Liberalism and national security

Posted by Mark in Vegas on March 14, 2006, 12:58 PM | #

Nationalism is just a superstition.  The US government is the main proponent of welfare payments, foreign aid, foreign wars, affirmative action, etc.  I don’t think most immigrants would support any of that.  Hell, they usually don’t even pay taxes, so they are smarter than the average American prole who supports the fedgov and its borders with their tax money and votes.

Posted by ben tillman on March 14, 2006, 01:25 PM | #

Barnett is a lunatic.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 14, 2006, 01:26 PM | #

“Officially, we’re known as the United States. ..And where are those united states? Wherever there are states united. You join and you’re in, and theoretically everyone’s got an open invitation.”

Gee, with that logic, the fellow is ready to take his place as the predominant blogger at Majority Rights.

Seriously though, I assume this historical retardate knows that the nation is known as the “United States” simply because it was formed as a federation of, don’t you know it…political units called “states?”

In what way does this imply open immigration?  The nation was formed by a diaspora from Europe and hence, a name was given to the nation independent of a tribe.  So what?

And, does Barnett’s comments imply that he is dead-set against any and all non-European presence in Europe itself?  After all, “France” invokes the French tribe, to which North Africans, sub-Saharan Africans, and Vietnamese do not belong.

Posted by Steve Edwards on March 14, 2006, 01:30 PM | #

” Gee, with that logic, the fellow is ready to take his place as the predominant blogger at Majority Rights. “

LOL!

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 14, 2006, 01:30 PM | #

“My people left that place a long time ago.”

If he wished to return, would he find it demographically similar as to when his ancestors left, with respect to the ethnic make-up of the population?

If not, why not? 

Furthermore, if Barnett does not consider the USA to be his “homeland”, does it occur to him that others may think differently?

Do we all need to participate in Barnett’s conceptual experiment with respect to the USA?

Posted by Steve Edwards on March 14, 2006, 01:38 PM | #

“Do we all need to participate in Barnett’s conceptual experiment with respect to the USA?”

With Barnett there are no choices - he wishes to impose his insane ideology on the entire planet. In “The Pentagon’s New Map” he writes:

(http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm)

“LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good….Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point - the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.

...

In sum, it is always possible to fall off this bandwagon called globalization.  And when you do, bloodshed will follow.  If you are lucky, so will American troops.”

He wants to invade and kill anyone who is not sufficiently “connected” to globalization. Total psychopath.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 14, 2006, 02:10 PM | #

Barnett is a lunatic.

I was thinking exactly the same thing, and then about how wonderful all our juicy taboos must be for lunatics like Barnett; you get to say all these stupid, zany things and none of the straights get to smack you upside the head.

Posted by Voice on March 14, 2006, 02:42 PM | #

“My people left that place a long time ago. “

he could be arrested for saying he has a PEOPLE

Posted by ben tillman on March 14, 2006, 03:19 PM | #

I live in the only country in the world that’s not named for a location or a tribe but a concept. Officially, we’re known as the United States.

Yes, of course.  And citizens are known as United Statesians.

Posted by Alex Zeka on March 14, 2006, 03:56 PM | #

I don’t have a homeland

An amicable solution suggests itself. Prof. Loony can stay in his none-homeland of United Statesia, whilst the rest of us make a quick bolt somewhere else. Then, we can come to his none-homeland whenever we want, asserting our historic right to it.

But then, we aren’t Israelis, eh?

Posted by Amalek on March 14, 2006, 04:09 PM | #

Please, professor, I live in the “United Kingdom”. Can I be a rootless cosmopolitan idealist too? Not even if I sit right at the back and don’t make any noise?

Posted by Al Ross on March 14, 2006, 09:13 PM | #

Barnett is likely to be a Roman Catholic as that was his father’s religious denomination. Few organizations are as Internationalist or as ‘liberation theology’ prone as the RC Church.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on March 14, 2006, 11:28 PM | #

Barnett is so full of egalitraian bullshit that he needs to live[maybe] in South Central,inner Detroit,Flint,Newark,Gary,Bridgeport,etc.,etc.If he survives{doubtfully],THEN I want to hear his pontifications.This “We all live on the same planet"crap is a sign that even thoughtfull people are becoming members of the Animal Farm

Posted by Matra on March 14, 2006, 11:50 PM | #

Thomas Barnett:

This country began as a collection of 13 misfit colonies, united only by their desire not to be ruled by a distant king.

Rubbish. The white colonists were united by race and language as well as a British cultural and political tradition. Even the Dutch and Huguenot (eg Paul Revere) colonists were heirs to that tradition. The revolt over rights was itself an example of their Britishness in an age of absolutism.

Barnett says the US should extend trust to Arabs and Muslims and laments that:

We’ve replaced Lady Liberty with an army of airport screeners

On 9/11 an airport screener or employee of some kind thought Muhammed Atta and his friend were suspicious but he decided to extend trust to the two Arabs (he could have been in trouble had he not). Immigration officials and flight school operators also extended trust. One wonders how many Americans Barnett does not mind being killed before the Arabs and Muslims finally accept “connectivity” with globalism - at which time I guess everybody will live happily ever after.

Posted by ben tillman on March 14, 2006, 11:59 PM | #

Barnett is so full of egalitarian bullshit….

Well, we’ve found something we can all agree on.  But is he a mindless dupe or a willing collaborator?  How does he get away with this in Tennessee?

Posted by Steve Edwards on March 15, 2006, 12:30 AM | #

Barnett is indeed a Catholic. Catholics seem to be prone to this kind of nonsense.

Posted by Amalek on March 15, 2006, 07:59 AM | #

But a lot of Jews are called Barnett too. Converso in the ancestry?

Posted by Matra on March 15, 2006, 09:34 PM | #

Barnett says he had a strict Catholic upbringing.

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people5/Barnett/barnett-con7.html

What is disturbing is that he is influential with Pentagon officials and others in government circles.