friend, former Vice-President Joe Biden. He used the occasion to launch a wide-ranging attack on the president and his foreign policy, although not mentioning him by name.

What caught my attention in particular was McCain’s statement that “We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil.” McCain’s phrase illustrates the very clear defining wall, the unbridgeable chasm, that divides traditional conservatives who do believe that we live in a country to which our ancestors came largely in communities of like ethnic origin and ancestry, specifically for land and for their families and on behalf of which they shed their blood—from those who envisage this country as founded upon various nebulous “propositions” about universal equality and “making the [whole] world safe for democracy.”

It is the radical difference between those of us who inherited the proud legacy and belief from our ancestors that our country is a nation of families in communities, baptized in patriots’ blood, toil and tears, and those whose ideological zeal impels them to turn the nation into a “cause.” It is the chasm that puts John McCain and the Neoconservatives on the side of the fanatical Left and denies to them, in effect, the title of “conservative” which they so earnestly desire.

To use McCain’s words and refute them, our belief is not that we hold to a “half-baked, spurious nationalism,” as he calls it, but to our familial traditions and heritage and to the land we are attached to and love. Our hope, our desire, is to pass on that inheritance, undamaged as much as possible, to our offspring—not to send those offspring to fight in never-ending civil wars to “establish liberal democracy” and protect same sex marriage in every remote desert oasis or jungle on the face of the globe.

The Arizona senator’s reasoning may have much to do with the financial largesse he has received and continues to receive from George Soros, the globalist billionaire and fierce advocate of a New World Order. It is Soros’s goal that the world’s nations disappear into some international socialist super-state. In addition to indirectly funding the “Resist” Trump movement, Black Lives Matter and the Antifa revolutionaries, he has spent billions of dollars to support subversive activities in those countries that are recalcitrant and hesitant to accept globalist control. Most recently, Hungary and Russia are two prime examples in Europe of nations that firmly resist Soros and his billions that have been funneled to “domestic” subversion in those states. But Viktor Orban in Hungary and Vladimir Putin in Russia are fighting back.

Soros, through his pass-through Open Society Foundation, has handsomely supported McCain and his McCain Institute for International Leadership to the tune of millions of dollars. And what is palpably evident  is that when it comes to lapping up the crumbs of Big Brother, John McCain is right there, tongue always out, eagerly doing the Deep State’s bidding. He is, above all, the “Republican that leftist Democrats love.”

==========================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

US Interferes With Hungary’s Sovereignty. Pot. Kettle. Black.

America, Democracy, Donald Trump, EU, Europe, Foreign Policy

“I hope and pray Poland is not invaded by “our NATO allies” (read the US) for attempting to stay Polish, not Muslim.” So I tweeted following a report that “Poland has shut its border to Islamic migrants to keep potential terrorists Out.”

Hyperbole? Hardly. Donald Trump’s State Department has warned Hungary that its anti-Soros law is another step away from NATO.

… Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s spokesperson urged Hungarian leaders to scrap legislation mandating that Hungarian nonprofits supported by foreign contributors identify their donors. The bill is the latest development in nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s ongoing campaign against Soros …

As we carry on about Russia running interference with the DNC, America interferes with the sovereignty of nations daily, through government and through democracy enforcing NGOs and party affiliated organizations. It’s beyond corruption. It’s beyond a double standards.

Your guide to this corrupt conduct is here: THE WAR ON TRUMP: The Big Picture for Conservatives, Libertarians & Liberals.

UPDATED (6/1): ‘Sovereign Multilateralism: It’s DC Speak for Servitude Through International Treaties

Conservatism, Constitution, Donald Trump, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, EU, Europe, UN

“Sovereign multilateralism” is how a GOPer described the “benefits” to ordinary Americans from international agreements and treaties.

This MSNBC Republican (flogging a book) was incredulous that President Trump would dare to be so offish to NATO members. Did he miss last year’s election? We wanted out of NATO.

