← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · MacDonald CSA
Thread ID: 14070 | Posts: 45 | Started: 2004-06-05
2004-06-05 21:30 | User Profile
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040605/ap_on_re_us/reagan_obit[/url]
[url]http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/breaking.jsp?feature=reagan[/url]
[img]http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/cp/news/top/i/r_reagan200.jpg[/img] [img]http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/cp/news/top/i/ban_ron_reagan.gif[/img]
Yeah... I liked him.
2004-06-05 22:01 | User Profile
One of the few American Presidents from the 20th century that I really admired. He was also the last decent man to be president. There wont ever be another decent man to occupy that office, you can be sure.
2004-06-05 22:07 | User Profile
Whatever one's opinion of him...and mine was mixed...this is a sad day. Certainly his battle with Alzheimer's was heartbreaking, and must have been an ordeal for him and his family. [I]No one [/I] should have to face that.
I'm grateful at least for the good he accomplished, however limited or compromised it may have been in the long run. He [I]tried[/I], at least.
Reagan is beyond his misery now, but I can't help but point out that another old-style conservative - Chuck Heston - is currently facing the same ordeal. Try and keep a good thought for him in his struggle.
2004-06-05 22:15 | User Profile
God bless President Reagan, may he rest in peace. Our prayers are with his family.
2004-06-05 22:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]One of the few American Presidents from the 20th century that I really admired. He was also the last decent man to be president. There wont ever be another decent man to occupy that office, you can be sure.[/QUOTE]Yes, like the moon which is hard to see except at night, he does not particularly shine, until you compare him with those Presidents around him.
RIP Ronald.
2004-06-05 23:42 | User Profile
A sad day for our country.
He will be missed.
2004-06-05 23:45 | User Profile
Ronald Reagan truly loved the old America and the American people.
Of that I have no doubt.
This is a sad, sad day.
2004-06-06 01:36 | User Profile
The last good, not great, president of American history.
2004-06-06 01:37 | User Profile
I'm glad he's dead. Alzheimer's is a fate worse than. Rest In Peace.
2004-06-06 02:25 | User Profile
My apologies for interrupting the love-grief fest, but time for another perspective. Someone has to say what I'm about to say, so the duty falls to me to step up to the plate.
The boo-hooing has already begun over at Free Republic. I can see we're in for another public "shedding of tears" ritual because another "celebrity" has died. How is Reagan's death any more significant than that of Princess Diana? The Diana acolytes all came out of the woodwork to wail over her loss, and none of them knew her beyond the media image. And speaking of the media image, how ironic that the same process will be repeated in the name of the Media-Image-in-Chief known as "The Great Communicator"....
Of course, many here and elsewhere will disagree with my assessment, largely because of their perception that Reagan was "genuine" in his politics and "love of country." Since when was politics in America ever a sacred and hallowed affair? From that angle, it makes more sense to boost Diana than Ronnie since at least Diana is more reminiscent of the ancient Tradition that held the monarch was the "divine representative" to the nation.
2004-06-06 04:03 | User Profile
Speaking as a black man, I credit Reagan with pushing conservatism into the black community. Negro conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, J.C. Watts, Ken Hamblin, and Shelby Steele owe much of their beliefs to the conservative movement started by Reagan in the 1980's. Back in my 'lemming' days, I booed Reagan for being against Affirmative Action and other pro-black issues. But as I became more conservative in my politics and thinking, my view of Reagan shifted.
All in all, Reagan was a good man and a good president in my opinion. I'd certainly choose him over Bush Jr. and Clinton anyday. America is now a poorer place due to his death.
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911-2004. May he rest in peace.
2004-06-06 08:39 | User Profile
I was a big fan of Reagan's when he was in the White House, but of course now that I'm fully racially awakened, my feelings are decidedly mixed: he signed that unforgiveable cucaracha amnesty and he made the jew-mandated boilerplate statements against racism that all pols make these days. On the other hand, he helpled give Jewish Bolshevism the final shove in Russia. Plus, he saved scores of people from drowning as a lifeguard, and he seemed to be a nice fellow; he was respectful of the post, and seemed far more genuine than any of the scum who've stank up the Oval Office since.
