NATO has been building a new headquarters in a suburb of Brussels, Belgium, which now looks like it will wind up costing $1.5 billion or more.
Why?
You might think that, what with the Warsaw Pact having been disbanded on February 25, 1991, NATO might be looking to shed office space, maybe rent out some of its surplus square footage to yoga studios, tattoo removal businesses, medical marijuana dispensaries, and other 21st Century growth sectors, not build itself a bigger command center. But, according to NATO:
The new NATO Headquarters will be a secure, collaborative network-enabled capability supporting NATO business for you and for future generations.
Well, that clears a lot of questions up.
The construction of the new NATO Headquarters started in October 2010 and is planned to be completed early 2016. NATO will start to move immediately after completion.
"Flexibility" is the key word:
The design of the new headquarters provides flexibility to NATO.
The new building will be able to accommodate NATO's changing requirements into the future as the design and the standard fit-out allows for a configurable use of the building.
The design of the building, using standard components which provide additional flexibility for the future.
The new building will enable all Allies to have the space they require and there is also space for expansion should the need arise.
Where will flexible NATO be expanding after Ukraine and Georgia? Mongolia? Kazakhstan? The Kamchatkan Republic? The Republic of Volgograd?
Posts
69 comments:
pat buchanan is NOT pleased.
NATO members tend to buy US military hardware to keep standards the same, and for interoperability.
US military hardware tends to be built in the US largely by all those White American citizens people here love so much.
Apparently even bobsledders dope:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565202/German-biathlete-Italian-bobsledder-thrown-Winter-Olympics-testing-positive-banned-substances.html
I wouldn't count on Ukraine or Georgia either.
Reminds me of the study indicating that as the British Empire declined, the associated bureaucracy increased.
I don't give a flying you-know-what for what Pat Buchanan thinks, writes, or says about NATO.
It is long past time that we Americans insist on U.S. withdrawal from NATO, and insist on Europeans ponying up to have their own countries' armed forces provide their own defense. U.S. withdrawal from NATO would form a huge incentive for Europe's nations to shift the huge sums they cough up to inflate the paralyzing, all-devouring EU octopus to instead beefing up their own armed forces.
The new NATO HQ is nothing more than another means of dunning U.S. and European taxpayers to foot the bill for maintaining yet another transnational congeries of sacrosanct parasite overlords.
I wonder how many more white men are going to be deployed on pointless "missions" to get killed and maimed fighting low iq "terrorists"?
You would think us whites would learn a lesson by now.
------
Expansion is just one viewpoint. Many politicians join and commit troops to NATO simply to gain status points with US and European globalist elites.
Recently, the Polish government, in a "handout" type of deal sent 50 soldiers to "assist" the french in some quagmire in africa. Simply, to gain status points with the french, which it worked, the french media, the whores that they are, excessively praised the Polish government. Yet, a few years ago, the same frenchies were complaining about the US invasion of iraq/afghanistan and nato support.
Once you have created vested interests, it is impossible to destroy them. Note that US defence spending went through the roof AFTER the cold war even though there was much less strategic justification for it.
You have to realise that by mid-century - which really isn't that far away any more, no further than the American bicentennial celebrations were in the past - the western European 'core' of NATO, all those bellicose, expansionary states, will be non-western and non-European in any meaningful sense.
Britain will certainly have a non white majority by then - don't believe anyone who tells you this will happpen by 2090 or so, it WILL happen by 2050 - the changes wrought by the Blair governmemt were that strong. Likwise France, Italy and Germany will be gone too.
So really there is little point in a bureaucracy which was supposedly established to 'defend Europe' in persisting past 2050.
It will be more like an organisation pledged to defend the Pakistani and Nigerian diaspora.
another quasi-governmental organization that enlarges political districts, thus increasing the number of factions therein, thus causing a loss of democracy because enlarged, faction-ridden political entities by their very nature tend to have less well-defined sets of interests as expressed by the populace. Restated, the more diverse the populace within any given organizational entity, then the less well defined the shared, common interests of the population.
