That the US is an imperial hegemon.

So, you're either a Muslim or an apologist, based on your sig. Sad to see, in a fellow Megadeth fan.

 

I am reading the whole thread but want to make some points as I go along so apologies if this has been covered.

This is the flaw in the whole argument.

Why can Americans not see that not only was point no. 3 never made in the point being debated, but that it is also a complete non sequitur.

Big Ragu implies, by including number 3 here, that this is a logical consequence of number 2. Otherwise, why include it?

In my opinion this is where rightists and leftists (not Megadeth in this thread though) get this question wrong.

They assume that empire is a bad thing. This is not necessarily so. The whole argument that the USA is not an empire is reverse engineered from this assumption. The argument is that because the USA did good things, it cannot be an empire. The other arguments twist definitions (that empire must be absolute, for example) to make their point, but these ring with sophistry because the real arguments always end up focusing on the USA's foreign policy, with those arguing that if it is good, then the USA cannot be an Empire.

This is clearly illogical nonsense. Empires are quite capable of doing good things.

Despite his thuggish and abusive posts, whose crass vulgarity and churlishness makes you want to throw up on him, Silicon Magician was sort of making the same point here.

As Megadeth noted, by highlighting that SM was affirming his very point.

My view is that the USA is an Empire, as the British Empire was before it. It relies on soft power and hard power, as the British Empire did before it. It makes the world in its period and largely in its image, as the British Empire did before it. It drives the global development of industry and commerce, as the British Empire did before it. It dominates the globe militarily, as the British Empire did before it. It projects a progressive ideology, as the British Empire did before it. It relies heavily on client states, soft power and the cooperation of its imperial subjects, as the Britsih Empire did before it. It is drawn into military conflict primarily with medieval reactionaries, but also with progressives looking to create independence from the imperial grip, as the British Empire was before it. It is primarily driven by economic considerations including the prosperity of its own capitalist class, as the British Empire was before it.

Like the British Empire the American Empire is neither an entirely "good" nor an entirely "evil" phenomenon. It is reality and in its time, which is now waning, it is simply the force that drives the world for good or ill. Primarily, again like the British Empire before it, it is driven by a combination of self interest and altruism - Silicon Magician's fascistic hateposts are of course nonsense in this respect. This aspect is complex because the ideological and moral motives for imperialism are complex.

Most imperialism, including emerging Chinese imperialism, are about finding and controlling markets, both to buy raw materials and cheap labour, and to sell goods. Even Soviet imperialsm falls into this mould. Whatever Marx and Lenin wrote about the international nature of socialism, it was the de facto practice of communists to practice nationalism par excellence. The concept of a global communist revolution was a Cold War myth based on the empty dreams of communists who were purged and murdered by Stalin. The national hegemony of Russia was the real goal of Soviet foreign policy. As with all imperialism.

Such imperialism of course requires military force. It also requires an ideological underpinning, or the citizens of the Empire will never acept this. This ideological pinning can be troublesome for those who seek the "naked cash nexus" that Marx described. Ideology creates its won momentum and in turn its won agenda. The liberal ideology that emanated from imperialism, again both in the British and American forms, seeks to give imperialism a civilizing mission. This instinct is innate in all revolutionaries, not least in the American Revolutionary Tom Paine who saw America as a country with "the cause of all mankind". Even imperialists like Kipling were no stunted racists seeking to subjugate developing peoples: they were great dreamers, often imbued with great learning about the cultures that they dominated, and were highly conscious of their role as custodians of progress and that they would pass this on to those whom they had civilized. Kipling spoke grandly of the Empire, but his vision was global, not narrowly nationalistic:

WINDS of the World, give answer! They are whimpering to and fro—
And what should they know of England who only England know?—
The poor little street-bred people that vapour and fume and brag,
They are lifting their heads in the stillness to yelp at the English Flag!

http://www.telelib.com/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/volumeXI/englishflag.html

The misdeeds of imperialists are much cited, both of Britain and of course the USA. But what really limits this discussion, and makes it into a trite exercise of "my country right or wrong" is the deep nationalism of both the Left and the Right.

The Right (excepting some rare internationalists), through sheer racist bigotry or a narrow lack of confidence in the universality of their beliefs, disdain those who made the world by seeing it truly as a world. And yet their capitalist system sits atop a hill built by men and women with truly global and universal vision, from the ideologues who conceived it in seventeenth century Europe, through the industrialists who developed it in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to the military campaigns which dealt a decisive blow to the Dark Ages in the twentieth century.