Yes, it's a mercy that he's dead. I wouldn't wish Alzheimers on anyone - not even Abie Foxman. It's perhaps the ultimate horror disease, and no human should suffer the terror of slowly losing not just his life but his very self.
2004-06-06 12:14 | User Profile
We paleos were in an odd situation back then. On the one hand we instinctively hate the Empire and understand that it could only result in the death of our beloved Republic, but on the other we were up against the nuclear might of the USSR that was making a bid to destroy everything the entire West stood for.
So most of us, including yours truly, got behind the project of fighting Communisim. And Reagan was the man who lead us to victory in that fight.
The problem was that Reagan didn't understand, or didn't particularly care about, the European core of our nation. Reagan was really a libertarian like Maggi Thatcher - both rejected the idea that society has any collective existence. They saw society not as an organism but rather as a collection of mostly fungible individuals who were contracting with each other. Reagan's big failure, IMHO, was that he truly believed in America as a proposition nation.
This is the disagreement at the root of the paleo/libertarian divide, and if Reagan were still active in politics today I can't imagine that we'd be on the same side. Reagan was not a racialist. I really think that he believed that people were basically fungible.
But that said, Reagan was a man of his times, and his times were all about the Cold War. Reagan and Thatcher were the big players in that drama on the side of the West (we should probably add John Paul II to that number), and despite the many disagreements I have with all three of them, nobody can take away the fact that the Soviet Union is dead, and in its place are states like the Russian Federation and Ukraine, which are well on the path now to reintegration with Europe. The great and ancient capitals of Europe are free - Warsaw, Prague, Sofia, Budapest, Bucharest, Riga, and perhaps most importantly Berlin. That, I respectfully submit, was an achievement beyond my wildest dreams when I first voted for Reagan in 1980, and Reagan was the man who more than anybody rid the world of that great evil.
Reagan brought down the Soviet Union through is almost child-like belief in America. He won because most of all he believed we could do it, and because of his Irish tenacity to see it through to the bitter end.
God bless Ronald Wilson Reagan. May his bed in Heaven be soft.
[I]Eternal rest grant unto him, oh Lord, And let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul, and all the souls of the faithful departed, Through the mercy of God rest in peace.[/I]
Amen.
2004-06-06 13:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Reagan was not a racialist. I really think that he believed that people were basically fungible.[/QUOTE] Reagan may not have been a Racialist but I doubt if he had liberal opinions on race. He would occasionally mouth the odd platitude about Race but I think he never expressed his opinions about Race or his concerns because he believed there were more important battles to fight at that time.
I also doubt if Reagan believed in open borders and world Government (and a homgenized, mongrelized race-mixed population in every country is obviously one of the pre-requisites for that).
Here is Peter Brimelow's maginificent tribute to Reagan:
[QUOTE]
[font=Arial][size=4]In Memoriam: Ronald W. Reagan[/size][/font] By Peter Brimelow
Ronald Reagan, who died on Saturday, was the greatest American president of the twentieth century.
His success was so total that the two parallel crises that brought him to powerââ¬âthe Cold War and [url="http://www.vdare.com/roberts/supply_side.htm"][color=#0000ff]inflation[/color][/url]ââ¬âare now [url="http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030213.asp#4"][color=#0000ff]discounted[/color][/url] and forgotten.
In their place, the U.S. and the Western world face new generation of problems. Most [url="http://www.vdare.com/pb/wtc.htm"][color=#0000ff]important[/color][/url], from the perspective of VDARE.COM, is mass immigration and its impact on the National Questionââ¬âwhether the U.S. (or any of the great polities of the West) can survive as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people.