When the common interests of the populace are less well defined, the populace is less able to control and hold accountable their elected and non-elected representatives. Therefore, because the representatives are held less accountable in such enlarged, faction-ridden districts, these representatives are thus able to more easily sell out to corporations and rich donors and investors.
The majority faction in such enlarged, faction ridden districts are less able to control it, and the elites thus have more control.
At one end of the spectrum we have the USA, the former soviet union, china, the EU, Nato, the UN. These enlarged political districts/nations/quasi-governmental entities are used by the elites to thwart democracy.
At the other end of the spectrum we have such nations as Iceland. Consider Iceland. Among the western nations you might consider it the best example of democracy available.
What are the outcomes?
Guess I can kiss that 'peace dividend' goodbye!
NATO members tend to buy US military hardware to keep standards the same, and for interoperability.
Those European members of NATO don't amount to much. For example, the whole Bundeswehr is smaller than the USMC. Since the end of the Cold War, it's pretty clear that toy, token European ilitaries are just fine with the US.
Shameful, innit? Just shameful.
The only good case that can be made for Scottish independence would be if she left the EU and NATO. But comfy jobs at the EU and NATO are just the sort of things that politicians want for themselves and their children.
"""NATO members tend to buy US military hardware to keep standards the same, and for interoperability.""""
No they don't, they buy their own national equipment whenever possible and not much of that. Europe has been cutting capabilities as fast as they can. Germany (Leopard 2) , France (Leclerc) , GB (Challenger 2) for example are cutting their tank force down to around 200 each and many of them will be in storage. The Dutch have sold off all 445 of their Leopard 2 tanks
Also does anyone else find it strange that in a supposed age of terrorism that NATO would build a headquarters with glass roofs and walls?
The airplane that crashed into the pentagon disintegrated when it hit the stone exterior.
Nice big windows at NATO HQ look like they are trying to temp everyone from car bombers to snipers. But of course you can't expect the NATO-crats to spend their careers in a windowless bunker can you. Owe, but don't worry the enormous glass windows are bomb proof and eco rated.
In retrospect, this expansion in the 1990's seems like a very bad idea to me. One thing the press does not really bring up is that the US provides about 75% of NATO's funding. Even countries like Germany and France are not putting in their fair share, so the new countries will not put in anything at all. Of course they will try all to get their people employed by NATO, which will mean less Americans hired by NATO.
And the Royal Navy and Marines combined are smaller than the US Coast Guard.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116719/ukraine-violence-dont-blame-russia-blame-yanukovych-regime
Reminds me of the study indicating that as the British Empire declined, the associated bureaucracy increased.
that would be C. Northgae Parkinson - citing (i dont' remember the exact stats, but this is the gist) the fact that in 1914 the british navy had 11 admirals and 900 ships, by the 1950s they had 900 admirals and 10 battleships
Oh come on, it is network-enabled - yaaay!
Wifi and shared printers aren't cheap, you know! Oh wait...
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116703/venezuela-protests-started-sexual-assault-san-cristobal
Beauty of diversity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/where-we-live/wp/2014/01/22/real-estate-matters-cfpbs-new-qualified-mortgage-rule-now-in-effect/
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116707/student-debt-crisis-slowing-household-formation-millenials
The new NATO Headquarters will be a secure, collaborative network-enabled capability supporting NATO business for you and for future generations.
The headquarters will be a "capability"? Wow.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/is-it-time-for-ukraine-to-split-up/283967/
"Donbas is an economic black hole; it is a drain on Ukraine's resources, it happens to be home to the most retrograde part of the population, not because they are Russians or Russian speakers, but because they are the equivalent of American southerners who supported racism and Jim Crow [laws]."
Whites supported Jim Crow laws because blacks are stronger and fiercer and could beat up white boys like Jack Johnson whupped and pussified white males. It was a defensive measure against black brutality. Look at crime rates in the South today and it's overwhelmingly black on white. Indeed, the pattern is same with other non-black groups as lots of Arab-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans are attacked and mauled by blacks.