Similarly the Left (again with some rare exceptions) have lost their visionary courage and now crouch despondently behind national borders, calling for the sovereignty of despots to be respected. This is not a recent thing, and the Cold War is relevant to this extent: when the USA was leading the world againts a barbaric communism that sent a hundred million people to their deaths, the Left decided that the USA was morally equivalent to the USSR. This despicable and weak intellectual laziness has continued into our times. Instead of condemning the excesses of the military and the democracies (these exceeses always come out, unlike those of the dark forces that we are fighting), the Left determines that the USA is the moral equivalent of the Taliban or Hizbollah. To such sanctimonious cretinism there is little to say. But it is precisely this intellectual vacuity that lies behind many of the empty taunts of "imperialism".

The USA is an Empire. So what?

 

Your argument is far too simplistic.

Think of it like this. The USA created franchises. European nations were set up to deliver American interests and were constituted according to American values.

That was a good thing, all in all.

Britain ruled India in the nineteenth century with something like a thousand civil servants. How do you think it did that? With the agreement and complicity of hundreds of thousands of Indians (more probably millions) who were persuaded economically AND ideologically that British rule was a thoroughly good thing.

The USA today dominates and benefits from the global economy through its soft power. American conservatives just cannot understand this. They think there is brutal "do what I say or I'll shoot you" power, or no power at all. In fact the USA frequently ends up weakening its own interest when using hard power inappropriately by weakening its soft power. The world wants McDonalds and Coca Cola, not marines. This was the same with the British Empire, at least with the local elites. They wanted to have their children educated at British public schools, and were hypnotized by British mores and customs. This soft power was so strong that vestiges of it still exist, decades after the British Empire breathed its last.

 

I find this ironic coming from someone who seldom elucidates anything with factual content.

Wrong but at least you are consistent; America wouldn’t even have been in Europe had it not been for the fact that Europeans have a tendency to start world wars in their effort to conquer neighboring nations and turn them into Fascist states.

The claim that we created franchises is beyond simplistic and more in the realm of lunatic.

Another pointless off topic tome.

Wrong again; but consistent nonetheless. The USA shares the benefits of a global economy with its trading partners who also benefit from this arrangement.

Once again you write total nonsense substantiated by nothing more than “because you say so.” And here we have been led to believe that Europeans are smart.

Yes the world wants what America has and when they are confronted by despots, dictators and tyrants, they also expect America to send in the Marines because they have gutted their nations defenses with the knowledge that Americans are stupid enough to defend their interests so they can spend vast sums on social welfare programs. How’s that working for Europe right now?

Not even close to the same and to suggest that they are is more illustrative of your complete and utter ignorance of history and what “empire” means.

Here we have another off topic pointless tome.

There you have it folks, the fantasy world according to the leftists. Isn’t it amusing how they never discuss the efforts of the Communists and their efforts of global domination in their pointless rants.

 

"Facts" do not make an argument less "simplistic".

Did you actually consider this response carefully before you threw it up?

You want to see reams of "facts" quoted here? Sort of "quote" tennis?

That stuff's for kiddies mate. You're welcome to it. I came here because I was attracted by this statement in the opening post:

You don't care too much for that eh?

What is required for a good debate are arguments. Arguments draw on logic. No amount of facts can make an illogical argument logical.

Good debates draw on a common understanding of facts - a shared education. Even the most implacable opponents agree on ninety per cent of things. Powerful arguments are nuanced - they do not wear their conclusions on their sleeves (probably why you missed mine). Disputing every statement and deriding every judgement is of little use in the discussion of ideas. Facts, or moreso common interpretations of facts, are therefore summarized and sources are only introduced when facts are challenged.

If one completely lacks an education in the topic being discussed then this can prove to be a problem. The answer is to get an education in such issues, not demand endless streams of "facts" like some latter day Mr Gradgrind.

This is just worthless drivel. It is as tedious to argue with this rubbish as to argue with a Flat Earther. But let's just have a little tedium:

What are Europeans?

As Americans are mostly descended from Europeans I assume that this isn't a genetic description.

Is it to do with the water they drink or the air they breathe, this tendency to start world wars?

The whole post of yours is so infantile it is difficult to know how to start to counter it - a bit like explaining to someone who is convinced that the world is flat that it really isn't.