Reagan had relatively little to say about immigration, and that little is disputed. This is not surprising. Modern mass immigration was unleashed in the U.S. by the [url="http://www.vdare.com/pb/time_to_rethink.htm"][color=#0000ff]1965 Immigration Act,[/color][/url] part of the [url="http://www.vdare.com/pb/haag_memoriam.htm"][color=#0000ff]Johnson Administrationââ¬â¢s[/color][/url] ââ¬ÅGreat Societyââ¬Â legislative spasm. Reagan had already established himself a national figure because of his achievements as a [url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1964reagan1.html"][color=#0000ff]spokesman[/color][/url] for [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm"][color=#0000ff]Barry Goldwater[/color][/url], Johnsonââ¬â¢s defeated Republican opponent. In the nature of things, a new generation of problems requires a new generation of politicians to recognize and resolve them.
Nevertheless, Reagan did make this definitive comment on illegal immigration while he was president:
**ââ¬ÅThis country has lost control of its borders. And no country can sustain that kind of position.ââ¬Â **
He didnââ¬â¢t solve the problem, of courseââ¬âas he failed to solve, or even address, other new problems, notably the rapidly-[url="http://www.vdare.com/pb/spiral_of_silence.htm"][color=#0000ff]metastasizing[/color][/url] curse of [url="http://www.vdare.com/pb/when_quotas.htm"][color=#0000ff]affirmative action quotas.[/color][/url] But, as a humble foot soldier in the American conservative movement (beginning with [url="http://www.ashbrook.org/about/ashbrook.html"][color=#0000ff]John Ashbrook[/color][/url] vs. [url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_miltonfriedman.html#8"][color=#0000ff]Nixon[/color][/url] in 1972!) I never had any doubt where Reaganââ¬â¢s heart was.
I didnââ¬â¢t have any doubt about the endless battalions of [url="http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bush_thinking.htm"][color=#0000ff]Bushes[/color][/url] either. I still donââ¬â¢t.
In the end, Reaganââ¬â¢s real political legacy was not substance but style. We will be hearing endlessly about his congeniality, optimism, funniness etc. I say bunk to this.
Reagan was a ferocious conservative ideologue in the 1960s at a time when it meant upsetting people who were comfortable with the conventional liberalism (and they got really upset). And also when it meant being pessimistic about things like the [url="http://www.reagan.dk/newthesov.htm"][color=#0000ff]intentions of the Soviet Union[/color][/url] and the efficacy of [url="http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1684"][color=#0000ff]price controls,[/color][/url] about which everyone desperately, and hysterically, wanted to believe the best.
Reagan was a fighter where the Bushes are appeasersââ¬ânot withstanding the fact that he withdrew from Lebanon, whereas they twice embroiled the U.S. in Iraq.
Reaganââ¬â¢s [url="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/essays/reagan.html"][color=#0000ff]courage[/color][/url] was intellectual and moral. That is why I am confident he would be among those of us who challenge the entrenched interests pushing nation-breaking mass immigration, and the conventional and cowardly who donââ¬â¢t want to think about the issue at all.
[/QUOTE][font=Times] [/font]
2004-06-06 13:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Reaganââ¬â¢s courage was intellectual and moral. That is why I am confident he would be among those of us who challenge the entrenched interests pushing nation-breaking mass immigration, and the conventional and cowardly who donââ¬â¢t want to think about the issue at all.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that, Peter.
Mr. Brimelow has a better view of it than me. I read somewhere RR's vision of America: all different kinds of people working hard, ports busy trading with the whole world in an open embrace. It was a nice thought, but I maintain my position that the main was no nationalist with a capital "N."
But, that's okay. Brimelos is absolutely right that RR had courage when it counted. He wasn't afraid to tick off the comfortably liberal. We need to emulate Reagan's political courage on the issues we really care about.
This from Brimelow is really key:
[QUOTE]His success was so total that the two parallel crises that brought him to powerââ¬âthe Cold War and inflationââ¬âare now discounted and forgotten. [/QUOTE]
We forget now that lots of people on the legt absolutely DESPISED Reagan. I was in college back then - and "Ray-gun" was the embodiment of all evil, because he had the balls to tell the truth about the Soviet threat. And it's true that we don't think about it much because very few now question the simple fact that the world is a far better place without the Soviet Union.