Also, even though the American North didn't have explicit Jim Crow laws, it was just as discriminatory and segregationist against blacks. Today, the rich blue cities in the north are far more segregated than any city in the south. NY libs use stop-and-frisk to control black crime. And homos are used to spearhead gentrification to push blacks out of downtown areas.
Also, the reason why the South is especially economically depressed is there are many blacks with lower IQ but bigger muscles. They beat up teachers, beat up white kids, leech off welfare, have too many kids, etc.
If northern whites love whites, they should start a campaign to have southern blacks migrate to the north. But just look at the state of black America in Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Cleveland, etc. It's so bad that the the trend is the past 30 yrs has been blacks fleeing the north for the south.
The military emasculation of white Europeans suits a BRA dominated US just fine. I don't understand why your jingo commenters don't admit it.
Your comment editing on this post steve! It's almost like you are on board with the illusion that America is for Americans...
"Note that US defence spending went through the roof AFTER the cold war even though there was much less strategic justification for it."
No, it didn't. Defense spending in the early '90s fell off dramatically. Southern California defense contractors were hit hard, which is why so many whites wound up leaving the state. It took CA a long time to recover from that, assuming it ever did.
"Once you have created vested interests, it is impossible to destroy them. Note that US defence spending went through the roof AFTER the cold war even though there was much less strategic justification for it."
It went through the roof because inflation. That's why it's really stupid to compare dollar amounts to dollar amounts. Far smarter to compare as a percentage of GDP in which military spending has declined precipitously after the Cold War. Indeed, until 9/11 military spending as a percentage of GDP declined very drastically. As a tip for the future Ron Paul like most crotchety old men way past their prime tends to exaggerate, a lot.
Restated, the more diverse the populace within any given organizational entity, then the less well defined the shared, common interests of the population.
When the common interests of the populace are less well defined, the populace is less able to control and hold accountable their elected and non-elected representatives. Therefore, because the representatives are held less accountable in such enlarged, faction-ridden districts, these representatives are thus able to more easily sell out to corporations and rich donors and investors.
On the other hand, is there anyone as corrupt as an elected black politician representing a very NON-DIVERSE black district? Unless he is put in prison, the voters will keep him in office indefinitely, bribery & corruption be damned.
Can anyone provide me with an exception to this observation? Have black voters ever turned out a black representative for malfeasance in office?
Off Topic: From Book Black Stats
• 20% of black armed service
members were discharged un-
der “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
"Monique W. Morris is co-founder of the National Black Women’s Justice Institute. She is a Soros Justice Fellow"
http://thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_title&task=view_title&metaproductid=1904
The new NATO Headquarters will be a secure, collaborative network-enabled capability supporting NATO business for you and for future generations.
The headquarters will be a "capability"? Wow.
It's like how the draft EU constitution has "competencies" rather than "powers".
Imagine the looks of consternation on the faces of NATO officials were Russia to apply for NATO membership. Maximum awkwardness would be achieved if Putin asked for it himself in person.
Some speak of 'dark nationalism' in Europe, but nationalism is what has defended and saved Europe. Most of the problems were caused by imperialism than by nationalism. If anything, nationalism fought against imperialism.
The real problem of Nazism wasn't nationalism. It was imperialism. It tried to take over non-German lands. Same thing with Sovietism. It ruled over non-Russian lands.
And where were the hot spots prior to WWI? Balkans, and why? Imperialism. It was the clash of Russian imperialism and Austrian imperialism. And Brits sided with the French because Brit imperialism felt threatened by the potential rise of German imperialism as Germans began to work on building a navy of their own.
It was nationalism that kept Poland alive even as it was wiped off the map by Prussian, Austrian, and Russian invasions.
It was nationalism that kept the dream of a free Greece alive during Ottoman rule.
It was nationalism that kept Lithuania, Poland, Estonia, and etc spiritually free even under communist domination of USSR.
Besides, US supported Albanian nationalism in Kosovo and Kurdish nationalism in northern Iraq after the invasion. And US also supported Kuwaiti nationalism against Iraqi imperialism. No talk of 'dark nationalism' there.
Imperialism is aggressive outside the borders. Nationalism is defensive within borders. If Nazis had remained truly nationalist and remained within their borders, there would have been no trouble.