But let me try and make it as simple as possible for you to understand:

1. the USA resisted entry into WW2 until it was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on it (there you go - a "fact" that American conservatives tend to overlook). The world war was started by one European nation, Germany and Japan, not "Europeans". There are very few people who regard themselves meaningfully as "European", except as a description of the geography that defines where they live or the caucasian racial characteristics which Americans also share.

2. The USA was isolationist prior to WW2. But Roosevelt was not and he saw and took advantage of WW2 to defeat forces which threatened American prosperity and security (fascism) and - and an understanding of WW2 history will show you this - to weaken its ally Great Britain by bankrupting it. WW2 was the time when global power was finally handed over by Great Britain to the USA.

Yes more abuse which shows how I am nailing your arse to the wall in this argument. What is your problem? Why are you so full of such nastiness?

This is your rebuttal of a comparison between the British Empire and the USA in an argument as to whether the USA is an empire or not. Clearly my comparison of one with the other is on topic. You may not agree with the argument but clearly you are unable to refute it, so you respond with this abuse. It is pathetic, isn't it?

I will repeat the argument, with a quote from the previous post that you may have missed, so you can have another chance:

and then in response to your comment that America couldn't be an empire because it didn't occupy and rule Europe I pointed out that imperialism was not characterized by large numbers of troops or imperial rulers, but by the cooperation of those subject to imperialism. The evidence for this is the way the British ruled India.

Of course this is very central to the topic. You may try to rebut but to dismiss as "off topic" is just an abject surrender which you seem to be doing quite a lot in a "stamping foot and calling rude names" kind of way.

What is wrong? Where have I argued differently?

My argument is an interpretation - that Americans see imperialism defined mainly in terms of military and direct political power (the concept of soft power, identified I think it was by the American Joseph Nye, is not too fashionable right now in the USA). You may accept my interpretation or offer another. It is you who are demonstrating a deep insecurity about "Europeans" with your "led to believe". "Led to believe" by whom? The whispers you hear in the night? This sentence reveals far more about you than about "Europeans", whoever they are.

Do you have any interest at all in serious debate or is this just an exercise in recycling (!) twenty or thirty extremist prejudices over and over and over again?

This is boring TD. It is also drivel.

Convoluting crude points about people wanting liberation from tyrants with the defence policies of European democracies just results in this garbled nonsense.

You know if you set the argument out coherently I might even partly agree with you.

So easy to say but so hard for you to point out where my analogy with the British Empire fails.

Don't you think the ad hominem attack here is just pathetic and underlies the whole shallowness of your position? If you know more history than me then show it. Answer my point quoted above from the previous post and show how such comparisons are either poorly conceived or outweighed by other factors.

Abuse and ad hominems just show how you are getting your arse nailed to the wall in the argument.

My argument is that the USA is an Empire and would do well to employ soft power. So it is completely on topic and you demonstrate AGAIN - by your preference for abuse over argument - that you are getting hammered in this debate.

Yes, I say:

that the USA is an Empire, which, like the British Empire before it has done some good things and whose imperial leadership has benefitted the world.

You:

Call me a leftist.



Are you not a little embarrased by such vulgarity?

Is this just Jets versus Giants for you?

This is just more empty abuse isn't it: a post devoid of any quality whatsoever.

If you wish to attach labels to my argument it would be more accurate to describe my view as "neoconservative". I wouldn't welcome such a label but I would have to work quite hard to avoid it - in contrast with the ease with which I have just buried your intellectual thuggery.

 

I enjoy studying Obama's ideology and the liberal mindset and sharing what I have learned with the other independents, conservatives and centrists in our group.

I am not attempting to convince our liberal friends of anything. I refuse to waste my time on this impossible endeavor!

 

Why don't you tell us what this drivel has to do with whether or not the USA is an imperial hegemon. Is "Obama supports Osama" childish nonsense the only thing you can say no matter what the subject of the discussion is? Can't you go and argue with the demons in your own head somewhere else instead of derailing threads with irrelevant trash like this post of yours above?

 

No.

Of what?

If you want to discuss, I;d be happy to join you in the religion section.

 

In other words you are that warped through your partisan absorption anything wrong with the US is the result of which ever Democrat is in power and any a Republican does bad is part of some liberalist infection The fact you fail to comment at all on this OP merely indicates that outside your domestic partisanship, which is clearly no more than a product of totally lost, totally ignorant reading, let alone thinking (if any is entailed), you can't apply anything you know about politics generally. In this I'd also assume you know nothing about history or the rest of the world, as demonstrated by your inept conceptualization of political ideologies, their application, history and the reality of present conditions. Impossible endeavor, yes - if you're referring to your own intellectual recovery.