As Brimelow says, we forget that because RR was so successful. But let us not forget that there are plenty of Americans walking around today - a lot of them teaching in university posts - who admired the Soviet Union and who worked actively against Reagan's crusade to bring it down.
I saw recently a Robert Altman film called "Nashville." That was made around 1976. It's about a very demoralized America. High inflation combined with low productivity and few jobs. Reagan gave us back the spring in our step.
Anyway, I hope that our nationalist cause can find a man the equal of Ronald Reagan to lead us to victory.
Walter
2004-06-06 13:32 | User Profile
It's the end of an era for the United States of America. All I know is that after Ronald Reagan left office, this country's decline became so rapid in so short a time span that it's mind boggling. The "gipper" was a great president and I remember that there were billions less Third Worlders in my city when he was president. Sometimes perception is reality. God bless the Reagan family.
2004-06-06 13:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Ronald Reagan truly loved the old America and the American people.[/QUOTE] He loved the Old America because he grew up in it. He knew that it was a beautiful country and I think a lot of his optimism sprang from that. I say this despite the fact that he obviously spent most of his youth in the terrible days of the great depression.
2004-06-06 14:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]How is Reagan's death any more significant than that of Princess Diana? The Diana acolytes all came out of the woodwork to wail over her loss, and none of them knew her beyond the media image. ... Since when was politics in America ever a sacred and hallowed affair? From that angle, it makes more sense to boost Diana than Ronnie since at least Diana is more reminiscent of the ancient Tradition that held the monarch was the "divine representative" to the nation.[/QUOTE]
Diana wasn't a real princess, but she was a real bimbo.
2004-06-06 14:48 | User Profile
I am happy that he is free of the curse of his illness. I know that he is in a place where he is appreciated. If it wasn't for the illness I suspect he would have counseled staying out of the mess we are in now.
I watch a little bit of the coverage until they started bringing out neocons like Newt Gingrich. At that point I turned off the t.v. Watch all the parasites latch onto Reagan and once again claim to be his heirs when in truth, they aren't fit to hold his coat.
My own view of Reagan holds him to be between near great and great. For me it can go both ways depending what I am thinking about at that moment. Getting rid of the U.S.S.R.? Great. Failing to veto the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Act of 1986? Not good. To his credit he said later of all the things that he did he regretted most of all was not vetoing that abomination.
His humor was always a source of delight, especially when he made the "liberals" and the U.S.S.R. mad with the microphone check. I recall he said something along the lines of "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to inform you I have signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. The bombing begins in five minutes."
I remember seeing him get on Air Force One for the last time in 1989 and thinking to myself "I disagreed with you on some things but overall, you did a good job. I have a feeling I will miss you when I consider your successor."
I am afraid Reagan was the last of what I would call an American President. Since then we have been cursed with various internationalists and other do gooder types.
Fly the flag at half mast and pay honor to this very fine and admirable man.
2004-06-06 15:18 | User Profile
As a man who truly loved and admired the old America, Reagan's Nationalism and genuine Patriotism were implicit.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Mr. Brimelow has a better view of it than me. I read somewhere RR's vision of America: all different kinds of people working hard, ports busy trading with the whole world in an open embrace. It was a nice thought, but I maintain my position that the main was no nationalist with a capital "N.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-06 16:53 | User Profile
I'm not American so, I can't really say anything about how you should think of Ronald Reagan. To me he was one of symbols from childhood, when he or Mihail Gorbatshov were in TV all the time. As Finn and living in neighbour of Russia I'd thank president Reagan for helping Soviet Unions demise. May he Rest in Peace.
However it is funny that you don't like his successors, in White House. Maybe it is universal. Here many people think also that last two presidents in our republic are not REAL presidents. I also think so. LAst Finnish real president was Mr. Mauno Koivisto, who was in charge from 1981 to 1994, he was WWII veteran, and quite a realist. After him there has been two internationalist scums, and scrapping of constitution.
2004-06-06 17:11 | User Profile
Suomi,
Sad to say it looks like all the western nations are afflected with poor "leaders."