So, we need to allow the nationalist energies to work themselves out in Ukraine, which is a imperialist creation--like former Yugoslavia--than a viable nation. It's essentially two nations within one nation. It's best off breaking in two.
Of course, Jews don't like goy nationalism even when it's not imperialist. If anything, Jews prefer goy imperialism(as long as it's not overtly anti-Jewish)over goy nationalism. Goy imperialism leads to diversity, and that makes Jews one of the many peoples. But goy nationalism--even when defensive and non-aggressive against other nations--emphasizes unity of the homogeneous gentile community and that means Jews are made to feel as the Other.
Jews feel safer in a diverse world where goyim are divided. So, Jews hate all nationalism except for the Jewish kind in Israel.
Jews are especially allergic to European/Western nationalism since Jewish power and wealth are concentrated in those areas. Jews care less about nationalism in Asia, Africa, and Arab world since Jewish wealth is not invested there. If anything, Jews love to stoke nationalist, sectarian, and ethnic tensions in the Middle East to make Muslim fight Muslim.
And I'm sure this new NATO palace will be chock full of Chinese IT equipment, sending NATO's most sensitive secrets to Chinese intelligence in real-time.
Is racial theory related to slavery?
If 'racial science' is associated with slavery, why did slavery exist in Africa since the beginning of time when racial science didn't exist?
And slavery was big in the Muslim Middle East/North Africa and Asia but neither was into racial science. If anything, most Asians enslaved other Asians. And Latin America lagged in science of all kinds--even racial science--, but it was more stubbornly pro-slavery than North America.
In America, most race-scientists were in the North and they wanted slavery abolished. Southerners were more likely to invoke the Bible or some such idea to justify slavery than racial science. And during the Jim Crow yrs, most white southerners rejected Darwinism and the science of race. They just believed God made races differently. It was based on the Bible.
The nation that was most advanced in racial science for a long time was UK but it was at the forefront of ending slavery all over the world. And in general, social liberals and progressives were more likely to be race-scientists whereas most conservatives stuck to the Bible and tradition.
One case where racial science was associated with slavery was Nazi Germany. Germans did use racial theories to enslave certain races, but then, communism said all races were equal but it created vast slave states in Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, and etc.
So, anti-'racist' ideology led to the most extensive forms of slavery.
Indeed, the radical notions of 'racial egalitarianism' and 'social justice' are bound to create a universal slave state--but if everyone is a slave, I guess it's equal opportunity slavery, so it's maybe okay. In order to force all people to be equal, the state has to run society like a prison. Thus, communism is universal slavery since freedom leads to inequalities.
Also, the notion of 'social justice' is premised on punishment for historical, social, and/or economic sins. (The essence of 'justice' is to punish the wrongdoers.) We believe that a man who committed a crime has no right to be free and must serve in jail. Similarly, 'social justice' idea says some races, nations, or classes are guilty of historical crimes. As such, they have no right to be free and must be forcibly reformed in a prison setting. Just as John Gacy had no right to be free for what he did, leftism says white folks have no right to be free for their 'historical crimes and sins'--though Jews never seem to be punished for communism/Zionism and blacks are never punished for capturing and selling slaves for 1000s of yrs. (Historical justice is always selective, just like the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials.) And communists said the bourgeoisie and 'kulaks' had no right to be free since they had historically exploited and oppressed other classes. Since entire peoples are thus denied their freedom, radical egalitarianism produces a slave system in the name of 'social justice'(or collective punishment for historical crimes). Conservatives say 'freedom', and Liberals say 'justice'. To many progs, conservatives have no right to be free since they must do jail time for their historical sins. White libs supposedly get a 'get out of jail card' since they are so repentant and committed to equality... which must be why blue Lib cities are getting richer and more privileged!
Theoretically, only the guilty classes or ethnic groups should be punished, but as the government gains total power under radical leftism, even the working class and peasants are treated as properties of the state, which is why so many workers and peasants had it so bad under communism. Some people might argue that communism isn't slavery, but if we were to reduce the rights/freedoms of white libs to the level of people living under Stalin or Mao, of course libs would scream 'slavery'!
