Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (16422)	4/14/2000 11:49:00 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Conservative Willy Wimmer's comment does not surprise me --after all, a (neo-)conservative has always been the closest thing to a (neo-)fascist. Conservatives basically share the same reactionary agenda as the fascists but they don't want to openly acknowledge it. Why so? Because their worldview is 30-year old! That's also why they're losing ground in poll after poll: to be a (successful) conservative, you first must live in a conservative society! That is a society with a homogeneous populace, with unvindicative minorities, with a majority of Holy Joes who still abide by the Church creed.... In short, you must live in a Golden-Sixties Europe/America. At that time, conservatives could easily sell their rather hypocritical, churchy fast-talk --sure, we're all brothers, whether one is black, yellow, gay, commie, whatever.... But today, as Western societies have indeed become multiracial and multifaceted, they must deliver. And that's precisely where the fascists are calling the conservatives' bluff: the fascists' agenda is all about showing an anxious (US/European) middle-class how impossible it is to remain (socially, culturally, racially,...) conservative in a fast-changing society. The rest is blah. Recently, the most cynical conservatives have grasped this political condundrum --and have reacted accordingly (Austria, eg). Now, how about having a look at the big picture.... Eugenics and Immigration Policies in a Changing America africa2000.com Excerpt: Regardless of the outcome of the public debate over U.S. immigration policy, it is virtually certain there will be an anti-immigrant backlash at the government level. Already President Bill Clinton has requested from Congress nearly $200 million extra this year alone to bolster the forces who guard the U.S.-Mexico border -- an action which earned him a pat on the back from anti- immigrant columnist Georgie Ann Geyer who hardly writes about anything else these days. But, despite Clinton's inexplicable change of heart (he repeatedly called anti-immigrant policies "racist" during the campaign), it is not likely that the flow of migrants will be substantially slowed over the long term. And it is also not likely that a democratic nation that is increasingly dominated by non-white citizens will continue forever the aggressive and largely-racist foreign policy of the present. In an optimist's view, the United States may be better off because of migration from the "third world," but the peoples of the south will also gain. As the country becomes less and less a reflection of European "values," it will also find itself less and less able to pursue policies of expansionism, calculated impoverishment, and random bloodshed in the south. *Imperialism: The Ideology of People Control* The ability of one nation to dominate others around the world is a product of two factors -- the acquiescence of the citizens in foreign operations based on hegemony, and the physical ability of the country to successfully make such a global conquest. As Harry G. Summers of the U.S. Army War College wrote in the Washington Times of July 29, "Combat power is the product of the physical capabilities of a nation -- the size and strength of its armed forces, the numbers of troops, guns, ships and planes -- plus the much more important, intangible ingredient: the moral will to fight and persevere." In other words, a large influx of migrants may supply the United States with more potential combat troops and a larger number of workers and taxpayers to contribute to the purchase of bombs and warplanes and spy satellites. But if these migrants come from the so-called "third world" -- and come in large enough numbers to substantially alter political alignments within the U.S. -- American leaders are going to find aggressiveness toward the south unpopular and politically risky. But without immigration, say other American security planners, the population will become so small that the U.S. will no longer have the strength to dominate the globe, even if it wants to do so. One "solution" offered by virtually every American administration since World War II has been the control of population in developing nations. In fact, a secret Defence Department planning document, leaked in May of last year to The New York Times, described any country having a measure of "modern defence, industrial and technical capacity and a sizable population base" as a potential threat to the U.S. But as the U.S. continues its present downward trend, both demographically and economically, it may eventually be forced to choose between massive foreign policy spending and domestic programmes designed to address human needs at home. Regardless of immigration trends and policies in the U.S., there may yet be a "new world order" in the next two or three decades. But it probably will not resemble in any way the world George Bush envisioned when he coined the term. [...]