2004-06-06 18:39 | User Profile
I was once a big Reagan man, but less so over the years. Yet I have never seen a man leave this life with such poignancy and dignity. I look forward to the tributes from Buchanan, Sobran and others. God rest his soul. God bless his family.
2004-06-06 19:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]As a man who truly loved and admired the old America, Reagan's Nationalism and genuine Patriotism were implicit.[/QUOTE] For that generation of men, these things were not matters of debate. They grew up with a certain understanding of things. Hence, so few pronouncements from Reagan on immigration.
The only reason we look for these things specifically in Politicians now is because they have become a major issue now in our generation.
Until the late 1980s/early 1990s immigration was not (it would seem) a massive national issue although it had probably become a major issue in California - true there was a large immigrant population within the United States but that population really exploded in the 1990s.
Reagan's big issue was the Cold War and he understood that winning that (in the sense of dismantling Communism) was the most urgent of tasks. And he accomplished that despite having the entire media at his throat, the Liberals and the left-wing loons from the Universities at his throat and constant bickering on everything by the Democrats.
Hopefully, our generation will also produce men like Reagan who take the issues of our time head on in Europe and North America.
2004-06-07 02:58 | User Profile
Reagan: A Hymiewood Media Production
Boo Hoo Hoo....
2004-06-07 04:46 | User Profile
Reagan talked a good game, and deserves a lot of credit for that. However, he was an utter failure in enacting genuinely conservative policies, aside from perhaps from correcting Carter-era errors concerning military organization. One only has to point to the massive debt he brought us into. Yeah, no wonder those were happy times--we have been paying for them ever since with Greenspan's Federal Reserve games.
His views on immigration policies were an abomination, but I since his talk in other areas accomplished next to nothing, it really doesn't matter that he didn't talk about cutting immigration. That whole nightmare ultimately goes back to the 60's and the general surrender of WASPs to Jew-centered multiracialism and Holocaust guilt.
2004-06-07 08:45 | User Profile
Valley Forge says:
As a man who truly loved and admired the old America, Reagan's Nationalism and genuine Patriotism were implicit.
I agree with most of what has been said here, but there is one other point to be noted. Reagan could not have been a white nationalist during the 80's. White nationalism is antithetical to European nationalism and would have been an impossible sell until the end of the Cold War.
This is because the major threat to the United States was, unfortunately, from other white men . Only with the fall of communism has it become possible for whites to regard each other as racial brethren. Mexicans in the US and Muslims in Europe were a secondary threat relative to the possibility of nuclear annihilation by whites in Russia.
Given that frame of reference, I am much more inclined to agree with Brimelow - Reagan would have identified and dealt with the major threat to the US today.
As a postscript I should note that Hitler, likewise, was an opponent of white nationalism. You cannot commit yourself to destroying 1/3-1/2 of all whites (the Slavs) while being a white nationalist. European nationalism had to die for white nationalism to live.
2004-06-07 09:17 | User Profile
White Nationalism vs. European.. B.S. WW1 and uncle chewy's second round blow came that time using the stolen " ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN NATION" RUSSIA, which crucified Orthodox Priest's and proceeded to smash White civil Cilivilization!. Read Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Linbergh, Elizabeth Dillion Stokes, President Hoover, Smedley Butler, Irving, etc......
I had known two WW 1 Vets, who always had been against U.S. going in to the so called WW2.
All of this lead to our mess of today.............
2004-06-08 19:01 | User Profile
I haven't much substantive to say about Reagan because I suspect he wasn't all that substantive. I read Brimelow and Francis, then Hitchens. Heard D'Souza. I remember an economist saying once that for all his talk of scaling back government, it never happened. Only two federal programs were eliminated during his presidency. Spending ran away.
Also, the beginning of the Reagan era was the beginning of America's extra-special support for Israel, which has caused us no end of problems.
His appeal was in his style: friendly and teflon. He at least spoke inspiringly. "Well, there you go again." Ha. I'll have to remember that when running for office. I think if an opponent said that to me, I'd want to break his nose.
WNs could at least learn this: They called Reagan a Nazi, a racist, a bigot, etc. He always just smiled and waved back.
