America’s Foreign Policy: Why Should You Care?

by Justin Raimondo

Every once in a while it’s worth it to recall just why we’re doing this: that is, why we here at Antiwar.com spend our days reporting on events in obscure countries no normal person has ever heard of, tracking the pronouncements of politicians and foreign policy wonks, and exposing the War Party’s latest schemes.

It is, frankly, a thankless and exhausting task, and the problem is that one often loses sight of the forest for the trees. Our days are spent asking and trying to answer questions such as: How long will the French linger in Mali? Will Chuck Hagel be confirmed? Is the CIA secretly supporting rebels in Syria? Will the Magnitsky Act lead to a new cold war with Russia? What often gets lost is the answer to the question: Why should we care?

Americans, being a naturally “isolationist” lot, tend to ignore events overseas unless there is some immediate and tangible impact on their everyday lives – and not even wars in which we are involved necessarily qualify. It took years of occupying Iraq before the American people noticed we had been lied into that costly war, and over a decade before anybody began asking what we thought we were doing in Afghanistan.

This means that our political class, left to their own devices, has pretty much of a free rein when it comes to meddling in the affairs of other countries – not because Americans approve of such activities, but because they generally are unaware it’s even happening. Once they do become aware it’s usually too late to do much about it, because the very fact that’s it’s come up on their radar means it’s already backfired.

[Read the whole thing.]

David

No, everything would not be better for whites if we embraces totalitarianism just to keep out the brown hordes. Even if we didn’t let one immigrant in since 1965, this country would still be screwed (even worse) because of the Fed, the income tax, SS, Medicare, the wars, and all the other programs and agencies that have nothing to do with immigration of nonwhites. Bad policy is bad policy. You conceded earlier that ethnic cohesion doesn’t guarantee anything. We talked about Bangladesh and North Korea. Good policy determines prosperity, not the skin color of a country’s inhabitants

“libertarianism is a strategy to destroy white people.”

Given how little success libertarians have had politically, it seems like you need to find a new scapegoat
cassandra

living standard relative to non-whites is declining. Radical individualism is suppressing white fertility, white identity, white interests.

the federal reserve that you and I hate, has used media and mises to indoctrinate white people into libertarianism. its well known that big bankers like rockefeller, warburg, schiff, controlled federal reserve.

when millions of Asian, muslim, hispanic invaders buy land, it is force, just as Chinese buying land in tibet is force.
David

“bringing poverty to middle class white America and destroying white wages”

Someone moving here to make a better life for themselves does not impoverish someone else. Any hypothetical wage decline is wiped out by lower prices and more goods available. Poor Hispanic immigrants don’t even compete for jobs with middle class white Americans. I don’t care what the color of the people plundering the tax payers are. In any case, (mostly white) seniors, cronies, and the military industrial complex take more than immigrants or Hispanics. Asians use welfare at lower rates than whites do. And how does immigration reduce white birth rates? Who is choosing not to have kids because there are Latinos and Asians in the country?

“white homelands”

I didn’t realize this was Europe

“you dont want to admit Israel’s fertility boost. you rant falsehoods. keep ranting.”

I don’t know the history of Israel’s birth rate. In any case, their birth rate is far lower than neighboring, poorer countries. And the Jewish birth rate is lower than the Muslim birth rate there. A small increase in one country does not refute the overwhelming general trend that wealthy, industrialized countries have lower birth rates than poorer ones. And it’s quite ironic that you’re accusing me of ranting

“libertarianism is all about race.”

Absurd. Go to any libertarian website or read any libertarian writer. Immigration and race is mentioned far less than countless other topics. How much, for example, does Tom talk about either one of those things compared to say, economics, the budget, nullification, or foreign policy?
cassandra

i dont advocate totalitarianism. A 90%+ white homeland, like our forefathers, was a good country. free internal markets, strong tariffs, strong national defense, border control to block foreign invaders. gold standard, high white fertility, free from feminism, libertarianism, socialism, communism and all anti-white isms.

i did not concede anything. I simply said that good policy and ethnic cohesion are essential to successful societies.
cassandra

all these points have been refuted in my previous posts to you.

You have been completely defeated in debate, and you are filibustering just to save face.
David

“el paso is safe because whites have already been wiped out.”

Most Hispanic crime everywhere is committed against other Hispanics. And how does that explain violence in Mexico, where there aren’t many gringos? And in Georgia for example, where Hispanics are a much lower portion of the population than the national average, Hispanics are incarcerated at a much lower rate than whites.

“FBI merges whites and hispanics into one category on criminal side, but
dis-aggregates on victim side, to artificially boost white criminality.”

Did you read the article I linked to? It gives statistics straight from the BJS comparing incarceration rates of whites and Hispanics. The FBI does do what you describe with hate crimes.
David

“living standard relative to non-whites is declining”

Again, this doesn’t mean anything. If the SOL of whites remained constant, and the SOL of nonwhites rose, that would reduce the relative SOL without affecting anyone. In this case, SOL is falling for everyone in recent years. Whites may be affected more because we have more to begin with and groups like Hispanics are starting from a much lower point. It’s easier to grow when you’re starting from a lower starting point

It’s absolutely ridiculous to say that white people have been indoctrinated into libertarianism. I guess that’s why we have a massive federal government, the Fed, the wars, the Patriot Act, NDAA, and the War on Drugs.

The Chinese didn’t buy land in Tibet (which was impossible, as you can’t buy land in a totalitarian communist state like China was under Mao). They militarily conquered the place. That is not even remotely comparable to one person voluntarily buying land from another. If you’re going to argue that buying land is force, it’s irrelevant what the nationality or race of the people doing it is. It either is or it isn’t (and it isn’t)
David

Nothing has been refuted. I refuted your points and you simply regurgitated what you said earlier
David

“free internal markets”

And all the major ground work to undo those free markets was in place before large scale immigration from Latin American and Asia.

“border control to block foreign invaders.”

There was actually very little border control for the vast majority of US history. Countless millions “invaded” over the course of the first two centuries of our nations history.

Feminism has nothing to do with immigration. Libertarianism sadly doesn’t have much influence of the US today either. And all the major socialist programs were in place by 1965.
David

Gary Johnson was elected governor in the most Hispanic state in the country, where Latinos outnumber non-Hispanic whites (it is at this point that I might as well point out that many Hispanics are of majority white ancestry, and the vast majority have significant European ancestry). Johnson also got double the percentage of the Hispanic vote compared to the white vote in New Mexico in the 2012 presidential election. And very few libertarians have been elected any where.
Anonymous

The U.S. gov. is notorious for voting for international laws/regulations it might be able to legally use to its advantage, but then some countries turn around and use those laws/regulations to their advantage (Silly countries! Don’t they know that those laws/regulations are for use by Israel and the U.S. only?)

Like this story I read over at Torrent Freak. If you are a government, the WTO can give you the right to run a copyright pirate site. No kidding! And, of course, it seems that the U.S., that country that is using swat teams around the world to raid copyright “pirates”, voted for it. Will the U.S. gov. invade that country in this case to set them straight?

http://torrentfreak.com/antiguas-legal-pirate-site-authorized-by-the-world-trade-organization-130128/
Jeremy

“mises was a hostile anti-white propagandist who collaborated with Rockefeller to weaken whites.”

Your mental illness is showing again. Entertaining and amusing though.
Jeremy

“”Gullible whites were duped into it, due to libertarian open border, moralistic propaganda.”"

Hey genius, libertarians aren’t running the government. Do you really need this spelled out for you? Wow.
Jeremy

“China has not exactly become ‘more powerful by embracing libertarian reforms’. China became powerful because the US made it so”

Geez, do you people even know what the hell you’re saying? ANY country that goes from pure Communism to something that is nor a complete, 100%, top-down controlled totalitarian state will see an improvement in the standard of living. This doesn’t mean that China is anywhere close to being “libertarian.” It’s as idiotic and stupid as saying that the financial crisis was caused by “laissez-faire” even though the finance industry is THE MOST heavily regulated sector of the economy then (and now).

Get an education people. Sheesh!
cassandra

you are a dishonest debater. A fraud.
cassandra

You are a fraud. I never linked feminism with immigration. You dishonest debater.

You also appear to have a lower than average IQ. You cannot understand simple logic. You militantly deny commonsense arguments.

It was a waste of time to debate with a fraud like you. No wonder rascals like you are never taken seriously.
cassandra

you fool. that was my point. that individualist libertarianism, which is being sold to whites, will never succeed because of its very anti-cohesive nature.

Your IQ is too low to grasp, and for this reason I will not debate with you again. I am willing to debate with Dr. Woods. He went to Columbia, has a PhD, like me.

I trust that Dr. Woods is intellectually capable of at least understanding the other debater’s posts before attempting to reply them.
Jeremy

Need a mirror. They are sale at Amazon.com
Anon

Your comment has no clarity – what the heck is your point?

My point is that China’s success is largely based on US giving them privileged access and free technology secrets. Otherwise, it would not have made it or had nearly the success it has had. And yes, it did use some market principles as well.
Jeremy

Learn to read.
David

The entire debate was about immigration. So why bring up feminism? It’s entirely irrelevant. Talk about needing a lesson in logic.

And by all means, post your nonsense on a non-ideological (or multi-ideological) website somewhere (ex. the off topic board of a sports forum, political site visited by people of different ideologies) and see how much average people take you seriously