 

We're 25% of the world economy, with supply lines stretching around the globe, and entire planet full of haters who would love the opportunity to close those supply lines down, destroy our presence in emerging markets and economically strangle my nation to death, you included.

(*)(*)(*)(*) straight we're a hegemon, our national survival depends on being so. We're to big and too dependent on global resources to ever allow someone else to "guarantee our security" in the obtaining of those resources and guaranteeing American access to emerging 3rd world marketplaces.

 

How me? There certainly are aspects of US interventionism within its and overseas economies. I discussed US agribusiness in Haiti as one prime example, but this doesn't mean I want the entire global system to be toppled. I'm not anti-globalization or anti-capitalism, quite the opposite of both.

Actually your nation survival. as is becoming increasingly clear, was never dependent upon the imperial policies of your federal government and such policies are actually a DANGER to the survival of the US and indeed, in many ways, the human race.

So you may think. Regardless of the validity of such thought (I dont see much), such mentality is one of the driving forces of US imperialism.

You are clearly so brainwashed by a childish understanding of domestic and international affairs, totally contradicting yourself and displaying a complete incapacity to avoid ad hominem let alone address my arguments, as well as voicing a tendency of being so fearful of liberty that you are actually living proof of US imperialistic hegemony and the corrosive effect such policies have internally for nations who pursue such ends.

 

That is no problem. I too have been extremely busy and away. I also will not have a lot of time.

As for Haiti, I’ll just jump ahead a little. All your post does is expand on my already claimed point. Not what you proclaimed when I made the post/

Well true to a degree. However, it must be noted the present condition of the global or western society, If you are to believe the governments of the current regimes, they are all going great. However, if you are to look around the world on how these markets are preforming, there is real reason to be concerned.

I don’t recall. I do not remember what statements of Clinton’s I was referring to and how I was using them.

Well, yes they are. Of course they meander to the corporate sector to which at this present time has provided a good outcome for a majority of the consumers. You have to remember, you need a consumer of your product, as a corporation, to have a corporation. This system is critically flawed and in time could possible collapse. But for now it is the pony that government is riding, and they think they can fix it.

As in every other nation in the world. In fact at a personal level I can assure you it is both yours and mine. However, in the US case, when it comes to oil, all be it they wish to control it they still leave the dominance and control to others.

Oh I question foreign policy of every nation. The US is not alone here. But just to help you out, yes US foreign policy is often promoted with lies rather than telling the population what they are really doing. The problem you do not seem to understand, is this is directed at those consumers you feel the US government is not interested in. Corporate America have a far more comprehensive understanding and communication with the US government than just rhetoric.

Well, it was more of a sarcastic response to you claim that they went to war to make an ally, an ally. Obviously I did miss your point.

Oh that I can agree on. As for the assassination part, no. In fact Clinton tried several times to support coup’s. as did a few others. If you dig deep enough you find several more attempts. You will also find several assassinations attempts, unfortunately though, None of them will have any connections to the US, in any way shape or form.(one of the things Clinton was criticized for)

Looking to profits, how much more profit would they make, if they did not have to buy it in the first place. Now tell me what happens if Australia decides to no longer supply China? Tell me what will China do if they are pressured to expand there reach once the benefits of the great amount of investment into their region from western countries? And tell me why do you think Rudd made the comments.

I do have the actual copy of the report somewhere. Should you really need it to support I will dig it up. But it will take time. It was all over Australian news and across this board when it first come out. So I would assume you already are well aware of the this. if you need faster results look up RUDD AND WIKI LEAKS

 

OK, fair enough.

Well, easy. AS I say I only disagree with your contention they are imperialistic. I could not agree more they where Imperialistic, but not at present. over all, US foreign policy has a majority of the time has been good. (subjectively) but there have been many mistakes and much cloak and dagger type of foreign policy. much I do not immediate agree with but on closer examination are not as destructive as first thought. However, that being said, their mistakes in foreign policy could be far more destructive than the many good things. AND I say this because their foreign policy over the years have benefited me personally far better than many others IMO.

I apologise for that.