2004-06-12 08:19 | User Profile
There are a great deal of sections on here and posts get lost within them.
But the tributes and comments to America's greatest President - Ronald Reagan - should be at the top. And should stay there as inspiration and hope to all Americans and Europeans.
The Gipper should not be forgotten. He won the Cold War with humour and good grace.
We can learn from his leadership and example.
My Regards.
Mentzer.
2004-06-12 08:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]There are a great deal of sections on here and posts get lost within them.
But the tributes and comments to America's greatest President - Ronald Reagan - should be at the top. And should stay there as inspiration and hope to all Americans and Europeans.
The Gipper should not be forgotten. He won the Cold War with humour and good grace.
We can learn from his leadership and example.
My Regards.
Mentzer.[/QUOTE] Accurate and absolutely true. I completely agree with that.
2004-06-12 12:11 | User Profile
The neocons haven't wasted anytime here in regard to Reagan. They were out in force trying to snatch the body before it was buried judging from the crap I had to listen to when I watched the funeral.
They better double the guard, otherwise Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the neocons might attempt to rob the grave and place the remains on display of the misnamed "American Enterprise Institute," like Lenin.
2004-06-12 12:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]The neocons haven't wasted anytime here in regard to Reagan. They were out in force trying to snatch the body before it was buried judging from the crap I had to listen to when I watched the funeral.
They better double the guard, otherwise Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the neocons might attempt to rob the grave and place the remains on display of the misnamed "American Enterprise Institute," like Lenin.[/QUOTE] They've been driving me nuts this week, just outright lying about what is conservative. I had no idea it was conservative to overload the US population with non-English speaking third worlders and have some massive central government running the world from Washington DC. I always thought national sovreignty and states' rights, and honest communication were in there someplace. Silly me.
Gee, I also bet Reagan had no idea he was another FDR or Abe Lincoln. I kept hearing how much Reagan was like FDR...and lies that FDR had no intention of his New Deal turning into such a huge .gov give away. The neocons would run FDR for prez if they could. That says it all.
And, I would damn well bet you Reagan would never had done to the south what Lincoln did. Lincoln was like Bush, greenlighting all kinds of horror and saying he had no control over it. I can't understand Micheal or Mrs. Reagan going along with all of it.
I don't think anyone is tricked by this bunch, currently. The neocons just energized me this week. I realized how fanatical they were with their militant/radical theology that blends politics and government expansion with spirituality. Rush kept saying the neocons were speaking for God. What a bunch of crazies. The Pharisees in the Bible had nothing on this bunch of wicked.
2004-06-12 12:53 | User Profile
[IMG]http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/graphics/rr_osfront.jpg[/IMG] Here is a Leader. Here is the Gipper.
2004-06-12 15:57 | User Profile
AOR,
In a way, I wish I had heard Limbaugh's blatherings you noted above. It sounds like he is appealing to the dispensationalists out there. Maybe he'll post it on his website. Usually, when he says something really ignorant and stupid he is so impressed with himself that he posts it like he did with his commentary about the prison scandal.
Here's one person who isn't buying this nonsense.
Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.
Ron Reagan, eulogy. This sounds like a shot across the bow of those who wish to exploit Reagan's death for their own partisan purposes. I don't think Limbaugh will mention this. Actually, he ought to shutup on this subject, seeing how he never even voted for Reagan.
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36014-2004Jun11.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36014-2004Jun11.html[/url]
2004-06-12 16:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE][B]Peter Phillips[/B] Quote: [QUOTE]Originally Posted by Mentzer There are a great deal of sections on here and posts get lost within them.
But the tributes and comments to America's greatest President - Ronald Reagan - should be at the top. And should stay there as inspiration and hope to all Americans and Europeans.
The Gipper should not be forgotten. He won the Cold War with humour and good grace.
We can learn from his leadership and example.
My Regards.
Mentzer[/QUOTE]. Accurate and absolutely true. I completely agree with that. [/QUOTE]I do not. I feel quite sure that when historians write in 50 or so years that the demise of the Soviet Union will be attributed to the rise of China much more so than anything the United States did. Solzhenitsyn tried to warn us, but as usual we did not listen.