Candidate Trump got considerable support for his promises to violate this or the other agreement between the U.S. government and various supranational systems. Successive U.S. governments have ceded the rights of Americans to these supra-state systems. Deplorables wanted much less of it.

As I pointed out in “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June 29, 2016), international treaties are not holy writ.

Granted, radical libertarians will contend that the Constitution itself is the thin edge of the wedge that has allowed successive U.S. governments to cede the rights of Americans to these supra-state systems. Specifically, the “Supremacy Clause” in Article VI states that all treaties made by the national government shall be “the supreme Law of the Land,” and shall usurp the laws of the states.

Either way, all libertarian-minded conservatives who yearn to breathe free should want the chains with which others have bound Americans dissolved. Johnson and Weld object to Trump renegotiating agreements or optimizing them for Americans, on the statist grounds that to so do would violate agreements that by their nature sideline the American people. Smashing or refashioning these agreements and reclaiming national, state and individual sovereignty, as Trump proposes, is certainly more libertarian than the Johnson-Weld worldview allows.

The Scarlet Letter E Establishmentarians keep overruling Trump voters.

As for Trump “Leaning Toward Withdrawing U.S. From Landmark Paris Climate Deal:” We have very strong environmental protections, including emission controls, in-house.

The Paris scheme is a wealth grab. Barack Obama and others before him were always selling out Americans for their own legacy.

UPDATE (6/1):
We’re out of the Paris Accord!


Pittsburgh before Paris:

How The French Lost Their Place In Their Country By Aping America

America, EU, Europe, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Left-Liberalism, Multiculturalism

On May 7, 2017, the French elected to get down on their knees, face to Mecca, butt to Brussels. Patriot Marine Le Pen lost to an inconsequential Obama-like figure called Macaroni, or something.

Fox News and its British neoconservative pundits celebrated the defeat of a “nationalist anti-Semite who cozied up to Vladimir Putin. Le Pen, again. (Pray tell again why you watch Fox News?) Le Pen had told the little runt, her rival Emmanuel Macron, that, “France will be led by a woman. It will be either me, or Mrs. Merkel.” The French chose Merkel and her house boy.

But did they?

What’s happening? Christopher Caldwell explains, with reference to the work of French geographer Christophe Guilluy. “The French, Coming Apart”:

A process that Guilluy calls métropolisation has cut French society in two. In 16 dynamic urban areas (Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Aix-en-Provence, Toulouse, Lille, Bordeaux, Nice, Nantes, Strasbourg, Grenoble, Rennes, Rouen, Toulon, Douai-Lens, and Montpellier), the world’s resources have proved a profitable complement to those found in France. These urban areas are home to all the country’s educational and financial institutions, as well as almost all its corporations and the many well-paying jobs that go with them. Here, too, are the individuals—the entrepreneurs and engineers and CEOs, the fashion designers and models, the film directors and chefs and other “symbolic analysts,” as Robert Reich once called them—who shape the country’s tastes, form its opinions, and renew its prestige. Cheap labor, tariff-free consumer goods, and new markets of billions of people have made globalization a windfall for such prosperous places. But globalization has had no such galvanizing effect on the rest of France. Cities that were lively for hundreds of years—Tarbes, Agen, Albi, Béziers—are now, to use Guilluy’s word, “desertified,” haunted by the empty storefronts and blighted downtowns that Rust Belt Americans know well.

Guilluy doubts that anyplace exists in France’s new economy for working people as we’ve traditionally understood them. Paris offers the most striking case. As it has prospered, the City of Light has stratified, resembling, in this regard, London or American cities such as New York and San Francisco. It’s a place for millionaires, immigrants, tourists, and the young, with no room for the median Frenchman. Paris now drives out the people once thought of as synonymous with the city.

… there’s no reason to expect that Paris (and France’s other dynamic spots) will generate a new middle class or to assume that broad-based prosperity will develop elsewhere in the country (which happens to be where the majority of the population live). If he is right, we can understand why every major Western country has seen the rise of political movements taking aim at the present system.