I will have to get back to the rest and your Haiti comment next chance I get. Please do not think I am avoiding, I am running late for several important discussions, so I must post pone for a short period. Mans work is never done.

 

A small hegemonic state? I think you over estimate Australia’s capacity, size and influence in the Asian pacific region.

When was the last time that the British empire last employ those extensive expansionism to secure it’s economic growth? Last week? Last year? Maybe last decade? Perhaps you missed the point of raising the British empire. While they once did practice expansionism policy, they realised themselves that this policy was flawed. so they have abandoned that policy to pursue a different style. THAT IS WHY you should consider them as an easy example to demonstrate what the US government also knows. However, you wish to proclaim that they have once been this way so they are always this way.

However, you are the one proclaiming US foreign policy is imperialistic. It would seem to me that you consider it so because you do not like many things that have occurred in their foreign policy. But you also do show you do not see the good they do in their foreign policy. They do not have to justify their foreign policy to the rest of the world, regardless of what you think about it. They do have to justify their actions around the world. As I continue to point out, your measure of justification is different from the rest of the worlds. Not you personally ( Because I do not know you at all) but many Australian people, based entirely on your own up bringing and experience, as in every other nation around the world. This is one of the very reasons the UN ( IMO a now compromised unit) All nations can bring to the table their own measure of such actions and vote to decide the world’s judgment on such actions. NOT JUST YOURS. Sure the UN has really become a toothless tiger IMO and many others, especially after the recent 20 years of existence, but the reason and institution is of noble purpose. Politics and greed has crept into the administration and purpose.

However, that is another debate that is very subjective as well.

but this is exactly what you do not understand. They do realize the futility of imperialism. They do wish to secure their own possessions. The US does not care about the regimes they support as long as it benefits them. They do not wish to control any other regime, they simply wish to secure best trade, best resource supply and safety of it’s own nation and people. Nothing more or less than any other government around the planet. I am sure you would wish the same.

If you could guarantee these wishes of the US, The policy that would come would be, 'you can all go to hell and we will sit on our own chunk of land and happily keep to ourselves.'

Do you really believe the industrial revolution was fair and principled? I asked you about globalisation, one area that you seem to agree with the US on because imperialism in a global market is actually destructive to globalisation. The one area that should show you that it is not important to be in control of all around you but more important to be in control of your resources. This means you do not care how your supplier is run, or who is running it but more to the important part that they continue to reliably supply you. Do you not see the correlation?

My applause, except one small thing. Australia is still most heavily aligned with the US, as most of the rest of the world. Australia still trades in US dollars with all it’s trading partners and whilst they where propped up by trading with the Chinese, they continue to look to the US for their trading beneficiaries. Unfortunately for your understanding, China and Australia is benefiting greatly from the corporate investment in China, which created a larger than life demand for much of the resources Australia sell to them. Oh what a tangled web is weaved by this globalisation. The real question and something you worry about (in your nuts to think Australia has no threat from China) will China surpass the US corporate investment to create a real rival to the US in both economic and might hegemony. How will they pay for the resources they require then as the cost will rise above the value due entirely to the fact that Australia is aligned economically with the US?

Is a dictatorship better? Look around, how many dictatorships actually achieve the benefits of Globalisation? No, I think you missed that point entirely. The problem is that globalisation must be done through friendly co-operation, with all nations involved. One of the reasons of the animosity of Western nations is that regimes that are strictly built from control and dominance, does not receive the benefits of this type of trade. Due entirely to the fact that the regime survives on the thought that they are getting the best possible return from the rest of the world, under that current regime. When it becomes apparent not to be correct, you generally have a coup.

So it is more to actually show that US can not be imperialistic. Not as you would have us think.

WTF, because they wish to the best of their nation at a cost to others they do not care about, demand or even control, means they have imperialistic motive? NO, it just shows how arrogant they can be in their foreign policy. Come on now, how concerned are you really about the costs? Try starting at home and you will see you, yourself are very much the same.

 

So please tell me. How should the world live. Like you? You have several million different religios types that consider yourself a blight to this planet and would wipe you off the face of it, without a second thought. And hey, they are not all Muslims ( I am assuming you are not Muslim). Perhaps you should tell us how you think the world should live together so we do not need to have a so called world policeman. You really can not expect to believe that because you do not agree with a few others the rest of the world think just like yourself.