2004-06-12 18:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]I do not. I feel quite sure that when historians write in 50 or so years that the demise of the Soviet Union will be attributed to the rise of China much more so than anything the United States did. Solzhenitsyn tried to warn us, but as usual we did not listen.[/QUOTE] I havent read Solzhenitsyn. Maybe you could give us the argument?
2004-06-13 17:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]I havent read Solzhenitsyn. Maybe you could give us the argument?[/QUOTE]The following post covers the essence of Solzhenitsyn's warning delivered at Harvard in 1978. I believe the whole address should be a sticky, but I do not decide. [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=7838&highlight=solzhenitsyn[/url]
The Chinese from 1978 to 1990 had their economy grow at the rate of some 9% a year. Much like Mexico and Mexicans they have been invading another country, Russia. China with an expanding economy and appetite soon will be a huge problem for the West and Russia in particular. Myopic American foreign policy has made much of this possible.
One reason you have not read Solzhenitsyn recently is that he wrote of the role of Jews in the Russian revolution. No American publisher will touch his work. So much for freedom of the press.
2004-06-13 18:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]The following post covers the essence of Solzhenitsyn's warning delivered at Harvard in 1978. I believe the whole address should be a sticky, but I do not decide. [url="http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=7838&highlight=solzhenitsyn"]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=7838&highlight=solzhenitsyn[/url]
The Chinese from 1978 to 1990 had their economy grow at the rate of some 9% a year. Much like Mexico and Mexicans they have been invading another country, Russia. China with an expanding economy and appetite soon will be a huge problem for the West and Russia in particular. Myopic American foreign policy has made much of this possible.
One reason you have not read Solzhenitsyn recently is that he wrote of the role of Jews in the Russian revolution. No American publisher will touch his work. So much for freedom of the press.[/QUOTE] Thanks for this Ed. Most useful.
However, I cant quite see how China caused the death of the USSR. This passage suggests that he sees China as a dangerous long term threat.
I agree that ANYONE who starts getting honest about JEWS is finished in public life nowadays.
2004-06-14 17:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]However, I cant quite see how China caused the death of the USSR. This passage suggests that he sees China as a dangerous long term threat. [/QUOTE]More than just one event and circumstance caused the demise of the Soviet Union. A modern China armed with modern industry and weaponry would be more than a match for a Russia that had no reliable allies. In contrast to the United States much of Europe views the Chinese as, not potential friends, but ruthless competitors.
Until 5 or 6 hundred years ago with only temporary challenges from Rome China was the great power in the world. Even today the modern Chinese has fond memories of those days even if much of recall may be fictitious. Maybe Americans will become as wary as Europeans, but I have my doubts.
2004-06-15 16:09 | User Profile
[IMG]http://littlegeneva.com/images/jewreagan.jpg[/IMG]
Thanks again, [URL=http://littlegeneva.com/mt/index.html]Little Geneva.[/URL]
2004-06-15 20:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]More than just one event and circumstance caused the demise of the Soviet Union. A modern China armed with modern industry and weaponry would be more than a match for a Russia that had no reliable allies. In contrast to the United States much of Europe views the Chinese as, not potential friends, but ruthless competitors.
Until 5 or 6 hundred years ago with only temporary challenges from Rome China was the great power in the world. Even today the modern Chinese has fond memories of those days even if much of recall may be fictitious. Maybe Americans will become as wary as Europeans, but I have my doubts.[/QUOTE]Edward,
I dont know how you get the idea that Europeans view the Chinese as ruthless competitors. Europe's ruling class is about as oblivious to the survival of its people as America's, if not more so and modern Europeans wallow constantly in guilt over Nazism and "Xenophobia". Unless, by Europeans you mean Eastern Europeans, in which case you might be correct.
Also, Russia's economy may be a mess but it has the second biggest Nuclear stockpile on earth and Russian weaponry is still far far superior to anything the Chinese can produce.