… When France’s was a national economy, its median workers were well compensated and well protected from illness, age, and other vicissitudes. In a knowledge economy, these workers have largely been exiled from the places where the economy still functions. They have been replaced by immigrants. … Again, Paris’s future seems visible in contemporary London. Between 2001 and 2011, the population of white Londoners fell by 600,000, even as the city grew by 1 million people: from 58 percent white British at the turn of the century, London is currently 45 percent white. …

… In certain respects, migrants actually have it better than natives, Guilluy stresses. He is not referring to affirmative action. Inhabitants of government-designated “sensitive urban zones” (ZUS) do receive special benefits these days. But since the French cherish equality of citizenship as a political ideal, racial preferences in hiring and education took much longer to be imposed than in other countries. They’ve been operational for little more than a decade. A more important advantage, as geographer Guilluy sees it, is that immigrants living in the urban slums, despite appearances, remain “in the arena.” They are near public transportation, schools, and a real job market that might have hundreds of thousands of vacancies. At a time when rural France is getting more sedentary, the ZUS are the places in France that enjoy the most residential mobility: it’s better in the banlieues. …
Our Immigrants, Our Strength,” was the title of a New York Times op-ed signed by London mayor Sadiq Khan, New York mayor Bill de Blasio, and Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo after September’s terrorist bomb blasts in New York. …

…The real divide is no longer between the “Right” and the “Left” but between the metropoles and the peripheries. The traditional parties thrive in the former. The National Front (FN) is the party of the outside. …

… Indeed, with its opposition to free trade, open immigration, and the European Union, the FN has established itself as the main voice of the anti-globalizers. At regional elections in 2015, it took 55 percent of workers’ votes. The Socialists, Republicans, Greens, and the hard Left took 18 percent among them. In an effort to ward off the FN, the traditional parties now collude as often as they compete. In the second round of those regional elections, the Socialists withdrew in favor of their Republican rivals, seeking to create a barrage républicain against the FN. The banding together of establishment parties to defend the system against anti-system parties is happening all over the world. Germany has a “grand coalition” of its two largest parties, and Spain may have one soon. In the U.S., the Trump and the Sanders candidacies both gained much of their support from voters worried that the two major parties were offering essentially the same package. …

… Western statesmen sang the praises of the free market. In our own time, they defend the “open society”—a wider concept that embraces not just the free market but also the welcoming and promotion of people of different races, religions, and sexualities. The result, in terms of policy, is a number of what Guilluy calls “top-down social movements.” He doesn’t specify them, but they would surely include the Hollande government’s legalization of gay marriage, which in 2013 and 2014 brought millions of protesters opposing the measure onto the streets of Paris—the largest demonstrations in the country since World War II.

French elites have convinced themselves that their social supremacy rests not on their economic might but on their common decency. Doing so allows them to “present the losers of globalization as embittered people who have problems with diversity,” says Guilluy. It’s not our privilege that the French deplorables resent, the elites claim; it’s the color of some of our employees’ skin. French elites have a thesaurus full of colorful vocabulary for those who resist the open society …

… It’s not our privilege that the French deplorables resent, the elites claim; it’s the color of some of our employees’ skin. French elites have a thesaurus full of colorful vocabulary for those who resist the open society: repli (“reaction”), crispation identitaire (“ethnic tension”), and populisme (an accusation equivalent to fascism, which somehow does not require an equivalent level of proof). One need not say anything racist or hateful to be denounced as a member of “white, xenophobic France,” or even as a “fascist.” To express mere discontent with the political system is dangerous enough. It is to faire le jeu de (“play the game of”) the National Front. …

… The “American” society that Guilluy describes—unequal and multicultural—can appear quite stable, but signs abound that it is in crisis. For one thing, it requires for its own replication a growing economy.

Important read: “The French, Coming Apart.”