At any rate, the example of Nazis notwithstanding, most racial scientists in the West were NOT associated with slavery. If anything, slavery was most resilient in parts of the world without racial science: Africa, Asia, Middle East, and parts of Latin America. And in America, the anti-slavery North was far more into racial science than the South that stuck to Scripture and tradition.
"The United States' greatest hope at present lies in shale gas and in the 11 million illegal immigrants who will soon become legal, 11 million brains that will stimulate and renew our country."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bruckner-france-gloom-and-doom-20140223,0,5771679.story#ixzz2uAqimie1
France has lots of immigrants, most of them legal. But why aren't all those immigrant minds stimulating the economy in France?
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-nfl-racial-slur-20140222,0,2465170.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29#axzz2uAr4ka60
Yeah, and maybe rappers should be docked of their profits for saying the 'n' word.
And the Royal Navy and Marines combined are smaller than the US Coast Guard.
And outside of the US the British are (or were) the only ones pulling their weight militarily.
Auntie A - I don't give a flying you-know-what for what Pat Buchanan thinks, writes, or says about NATO.
But then you go on to write a comment that would agree with everything Pat Buchanan would say.
The way of power has changed so much in America. Throughout the 19th century, the kind of American who wielded power was someone like John Wayne. A tough guy who would use a gun, fight Indians, protect his land and family, and impose his will on his children. America was a vast territory to be settled, and it required a man of some toughness and brawn. And much of the 20th century was about soldiers who fought in WWI, WWII, and manned the Cold War. And engineers who built factories and dams and etc. And managers who presided over tough workers.
But today... no need for cowboys. No need for soldiers. No need for builders of dams. And no need for managers as so many working class jobs went overseas or were automated.
Instead, power is concentrated in Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street. And people who excel in finance, entertainment, and high-tech are geeks. Geeks tend to be SWPL-ish and metrosexual. They are brains, not brawn. So, everything is geek-centric in power. And though most geeks are not homo, they tend not to be macho-masculine, and so they identify with fruitkins. Look at the geeks in that sitcom about science geeks. So, we have Jewish/geek/homo alliance in the centers of power, and they get to define and shape our culture with all their money. They are like hipster aristocrats or hipstocrats.
Conservatism individualism was uniquely an American thing. In Western Europe, all of the land was settled and occupied, so most farming folks had little to fight for. They just grew up under a system ruled by effete elites who owned much of the land.
But in America, there was lots of land to settle. That required toughness and warrior qualities--like what John Wayne had--,and this made Americans conservative. But as they could own their own land and defend it with guns, they were also a lot freer than folks in Europe. So, Americans became both more conservative and more free than Europeans, and this character of Americans still bemuse Europeans. Americans seem to be both too free and too conservative, an odd mix of opposites.
But as American power is becoming so concentrated in the effete world of high-tech geeks, financial wizards, and 'creative' hipsters, the American value/idea of conservatism + freedom is fading fast.
In Europe, conservatism meant elite privilege. In America, it became synonymous with individual freedom to own land and use guns to fight Indians and kill bad guys, as in Western movies.
But look at the fate of New Hampshire, once a conservative free state with motto live free or die hard or something. Today, it's just hipster paradise with 'gay marriage' and shit.
The new NATO headquarters reminds me of one of those Taj Mahal high schools.
"NATO members tend to buy US military hardware to keep standards the same, and for interoperability.
US military hardware tends to be built in the US largely by all those White American citizens people here love so much."
This post is a great example of the neocon mind at work. He is trying to come up with arguments for why non-AIPAC Americans should support neocon foreign policy that is contrary to their interests, but can't help taking an insulting tone towards non-AIPAC Americans.
Steve, if the USSR is not going to be rolling across the Fulda Gap anytime soon, Europe DOES face real and dangerous threats, with btw no support ever forthcoming from this Administration or likely any other:
Africa has about 3 billion or so desperately poor people who would like to live in Europe and get welfare and various other benefits and special privileges.
The ME has about 700 million desperately poor people who would like to come live in Europe and would demand Sharia and welfare and their own special privileges.
