Wednesday, May 11, 2016

John Kerry is Such a Friggin' Schmuck...

Steve Sailer writing in Taki's Magazine

*  *  *

There’s been a lot of talk about Trump as the so-called “alt-right” candidate, but he’s actually been running an “alt-center” campaign, staking out positions that are controversial because they dissent in a commonsensical fashion from the increasingly bizarre mainstream globalist ideology.

One of the striking side effects of the Trump phenomenon is how he encourages more "respectable" sorts to attempt to articulate their Establishment principles, which, when spelled out, turn out to be terrifying in their implications.

There are genuine concerns about a President Trump’s garrulousness disrupting sleeping-dog foreign policies by stating out loud something that’s usually best kept diplomatically hushed up. For example, ever since Nixon went to China, Washington and Beijing officially agree that China and Taiwan have a single legitimate government; they just agree not to specify which one. This is kind of stupid (obviously, China and Taiwan are separate countries). But it’s also kind of brilliant in that 44 years of peace have gone by.

And yet, consider what the current secretary of state just said.

John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, recently delivered Northeastern University’s commencement address. His artless enunciation of today’s elite conventional wisdom of Invade the World/Invite the World offered Americans a glance at the coming dystopian nightmare their leaders are complacently expecting them to smilingly welcome.

The world today is organized around the principle of nationalism, with which Trump identifies. All land except the South Pole and (on paper) the West Bank and the Golan Heights is divided up under the dominion of territorial states. Perhaps this isn’t ideal, but it is the way the world works. Everybody more or less controls their own territory. And the world works relatively well under the current order. Interstate wars have been decreasing, in part because borders are (finally) reasonably well established and enduring.

In particular, Americans benefit from their ancestors having carved out a huge chunk of temperate land protected by oceans from the teeming masses of the Old World.

And yet, fashionable opinion in America is increasingly hostile toward the very existence of borders, which provide the essential building blocks of peace and prosperity.

How would the world work without borders? Nobody knows, other than that billionaires would probably do better than ordinary Americans. But that doesn’t cause much reflection upon the part of Establishment icons.

Kerry began his speech by winning easy applause by praising the Northeastern graduating class’ diversity:

"Now, graduating class, I've got to tell you, you really do look spectacular. I want you to... I mean... just look around you. Classmates of every race, religion, gender, shape, size — 85 countries represented and dozens of languages spoken. You are the most diverse class in Northeastern’s history — in other words, you are Donald Trump’s worst nightmare."


But then Kerry decided to spell out just why Trump is wrong, giving the rest of us a look into the nightmares that the American establishment finds appealing.

First, though, to understand Kerry’s speech, keep in mind that ... America’s colleges these days love international students (for example, over a quarter of Northeastern’s students, 4,775, are foreign) because they can charge them list price ($182,120 for four years). Northeastern’s endowment is only 2% of Harvard’s, so it’s desperate for rich foreign students who will pay full fare.


In contrast, many American applicants expect to receive financial aid (i.e., discounts off the rack rate), a tradition that emerged in the 20th century when American institutions were expected to stand by their fellow citizens, rather than to simply lecture them on the globalist imperative.

Receiving financial aid on college tuition is one of the bigger tangible benefits of being an American citizen, as is emphasized by the advertising for birth tourism businesses that help Chinese deliver anchor babies in the United States.

(Chinese nationals will deposit their pregnant womenfolk in Southern California for months so that their scions can qualify for American college financial aid in 18 years.)

You might think that this remaining privilege accruing to American citizens would be denounced as discriminatory. After all, policies favoring Americans are more and more portrayed as a violation of foreigners’ civil rights. But instead, it’s simply not discussed much in public because the right to charge foreigners more than Americans benefits universities.


The Secretary of State declared:

"So I think that everything that we’ve lived and learned tells us that we will never come out on top if we accept advice from sound-bite salesmen and carnival barkers who pretend the most powerful country on earth can remain great by looking inward and hiding behind walls at a time that technology has made that impossible to do and unwise to even attempt…. You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world."

Do Americans really want a “borderless world?" Has anybody asked the voters?

You might think that protecting and preserving the national borders is a duty of America’s senior Cabinet officer. After all, America has rather desirable boundaries. But that’s not how many leading American statesmen describe their goals in the 21st century.

For instance, the “ultimate wisdom of a borderless world” was the message of a speech given by former president Bill Clinton in Australia on Sept. 10, 2001, according to an article that appeared the next morning in Melbourne’s The Age under the headline “Open Borders to All.” Now, you might think that was bad timing... but it actually turned out lucky for the Clintons because in all the excitement of the next day, the lunacy of Bill’s call was forgotten.

To make the Americans in the audience feel better about their onrushing borderlessness, Kerry reminded them of the benefits of globalism they had already enjoyed:

"And many of you were in elementary school when you learned the toughest lesson of all on 9/11. There are no walls big enough to stop people from anywhere, tens of thousand miles away, who are determined to take their own lives while they target others."

Obviously, that’s a factually disingenuous recounting of 9/11. Mohamed Atta & Co. didn’t scale a giant wall to get onto American domestic airliners, they were instead welcomed by officials who had been repeatedly warned by George W. Bush about the evils of profiling jittery Arab terrorist-looking guys.


But even if Kerry was being honest, isn’t referencing 9/11 a slightly insane way to put down Trump?

(Especially when Kerry combines demands to keep our borders wide open with demands to continue bombing Muslims in their home countries?)

Kerry responded to 9/11 by voting to authorize Bush to... invade Iraq.


Kerry even called attention to a graduate who was the victim of porous borders and government negligence:

"I mentioned Victoria McGrath earlier, who was injured in the Boston Marathon attack. So Boston and Northeastern need no lessons in how important it is to win the battle against terrorists."

But, of course, the Tsarnaev brothers were in America as refugee guests of the American government, probably because their Uncle Ruslan had been the son-in-law of the CIA station chief in Kabul.

Similarly, Kerry brought up the smartphone-equipped flash mobs of migrants besieging the West, but as a reason not to defend our borders:

"We know that there are millions of young people across the globe with no jobs, no opportunity, but they have smartphones in their hands. They can see what the rest of the world has. And in the seeing of that, they also see and know what they don’t have…."

Instead, that’s a reason not for defense but for more war:

"There used to be a famous song during World War I, “Over There,” sang about the distant shores where our soldiers traveled to fight. But in our time, in your time, there is no “over there”; in a digital, well-traveled world — in a global marketplace — those distant shores are practically always right at our doorstep."

There’s an empirical debate over what fraction of Chancellor Merkel’s Million Muslim Mob are war refugees versus economic migrants, but Kerry assured the grads that the real danger is America minding its own business:

"And yet the specter of isolationism once again hovers over our nation."



Kerry climaxed his speech with an inspiring story about all the patriotic Americans who sacrificed their lives propping up Chiang Kai-shek’s regime in the 1940s:

"That is the most that anyone could have asked of them. It’s what history demands from the United States of America. And it’s what the future asks of you."


Of course, what Kerry left out was that America’s involvement in China was perhaps the biggest foreign-policy disaster in American history - leading immediately to the Korean War.


China is the world’s largest example of how borders make people happier. You may wonder how the Communist Party can continue to rule in China, despite all the catastrophes of the Maoist years. It’s because the Chinese feel that, horrible as the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward were, at least Mao threw out the foreign devils.

Nationalism actually works pretty well. Do we want to toss away today’s hard-earned world order out of Kerry-level boredom, faddishness, and shallowness of thought?

No comments: