Posted on 03/30/2008 6:56:17 PM PDT by rmlew
(Note: be sure to read Alex K.'s illuminating response to the points I raise below.)
Just a passing question. The Wall Street Journal is opposed to statism, yes? Has the Journal raised jeremiads against, warned about, opposed, criticized, or even mildly questioned Europe's steady march toward a quasi-totalitarian superstate subsuming the ancient states of Europe?
Offhand, I'm not aware that the Journal or of any mainstream "conservative" publication have stood against this impending horror. In the same way, the "conservatives" are evidently going along with John "Patriot" McCain's newly minted internationalism, including his support for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and its extension to all the America's, the ultimate end of which is the elimination of the national sovereignty of its member states, just as is happening under the EU.
Let's face it. The entire political and media elite of the Western world is our enemy.
Another thought on McCain's speech. Just as he has always instinctively sided with Democrats against Republicans (while constantly calling himself a "proud Republican"), and sided with liberals against conservatives (while constantly calling himself a "proud conservatve"), he is now instinctively siding with the "international order" against America (while boasting of his patriotism). He also keeps addressing conservatives and Americans as "my friends," even though he despises conservatives and Americans and wants to Hispanize their country, merge it with Latin America and Canada, and make it subservient to a global order.
Alex K. writes:
You expressed wonder at the fact that mainstream conservative publications do not seem to be opposing Europe's "steady march toward a quasi-totalitarian superstate subsuming the ancient states of Europe."I know I've read some articles in the mainstream conservative press about the impending EUSSR, but even those few (about which I'm afraid I cannot remember much offhand) were either purely informative or informative-tinged-with-Schadenfreude. As I said, they were few and far between and didn't leave a vivid impression on me.
For the most part the establicons are all paler versions of Mark Steyn: when they even acknowledge what's happening to Europe, they mainly just mock it for its decline, and congratulate themselves that it isn't happening here and never will because ... well, because we're so conservative. And that's when they acknowledge it at all. They usually only discuss Europe in terms of denouncing it for getting in America's way.
By paler Steyns, I mean that Steyn talks a lot about Europe's existential problem, mainly the demographic stuff of course, but also about the elite imposition of the superstate, but he mainly does it (a) to laugh at them, and (b) to warn Americans that we're going to have to liberalize the Islamic world, since it is shortly going to include Europe. But we've covered all that lunacy before! Most establicons follow the Steyn model, they just broach the subject much less often and their Schadenfreude isn't so overtly jokey.
In fact, this may be a major reason Steyn is so revered among the mainstream cons, and why they praise him to the stars but never actually grapple with his demographic points themselves. They're basically uninterested in the rest of the West except when it's backing us (yay Howard! yay Sarkozy!) or when it's getting up in our grill (most of the time). Whereas Steyn, international man of commentary that he is, regularly likes to string together little items from around the world into the cosmopolitan confections of his columns. So to them he looks like a global visionary. And they're too uninterested to follow up on the issues he raises themselves. And there's no reason they feel they should have to do that, because, for all his focus on Europe, he just says what they're saying: laugh at the dying Europeans (that's what they get for giving us grief), and rejoice that it can't happen here. So the only implication for us is that we must liberalize Muslims. Which we wanted to do anyway, since we're going to keep letting them in here. Where they will assimilate anyway, because assimilation always happens with American immigration. Okay, at this point I can only assume that they've stopped thinking altogether. So while they laud Steyn for his dazzling worldliness, he really just reinforces their lack of concern for the Old World, since all his commentary on it amounts to the same disdain.
Finally, I think your connection between the conservatives' indifference to the growth of the EU superstate and their support for the internationalist McCain is important. No, they're not in favor of the socialist totalitarianism that is rising in Europe. But they are in favor of globalizing markets. So if they have to accommodate the expansion of the EUSSR's centralized power in order to get Turkey into the EU, they'll take it. They can deal with any mental or moral imbalance this causes by occasionally clucking their tongues lightly about the EU's socialism or by just seeing-no-evil altogether. Similarly, they're not in favor of McCain's liberalism. But they are in favor of Iraq Forever. So if they have to accommodate McCain's leftism and internationalism in order to stay the course in Iraq, they will do so. Again, they've so far seemed to deal with this by either going easy on McCain's leftism or even (as with his foreign policy speech last week) seeing and hearing no evil at all.