Keeping these people out demands military force. It requires jets, and ships, and missiles, and the ability AND THE WILL to kill lots of people, including various African and ME governments that would be happy to see its people colonize Europe.
The other day, about 1,000 African immigrants were let into Italy after they dangled their infants/kids over the side of their boat; an effective tactic for the weepy, weak, African-loving Italians who cannot get enough of them. Heck the Pope has told them to let all of the Third World in.
NATO is basically a failed shell, but does have the potential if France rejoins in force, to act to keep foreigners out.
If you wonder, why the heck are the French in Mali, and the Central African Republic, and GERMANY now talking about helping intervention there ... it is because both nations don't want to have half of Mali and the Central African Republic on their doorstep.
The decision by Obama to make the Saudis happy and get rid of Khadaffi has let the Libyan territory become a highway for African migrants right onto the Med.
The US won't stop the flow of refugees. France and Germany want to copy Australia which detains refugees far away from its shores in Papua New Guniea, away from the media and activists.
Better the thinking goes to intervene in Africa than have to let in a flood of Camp of the Saints because the West simply cannot respond to threats against African children BY THEIR OWN PARENTS and always caves. And always will. So intervene far away from the media and Europe can kill the same kids and parents with abandon in great numbers. Because what matters is pictures and video.
I am more than happy with the money spent on the new Nato HQ, as it will hasten the day of the collapse.
I love how they left out the U.S. flag in the picture.
OT, but I am getting a bit annoyed at the SWPL reaction to the Russian gold medalist in ladies skating. I understand the Koreans being upset, but outside of Korea it seems like all the outrage is coming from the US. So why is this so? Is it:
A) Part of WWG and the ongoing anti-Russian sentiment, or
B) Part of the leapfrogging of concentric loyalties that Steve has blogged on before. Outside of their immediate circles, SWPL whites earn their chops by favoring those most different from them, in this case a Korean girl over a white, Russian one.
OT, but I am getting a bit annoyed at the SWPL reaction to the Russian gold medalist in ladies skating. I understand the Koreans being upset, but outside of Korea it seems like all the outrage is coming from the US. So why is this so? Is it:
I think the Korean and Italian girls did better than the Russian girl, who should've gotten bronze.
http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/pete-seeger-llewyn-davis/
"Nets sign Jason Collins, NBA’s first openly gay player"
https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/nets-sign-jason-collins-nba-first-openly-gay-172051031--nba.html
"Jason Collins has reached agreement on a 10-day contract with the Brooklyn Nets, clearing the way for the first openly gay athlete in major professional sports history, league sources told Yahoo Sports..."
Does Israel use Jim Crowitz against Palestinians?
"I think the Korean and Italian girls did better than the Russian girl, who should've gotten bronze."
Bullshit!! The Russian girl did the most difficult routine and was fantastic. She deserved two golds!
It's really boring that Canada won the hockey gold.
They just grew up under a system ruled by effete elites who owned much of the land.
I don't think European elites of the ancien regime were quite as effete as American chauvinism likes to paint them...
"I don't think European elites of the ancien regime were quite as effete as American chauvinism likes to paint them..."
They had warrior origins and were the military caste of society. They could fight bravely in war and duel over honor. All that is true.
But generation after generation after generation of privilege made them fancy pansy in style. Look at some of their attire designed by fruitboys.
And look how they took off their velvet glove and slapped the other feller in the face. That is so whoopsy-doopsy tutti fruity. Can you imagine John Wayne and Lee Marvin in powdered wigs slapping one another with velvet gloves? That'll be the day.
The way of power.
The noisy vs the knowsy.
Because we like spectacle, we wanna believe that 'progress' and 'empowerment' result through stuff like rallies, marches, and other acts/movements/events that create a lot of noise. So, we hear of how STONEWALL riots/protests 'changed everything'. And yet, suppose homos had made all that noise but failed to penetrate the institutions. Homo power wouldn't be what it is today.
