Why The Neutralist? The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up.

Friday, October 28, 2016

Chris Buskirk is the clearest voice we've heard all season

The Neutralist views NPR as little more than a shill for the elite viewpoint.  It is usually a ministry of information by which the inner party tells the outer party what to feel and believe, but not what to think.  They do not really want thinking.

The other day, if I wore a pacemaker, it would have shorted.  I am shocked that Chris Buskirk of the website American Greatness was interviewed and defended his support of Donald Trump admirably.

David Greene was the interviewer and was adversarial, but not unfair.  Chris was calm and reasonable and one would almost think someone in NPR has gone rogue and snuck a thinking person on the air.  If so, I hope they never find him.

Chris Buskirk is superior to anyone commenting on air.  One should not be surprised if someone notices him and gives him a job.  That is if there is a place for a rational man in the American media.

He did a better job advocating for his candidate than guys like Christie or Rudy.

Anyway, you should go to American Greatness and listen to his interview, link here

Please note, the Neutralist does not support candidates.  If we did, Jill Stein's policy of bringing all the troops home would be our cup of tea.  Of course, her financial policies can be characterized as "Make America Venezuela."

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The Dutch Republic looks into to the soul of Wilders - Exactly what was there problem with Hitler?

Actually, the Netherlanders did not have all that much of a problem with Hitler and would have happily watched  from the sidelines had Dolph not felt that the run through the lowlands to around Maginot's line was a good idea.

The stout hearted Dutch have learned their lesson.  One of their politicians
at a March 2014 election rally in The Hague, when Wilders asked supporters whether they wanted "fewer or more Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands?"
When the crowd shouted back "Fewer! Fewer!" a smiling Wilders answered: "We're going to organise that."
Well the Dutchies are not going to put up with that.
Wilders's remarks triggered 6,400 complaints, and criticism from within his own party.
Some 56 people and five organisations have registered as victims of the comments and at least 34 witnesses have come forward, judges have said.
Although judges on Friday allowed 40 claims to go ahead, they capped the amount sought as damages at 500 euros, dismissing the 21 other claims.
So complaints against Geert have been "triggered."
One supposes the indigenous population is never considered to have a trigger.
So suppressing the people is what the Dutch do.  Another reason for the US not to be there, or in any of the other Euro countries that are anti-speech.  Let Europe be Europe and say au revoir to NATO.
Oh not, not another of those Hitler won comments.

Sunday, October 09, 2016

Bear Baiting with thanks to Malcolm Pollack

The Neutralist periodically meanders over to Malcolm Pollack's Waka Waka Waka blog because it is usually a pleasure.  A few days ago, he wrote a post titled Bear Baiting.  it was not a pleasure to read, but it was a fine bit of work.

It was not a pleasure because it accurately described the state of our foreign policy as regards Syria and a headlong rush to confrontation with a nuclear power.

This is a piece that clearly the Neutralist can endorse and wishes he wrote.  Please read, it is short and to the point.


From this morning’s NightWatch:
Russia-US-Syria: Russian relations with the US over Syria continue to worsen.
Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said on 6 October, “Let me remind the so-called US strategists that the air cover for the Russian military bases in Hmeimim and Tartus is provided by S-400 and S-300 surface-to-air missile systems, whose range may come as a surprise to any unidentified flying objects.”
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused the West of protecting the al-Nusra Front. She said at a briefing, “So far we see in the actions of Western countries, first of all, not a concern about the humanitarian situation in Syria but a desire to protect Al-Nusra fighters and the forces and groups of fighters affiliated to them. To be even franker, not just to protect them but directly get them away from harm’s way.”
Comment: The statement by General Konashenkov apparently is a pre-emptive response to press reports that the US is considering approving air attacks against Syrian government forces. His response is a dare. The message is that the Russians will shoot first at long distance.
We are playing a very dangerous game here. There is no realistic path that ends in ousting Assad that does not pass through direct combat with Russia. Moreover, even the goal is a foolish one. What do we imagine would take his place?
I must also note the shameful hypocrisy of weeping for Syria’s people (and using it as a pretext for importing millions of them to the West) while having done everything possible to maintain a rough balance of power in this civil war, thereby prolonging it for years — during which time that miserable nation, and the innocent lives of millions of its people, have been blasted to rubble. Had we not stepped in to “help”, the thing would have been over in weeks or months, cities and antiquities now completely destroyed would still be standing, and the chaos of tribalism and jihad would not have had this vacuum to occupy. Whatever you may say about Bashar Assad, it should be obvious to even the most causal observer that life under his rule was better for most people — incomparably so — than life in Syria now. His regime may have been an affliction, but our efforts to cure it have killed the patient. Chaos is death.
A more enlightened worldview would see Russia — a great Christian nation, and one that has made priceless contributions to the treasure-store of Western civilization — as a natural ally in these perilous times. We have much in common, including ancient, existential enemies who gloat to see us fighting with with each other rather than uniting against them. Yet our stance toward Russia has been relentlessly bellicose, with our support of the Ukrainian revolution, and our actions in Syria, being only the most obvious examples.
One might imagine that, standing as we do upon the crumbling lip of a very dark abyss, and with such enlightened statesmen in charge, we would now move cautiously. One would be mistaken.