The only advantage China would have in a war with Russia would be in numbers on the ground, i.e. if you had an old fashioned ground war with conventional weapons, the Chinese would give a few headaches because of their ability to simply throw legions of human bodies at the forefront. But there is simply no way that China even today could match Russian firepower if push came to shove. For all the fun Americans made of Russian technology in the cold war, it is still far superior to anything the Chinese have ever shown a capacity of producing.
So I beg to disagree.
2004-06-15 20:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot][img]http://littlegeneva.com/images/jewreagan.jpg[/img]
Thanks again, [url="http://littlegeneva.com/mt/index.html"]Little Geneva.[/url][/QUOTE]
He was a magnanimous man who never insulted his guests.
2004-06-15 22:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]He was a magnanimous man who never insulted his guests.[/QUOTE]
To a fault. And his magnanimous example set the stage for Lubavitcher's Ari Fleischer and Josh Bolton during the first years of the GWB administration.
[url]http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1986/41986b.htm[/url]
Proclamation 5463 -- Education Day, U.S.A., 1986 April 19, 1986 By the President of the United States
of America
A Proclamation
From earliest colonial days, Americans have always known that education is the golden key that opens the door to achievement and progress. This Administration has placed renewed emphasis on excellence in education, and already the results are encouraging. By setting high standards we challenge the young to stretch their mental muscles and strive to achieve the best that is in them. Such an education succeeds because it makes learning an adventure.
Education is like a diamond with many facets: it includes the basic mastery of numbers and letters that give us access to the treasury of human knowledge, accumulated and refined through the ages; it includes technical and vocational training as well as instruction in science, higher mathematics, and humane letters. But no true education can leave out the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life and human striving. Only education that addresses this dimension can lead to that blend of compassion, humility, and understanding that is summed up in one word: wisdom.
Happy the man,'' Scripture tells us,who finds wisdom. . . . Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who come to possess her.''
The Congress has sought to call attention to these durable values by adopting resolutions that pay tribute to the example of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a man who has dedicated his life to the search for wisdom and to guiding others along its pathways. He exemplifies the rich tradition of the Seven Noahide Laws, which have been the lodestar of the Lubavitch movement from its inception.
In recognition of Rabbi Schneerson's noble achievements and in celebration of his 84th birthday, the Congress, by House Joint Resolution 582, has designated April 20 as ``Education Day, U.S.A.'' and authorized and requested the President to issue an appropriate proclamation in observance of this event.
Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Sunday, April 20, 1986, as Education Day, U.S.A., and I call upon the people of the United States, and in particular our teachers and other educational leaders, to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and tenth.
Ronald Reagan
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:26 a.m., April 21, 1986]
2004-06-15 23:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]Edward,
I dont know how you get the idea that Europeans view the Chinese as ruthless competitors. Europe's ruling class is about as oblivious to the survival of its people as America's, if not more so and modern Europeans wallow constantly in guilt over Nazism and "Xenophobia". Unless, by Europeans you mean Eastern Europeans, in which case you might be correct. [/QUOTE]I am not very knowledgable about this.[QUOTE]Also, Russia's economy may be a mess but it has the second biggest Nuclear stockpile on earth and Russian weaponry is still far far superior to anything the Chinese can produce. [/QUOTE]I agree that if the war went nuclear Russia would prevail even if they cannot find all their weapons.[QUOTE]The only advantage China would have in a war with Russia would be in numbers on the ground, i.e. if you had an old fashioned ground war with conventional weapons, the Chinese would give a few headaches because of their ability to simply throw legions of human bodies at the forefront. But there is simply no way that China even today could match Russian firepower if push came to shove. [I][COLOR=Red]For all the fun Americans made of Russian technology in the cold war, it is still far superior to anything the Chinese have ever shown a capacity of producing.[/COLOR][/I] [/QUOTE]I suspect in a conventional ground war the Chinese just may prevail within a few years. I know of very few intelligent people who made fun of Soviet weaponry. Their rifles and artillery have traditionally been superior to American equivalents. Much less known to Americans is their prowess in building aircraft.[QUOTE]So I beg to disagree.[/QUOTE]Feel free to do so. This is what makes arguments.