So, the real reason for homo power is the knowsy stuff than noisy stuff. Many homos kept their nose to the grindstone and gained a lot of knowledge about stuff that made their skills and ability useful and valuable to the upper echelon world. So, the 'square' homos actually did much more for homos than the noisy riotous ones who got all the attention.
TRIPLE PACKAGE says there are tons of Mormons in business/finance schools. Mormons don't protest or riot, but they seem to be gaining by being knowsy. They are gaining useful knowledge, and that makes them valuable even to financial firms run by Liberals.
Though most Mormons are on the 'right' and most homos are on the 'left', their way of power has been similar: square, knowsy, and nose-to-the-grindstone than making a lot of noise.
Of course, homos are rowdier than Mormons and have all sorts of marches and pageantry, but the Power elite neo-homos didn't get where they did by wiggling their ass in public and acting like diva queens.
Though I haven't seen Book of Mormon musical, the Morms look gayish, and maybe that's the point--or homos have become like Hormons.
PS. Triple Package has the worst cover of any book. BATTLE HYMN had a clever cover. Why not for this one?
NATO, making the world safe for oligarchy, neoconnery and buggery!
Another reason why European aristocrats got wussier was because of the hereditary nature of aristocracy. Some sons were born tough, some were born wussy. But both kinds were members of the aristocracy.
Also, high caste men married dainty women, and that produced wussier sons.
In America, you really had to be tough be marshal of the town to root out the varmints. You didn't become marshal cuz your daddy was marshal.
And look how they took off their velvet glove and slapped the other feller in the face. That is so whoopsy-doopsy tutti fruity.
You miss the point. The point was to express contempt for the other fellow. To hit him would be the act of a ruffian, one whose emotions have control of him, someone that an aristocrat is supposed to be better than. The aristocrat has to be cool, in control, so instead of striking a blow he takes off his gloves and lightly brushes it across his opponents cheek, or makes a similar gesture. It shows contempt, dismissiveness. It means, "I have not lost my temper, you do not interest me enough to disturb my equanimity; I shall deal with you later, on the field, with cold steel."
Nothing wimpy about it.
"To hit him would be the act of a ruffian, one whose emotions have control of him, someone that an aristocrat is supposed to be better than."
Tutti-fruity
So, these guys should be slapping each another with gloves.
http://youtu.be/qlgOlaWmP6I
-------
Brad Pitt coulda been the new Lee Marvin but became googoo boy.
Revolution is struggling in Crimea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m-ExNycKQRM
"I don't think European elites of the ancien regime were quite as effete as American chauvinism likes to paint them..."
White American men have long mistook markers of masculinity for masculine behavior. Hence the recently discussed trend of young straight men adopting the look of gay bears with the silly beards and hunting clothes worn everywhere.
Meanwhile, you have black men wearing pink, the men with gold chains and their taste for tight fitting, European fashions and intensive grooming etc.
Thugs in third world countries do nothing to distinguish themselves physically from other men, except in places like Central America that have been influenced by American culture.
If you get robbed and/or murdered in a place like Brazil, it will be by a man dressed like John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction after they had to change out of their bloody suits, without tattoos, weird hair cuts, or even swaggering mannerisms.
They had warrior origins and were the military caste of society. They could fight bravely in war and duel over honor. All that is true.
That was the noblesse d'épée, but in the 16th century they began to be eclipsed by the noblesse de robe, the judges and bureaucrats and their descendants.
ATBOTL said "White men have long mistook markers of masculinity for masculine behavior". Like tattoos, razors that leave a three day stubble, and to some extent, guns and Harley-Davidsons.
You didn't become marshal cuz your daddy was marshal.
No, I'm sure that never happened.
One of J. Northcote Parkinson's laws is that when an organization had time and money to build a really spiffy headquarters, it is on the downhill slope. If it had an urgent mission it wouldn't be spending its money on marble or its time picking drapes.
Parkinson may be largely forgotten, but he was a wise man.
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
Eric Hoffer
"Revolution is struggling in Crimea:"
I like the cop with the ultra cop face at the end - whole mob around him and still doing it.
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/us-backing-neo-nazis-ukraine
I wonder how long all that glass will last after the barbarians take over.
Post a Comment