There are some divisions among the conservatives: NR was of course vaguely against McCain for a while, in contrast to the enthusiastic support (if not Giuliani-level support) of the Weekly Standard types. But they're sure not making a big deal anymore about whatever it is they once briefly objected to. What they can all agree on is the need to ignore McCain's awfulness or at most treat it like some minor policy disagreements, overshadowed by the big issue of liberalizing the world. Likewise: Does NR want the borderless market-world quite as much as the Wall Street Journal does? No, but they're obviously not going to make a big deal about it opposing it. Do they support Turkey's accession to the EU, the way the full-throated globalists do? Well, some of them do, and the others aren't fighting hard against it. What they can all agree on is the need to ignore the death of Europe or at most treat it as an unimportant, if amusing, development, just something that happens to civilizations that don't progress the right way.
What is there to say? Europe has been commiting slow death suicide for so long, everything has been said to death.
As an aside, has anyone noticed how utterly left the WSJ reporting has become?
Yes.
Conservatives are supposed to hate politics and government. If you love politics and government, while claiming conservative pedigree, you are regarded with suspicion and distrust.
So, what is the right answer? Organize for an assault for Euroweenies? Let’s get some feedback here...
And in the USA.
i like and subscribe to the wsj.
but i wouldn’t describe it as “conservative.”
it’s a mixed bag:
1. the articles tend to the left of center, according to media research.
2. the editorial page has both liberal and conservative opinion as well as free-market capitalism.
? are you saying that free market capitalism is a part of conservativism? i would think so.
but looking at many of the posts on this forum, many freepers speak of “capitalism” and mean anti-globalism, anti-nafta etc., like pat buchanan and the george soros left.
these freepers are more populist, than conservative.
i am free market and libertarian.
the united states benefits more from globalism than it doesn’t.
the united states benefits more from globalism than it doesn’t.
The U.S. on average? Yes.
Those with mid- or low-level skill sets? Absolutely not.
And the majority of voting American sheep.
Why do I bother defending them...
Free markets implies no Gov’t. Aka, libertarian views.
However, we are witnessing ‘Conservative’ free-markets, aka Fed intervention. Free Markets come with risks, Conservatives believe we need a Fed to nanny the Markets and keep everything safe. For the good of the people and all. Because they can't take care of themselves.
right.
so, we agree.
those that get pinched, bitch.
the question is, why do they have mid- or low- skill sets?
and, is that our fault?
education is available. here in kaleefornya classes at the 109 community colleges are $20.00/ hour.
when a herd of thoroughbred horse are attacked by wolves, the circle up, heads in and kick outward at their attackers.
We conservatives, though, are like a herd of mules who when they are attacked by wolves, circle up, heads out, and kick kick each other.
or have you noticed??
Feedback? What can you say? If the people of this country don’t take the time to take this country back, it will go the way of Europe. People of today don’t believe this could ever happen. They won’t stand up and fight for themselves. Look at the Wars in Japan and Germany. Our country beat the two best militarys in the world. In todays world, in the Middle East, we can’t even defeat a bunch of sand rats because we, as a country, don’t have the will or the guts. We worry about loosing 4000 of our people in 5 years. We lost 50,000 in one day in Gettysburgh, about 17,000 in one week in Iwo Jima and the list goes on. Our schools turn our boys into little girls and the parents are too busy to notice or do anything about it. What will happen? We will follow the way of Europe and become the North American Union.
there has to be some regulation, the question is how much.
rush limbaugh argued for no intervention in the sub-prime mess a couple months ago.
on the other hand, if bear stearns went down, causing a domino effect and economic chaos....somebody had better do something.
i’m not an economics professional and not qualified to comment.
The author mistakenly labels McRat a Conservative. I’d be proud to stand in any foxhole with a Conservative. Conservatives are hunkering down for the long war. Screw McLame, Euro-trash, and the Rats. While they are busy destroying themselves ... make your time.
I don’t know what to think of the two Communists and the one pseudo-communist we have to choose between. We should br retargeting some nukes to Europe as most countries are siding with evil. Again. How history seems to repeat and we were not the BG’s except in the eyes of the democrats.
I know, he also said Bear Stearns should not fail. We all pick our conservative ideas at different times.
We have mid and low-level skill sets because when those folks entered the workforce, those skill sets were in demand. But times change and those folks can’t compete salary-wise with China and India.
I seriously question the ability to re-train for high level skill sets. There are precious few investment banker slots. There are even less positions for product design.
I have a tendency to agree. I was in product design. It’s different today. They design product to be thrown away. They design software to be obsolete. They import our food from those that would kill us. Today, it’s all about the almighty dollar without regard to what it will do to this country in the future. We would rather import product, and put our own companies out of business. How many times have you gone to Walmart and only bought American made products? How many items do you have in your home that are imported from China?
What new jobs (besides government jobs) are being created to take the place of the jobs that are lost to overseas workers soley due to salary?
And why do guys like Bill Gates harp on 'Americans aren't skilled enough' to justify bringing in more foreign IT workers but he is pumping lots of cash into the educational system in India?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.