So your moral sensibilities allow corruption and greed. You should hesitate to think of a country that meets your moral or ethical standard, because let us face it, you do not see that other nations have a vastly different moral and ethical standard than you. Which means they will breach your standards. See the thing is that people that nearly meet your standards are not meeting your standards. What is worse is that you will not hold your own nation up and state that they meet such stringent standards, but you also will not demand they rise to meet them. But you will demand it of another nation.

Because, you do not hold them to your standard. You will not demand it. You simply choose attack other nations on the say so of somebody else.(your history facts). It is obvious that I can not change your position. I simply point out the things you do not consider that make your measurement for you proclamation flawed. understanding that you have totally different standard, morals and ethics to your neighbour does change the perspective of how you react with your neighbour. On a global scale it means that the policy is made in consideration of those very important points. They do not have to meet your stringent standards with there policy as they are not Australian and you are not American.

To date, I have been told by many others from many nations, have any dealing with the current government “they are the most inept government ever in Australia” believe it or not, it is personal responses that I can not provide sourced material for. But to say Aussies are living better lives than the US, is rather subjective. Tell me how do you know this? Did the media tell you? Have you lived there for a substantial amount of time? Maybe somebody told you? Perhaps you should say that you believe that you live better than the US. Because I am sure many say the same thing in the US. Compare figures all you like, statistics do not tell you the truth.

I laugh at that, sorry, that is a big fail. No you are the same as every other person on this big volatile ball. You base your understandings on morals and ethics on what you have been taught. Sure you develop slightly different standards based entirely on your perceptions, but your basis remains the same. This can be seen across the forum with all your posts with what you support and condemn. As I stated many times you should perhaps leave morals and ethics out of the debate, they are entirely subjective.

 

Are these your words? or are you quoting? I just want to get it straight before I point out that this shows entirely that there is no control. it actually shows the US's attempt to BUY support from the regime. Bit like buying a service. However, the only differences I see in the entire post is that while you left most of what I stated, you also proclaimed that Aid and support escalated during the Kennedy era. you do not reflect on the drop that occurred before or many other things.

 

Nothing there that state what you proclaimed to be incorrect.

Tell me, how is it secret when

No?

 

I will make 2 main points here :

1. The USA has suppressed imperialism by defeating the Japanese imperialists in World War II (including protecting you Aussies in the naval Battle of the Coral Sea in which 650 Americans died), and by helping to defeat the Nazis in Europe.

2. The USA is currently a massive victim of imperialism of a 21st century style. That is a non-military invasion using poor people, whereby the invading country pillages the victim by means of welfare payouts from the victim's treasury + remittances (money extracted out of the economy of the victim nation, and re-inserted into the economy of the imperialist nation).
The US is currently victimized this way by quite a number of countries, most importantly Mexico. Remittances to Mexico alone (money sent by Mexican workers in America to family in Mexico) are $25 Billion/year. Many Billion$$$ more are being pillaged by means of false IDs and the anchor baby racket, enabling Mexicans to drain America's treasury in welfare payments (the USA paying Mexico's poverty bill) Currently, more money is being paid to Mexican immigrants (almost all of them illegal) than to Americans.

Just the $25 Billion remittances alone to Mexico is a mind-boggling amount of money for a nation to lose every year - $25 Billion/year ! The Vikings would be envious.

 

I think you will find that US firms and finance houses remit vastly more than US$25 billion a year in dividends received as a result of the dominance of the global economy by US multinational firms and banks. That's the problem protectionists rarely acknowledge - they just cherry pick the funds that flow out because of the free movement of labour in this case, ignoring the benfits they get from the free movement of capital and other goods and services which is part of the same picture.

As a protectionist I am sure you will be happy to see these trillions of dollars of dividends earned by US firms to be appropriated by protectionist governments outside the US so that America receives neither the dividends nor the benefit (commissions etc.) of the trillions of dollars a day transactions that oil the wheels of the global economy.

Apart from the demographic question that the US is saved from the effect of its low birth rates by immigration, I always ask the same question of those in developed countries (where women are not required to be baby machines) who want to close their borders to the free migration of labour: "whose gonna wipe your arse when you get old?"

Still the view that Hong Kong is a victim of Filipino imperialism, carried out by armies of maids (imported to cosset the lives of the Hong Kong middle classes) who remit their millions of dollars of salaries back to the mother country, is an amusing one...if one that displays awesome and probably wilful ignorance of the nature of imperialism and how it has worked historically.

 

I am totally radicalized by despair. As a result I am now very hostile to Mexicans. They have changed my life without any imput from me.

Illegal immigration exists for several reasons. The economic, political and judicial system of Mexico are controlled by several thousand families. They are the Mexican elite...they are white people.

The primary interest of the Mexican elite is maintenance of the status quo. Toward that end they keep the Mexican economic system bottled up. They keep most of their Mestizo and Indian populations impoverished and ignorant. But the Mexican elite has a safety valve. They can ship their ignorance and poverty to Estados Unidos in an unending torrent like a raging river year after year after year ad infinitum.

The ignorant and impoverished Mestizos and Indians are welcomed by the Big Business segment of the Republican party so that the Mexicans can be used up and fired. This labor source permits Big Business, Agribusiness, construction contractors, etc. to avoid hiring Americans and paying them a fair wage. When the Mexicans get used up they turn to American social welfare benefits for free paid for by taxpayers.

The ignorant and impoverished Mexicans are also welcomed by Leftists who want the power and money that comes from servicing these ignorant and impoverished Mexicans. Ultimately, the Left wants the votes of the descendants of these ignorant and impoverished Mexicans.

When they are employed the ignorant and impoverished Mexicans transfer much of their income back to Mexico (much of it without prior American taxation) in the form of remittances. This amounts to about thirty billion dollars a year plus the monies sent back to Central America by the illegals from Central America. Instead of spending that money to take care of themselves the illegals turn to American the social welfare system like Section 8 housing payments, food stamps, WIC payments, Medicaid. All they need to do is have an anchor baby and the social welfare system opens up for them.

The impoverished and ignorant Mexicans have taken construction and other unskilled or low skilled jobs away from Americans. This can't possibly be a good thing.

Not all ignorant and impoverished Mexicans who come here illegally come to work. About 15% of all Mexican citizens live in the US. An entire cross section of poor Mexico is here. That includes retirees and young men who have come here to gangbang. People like Jaime Guevara who happens to be my neighbor. Meet Jaime from Jaliso: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_17082758

Over the course of twenty years my neighborhood has gone through a transition. Now the majority in my neighborhood is Mexican. I live with them. I understand them. They are just ordinary human beings.

The problem is that they have brought their poverty and ignorance with them. They cope with the authorities in Mexico by ignoring them. They have brought that practice to California. They use false and fraudulent documentation. They don't have driver's licenses, and they don't carry auto insurance. Half of them or so get paid under the table and taxes are not withheld.

They gangbang, deal dope, and even knocked my teeth out when I tried to stop a dope deal in front of my home. I used to favor gun control. Now I carry a Glock .40 semi-automatic where ever I go. I don't like that, but I am prepared to shoot dead the first gangbanger who makes the wrong move.

Do you know how it feels to walk through gang territory? To have to walk by the Sureno sentinels and enforcers who inspect you up and down before allowing you to pass? I hate it.

The Mexicans are not assimilating into American culture. Rather, they have created a separate country. Check this out: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...r-davis-hanson

I think I know how Tecumseh, Crazy Horse and Geronimo felt about the whites. The whites were the replacement population for the Indians. Similarly, the Mexicans are the replacement population for the whites.

 

Oh that's really cute, that is. And you are an employer using cheap immigrant labor ? Or you're (hard to believe) a non-interested party. Well, whatever you are, your scenario is bullcrap. Who gives a rats ass what a few capitalist pig greed freaks get out of cheap foreign labo ?. Go suck an egg, you traitors.

And don't give me that nonsense "that the US is saved from the effect of its low birth rates by immigration". If the US has been having low birth rates, that's the one GOOD thing that's been happening. But to say that immigration is a good thing in a country that has 10 times the population that its resource base can properly maintain, which has shortages in numerous resources, and which has 14 million unemployed (probably more) and millions more UNDERemployed, needs immigrants, is one of 2 things. The words of an idiot, or the words of a liar. I suspect you are the latter. Americans need JOBS, not dividends. Get it ?

PS - currently, while 14 million Americans are unemployed, 8 million jobs are being held (swiped) by illegal aliens. Millions more are swiped by foreigners on work visas, for no reason other than to feed the greed of the dividend boys. Time is coming when those guys will be tarred and feathered and set out to sea on a raft (better than the guillotine though).

 

You are one of the few who understand the situation and are not a vested interest recipient (of the "benefits" (cheap labor or votes) of Mexican immigration. Well said. Good post. I have a Keltec .380, and I keep it fully ready (hollow point in the chamber).

 

I feel for you but you know "sad cases make bad law". The dividend boys are the holders of 401ks. Isn't that you? The things you complain about are caused just as much by a welfare culture amongst citizens as immigrants (actually almost certainly far more by citizens as immigrants nearly always are hard working and put up with lots of crap).

The current demographics re-employment are due to a financial recession. The USA in normal times has very low unemployment - in fact it has a worker shortage which is solved by bringing in immigrants, as in all advanced economies where women are not condemned to be baby factories.

The demographics of the baby boomer age mean you need immigrants and the number of immigrants you have in the workforce is far, far higher than 14 million (my sense is that about 60 million of the population of the USA was born outside the country). This is why you don't have to ask who will wipe your arse; but Europeans, who have far lower levels of immigration, will have to work to 70 soon enough to satisfy their xenophobic prejudices, or there simply won't be enough nice shiny white children to generate the wealth to keep them in their well earned retirement.

And you have to make your mind up - is the problem that they come here to cheat on welfare or that they come to steal your jobs?

 

Losing the argument? It would seem so. The abuse isn't even interesting. Just personal attack...very badly and inaccurately directed.

A protectionist America will lose far more than $25 billion. It will lose the exports it makes - and American workers will lose jobs. The US dollar will cease to be the world currency - and raw materials will increase in cost for Americans. It will lose the revenue it earns from Fianncial Services - as the "dividend boys" move offshore. US companies dividends will be taxed higher - and there will be less cash in the US economy and so less jobs. America could have textile workers and people making cheap stuff - on very low wages, causing much higher prices than the current "Made in China" arrangement, so there will be less money to spend and less jobs. Protectionism would be bad for the world, but it would be worse for America. If it does happen I will console myself with the sweet schadenfreude thought of America's protectionists grubbing about in the dirt for a living, and that a country that defied its visionaries, entrepreneurs and dreamers and backed its narrow, soulless troglodytes of who want to hide behind their borders instead. You make your own bed, and then lie in it. One man's death diminshes me because I am a part of mankind, but for just a few moments I will relish your discomfort as a nation that has chosen folly and gets what it deserves.

You really are lost here? Low birth rates is good, because it reflects an advanced and well developed society - educated women, who work and have careers is a sign of high GDP per capita. But the maths cannot be refuted by "don't give me that nonsense" fingers-in-the-ears "naah, naah, naah, not listening...!" adolescent bleatings like your post here. If the birthrate is low, and medical science is causing people to live longer, then you are going to have a problem. Countries with low birthrates have an ageing population; developing countries have very young populations which lack opportunities. These are facts. You can huff and puff until you burst and it won't change this.

In the past advanced countries - especially the USA - have built their prosperity by giving these young populations opportunities. The treachery to the spirit of the USA does not come from those who welcome the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but from those who pull up the drawbridge and say "sorry, full up".

You know you should take issue with my argument not scratch around looking to assassinate my character. That's pathetic but not surprising from one who writes such garbage that America can only sustain a population of around 30 million people. You want to explain why, when the economy recovers to normal levels of unemployment, America's old should work until they are 80 flipping burgers and shoveling faeces , please go ahead. Or you could continue to avoid argument, as you are doing, and continue with your inance ranting abuse. It's so boring though. Is your life so empty that this is the best you have?

 

Why ? LOL. Well, I might suggest you take a college Geography course sometime. I gave up that occupation long ago, but I'm sure there's plenty of young college Geography teachers who are very competent and will be happy to bring you up to speed. In the meantime, your "why" question could be answered briefly (it's bedtime now - short on time) by making a simple comparison of 2 countries of similar size and resource base. One who has handled immigration correctly for many decades (Canada) with a strict point system, and one (the USA) who has recklessly mishandled its immigration with chain migration (immigration based on family ties).

In the case of the US, and one of our most important resources, we are importing 2/3 of our oil, and much of it from countries that are unfriendly to us, if not outright enemies (ex. Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Mexico). Canada, with it's proper population of 30 million, has a surplus of oil, and exports much of it, gaining lots of $$$$$$$$$$ for its treasury helping to offset deficit problems like we in the Us have.

And while the US is importing (and shelling OUT money) oil, guess who our # 1 supplier of this critical resource is : Canada.

As for your character, I'm not interested. As for your reputation as an intelligent poster, YOU are harming that, not me.