PS: Thank you, Mr. Hail. ☮

PS

I think I may have found the earliest time he put the idea to print. It is a sixteen-word blog post on New Year's Day 2004.

Jan 1, 2004, iSteve.com (the website, r.i.p.):

______________

(quote)

The neocon platform in a nutshell:

Foreign Policy: Invade the World!

Domestic Policy: Invite the World!

(end of post)

(re-hosted at Unz.com after iSteve.com faded into the digital sands...:)

https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-neocon-platform-in-a-nutshell-foreign/

_______________

The timeline looks to be: "Invade the world, Invite the world" became a 'Sailerism' repeatedly used and recognizable to his blog-reader-tariat 2004-2007, then became a well-known meme generally starting especially in 2008, and in the 2010s it became almost mainstream, with even Trump speechwriters often sneaking it in and Tucker Carlson script writers the same.

Here is the famous "American Conservative" magazine cover of Feb 11, 2008:

https://josipdasovic.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/mccain_american_conservative_magazine.jpg

I think that magazine cover (which must have gotten hundreds of millions of views over the years as a stand-alone visual "meme") was the debut of "Invade, Invite" on the big stage of US political discourse.

Now notice that on the very same cover, the magazine announces its endorsement for president of....Ron Paul!

PS: Good evening everyone...

Mr Hail, while I'm not sure when Sailer coined “invade the world, invite the world” the following article claims he did so in “the mid-2000s”. I guess that would place it sometime around Dr. Paul's “money bomb” campaign, if not a little earlier.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/steve-sailer-invented-identity-politics-for-the-alt-right.html

☮

PS

Moderator: "Ron Paul is about my favorite national politician...I have agreed with his anti-"Invade-the-World" stance for at least 25 [years] (since I've known better)."

When did Steve Sailer coin his "Invade, Invite" line? It seems to me it was definitely during the first big Ron Paul campaign at least.

Mr Sailer remained characteristically aloof and did not promote Ron Paul in any direct way.

(I had a post on Ron Paul's ancestry in 2011 or 2012; it turns out he is basically entirely German by ancestry, and not that distant, which runs against the sometimes-presumed notion of Germans as big-statists and a weakness of what we wall "libertarianism" in Germany; that any arch-libertarian, the godfather of all right-wing national-libertarianism, Hans Hermann Hoppe, being a pretty core-type German.)

_____________

Moderator: "I mean that Dr. Paul never got into the racial or ethnic (if we have to stick with 'ethnic' for C/S Americans since that's how they confuse the stats) angle of the whole thing."

I understand. Given that Dr Paul was born in 1935, it cannot be expected that he -would- do that. It is all more implicit with people like that. Much of politics is like that, signal reading. In Paul's case, I think he gave off clear signals to the effect that "I oppose White-Christian dispossession."

Dr Paul was in his forties by the time the USA turned toward aggressive multi-cultural and the now-familiar WhiteChristians-last model (which gave birth to a cadre of narrative-police and enforced like the anti-white racialist superstar Robin DiAngelo), and it was hard to rhetorically pivot away from the mid-20th century.

PS

Thank you also, Mr Smith, for the copy of professional racism-exposer Robin DiAngelo's merest "Nice Racism," and just in time for the fast approaching Generic Winter Holiday.

PS

Thank you, Adam Smith, for finding the "Are you on email?" meme.

I find that The Office episode with the line "So...are you on...email?" was first aired March 9, 2009 (therefore likely written in 2008). That line, from the mouth of the lovably-dumb-clueless-fatso character and meant for comedy, is symbolic of the Internet (as we now understand it) having really arrived by the time he said it, the idea being said dumb-lovable character is characteristically some years behind.

Imagine the same line on a tv show ten years earlier. The joke would not have been a joke at all, but a straight-on question. Ten years later and the comedy wouldn't work anymore, though someone might say it ultra-ironically (the big-dumb The Office character was not playing a character who 'did' irony).

So that's a data-point in putting the Birth of the Internet in the 2005-09 period, and Ron Paul's Internet organization and Tea Party 2006 Moneybomb fits right into that timeline.

PS: Good afternoon everyone...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7nAIrgWwAMJsTO?format=jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwkNnMrsx7Q

(Almost hard to believe that one little yell tanked Dean's whole run...)

Mr. Hail, I just want to make sure you get a copy of this that you can open as it seems you might be interested...

https://www.mediafire.com/file/kijdyp97etgrn3y/Robin_DiAngelo_-_Nice_Racism.pdf

Imagine a world where Ross Perot was president from 92-00 and then someone decent for the next 8 and then Ron Paul from 08-16...

Not sure why I like this video so much...
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1470233766744449031/pu/vid/576x720/_wpFbMBlT7BAlGXP.mp4

Have a great day y'all...

☮

PS: No, I never meant "tip-toed", Mr. Hail. Of course, Ron Paul is about my favorite national politician (let's say, Pres, House, Senate) in the last 50 years, and I have agreed with his anti-"Invade-the-World" stance for at least 25 (since I've known better).

I mean that Dr. Paul never got into the racial or ethnic (if we have to stick with "ethnic" for C/S Americans since that's how they confuse the stats) angle of the whole thing. That is VERY important for the LEGAL side of the immigration invasion problem. It is just as big a problem as the illegal part, possibly more so. (After all, it's not a thing to deport citizens, no matter what kind of shenanigans they used to get that status.) The legal portion includes lots more of the racial angle, rather than just "hey, they're breaking in, taking jobs, causing crime, etc., race immaterial.", which to has been pretty much Ron Paul's stance.

If you don't get into the cultural/racial aspect of massive immigration, you don't have so much ammo against the legal kind. You've still got the economic damage from it for Americans, but then, "hey, these new people are Americans, too" The fact that they are completely changing the country can't be one of your arguments, if you don't ever bring up the TYPE of people coming.

Anyway, thanks for that history of the campaigns. I'm sure that the 1st of your dates was meant to be December 16 of 2006. Hell, I just changed it for you, something I don't normally do, but it was easy to get to just now.

PS: Mr. Blanc, I see the Founders of this country as having been classical liberals, but you and I both know how they felt about their "progeny" for whom they they built it. I think classical liberalism CAN include some obvious concepts such as only certain people can ever attain it, or it can only work with certain people. Maybe most of the classical liberals in our history haven't been this wise or experienced however.

Has it been since the War Between the States that any (actual) Liberals have understood this, or should I say ADMITTED that they understood this?

PS

One more Ron Paul observation:

The Tea Party movement and its origins.

In late 2006, the run-up to Dec 16, the Boston Tea Party anniversary day (Dec 16, 1773), was Ron Paul's "money bomb" campaign which financed his campaign in 2007. Suddenly Ron Paul was set for a significant breakthrough, which came in 2007 and was dug-in and ready for war by the early 2008 primary season. Ron Paul was often saying to large audiences in 2007-08 (and the 2012 season to some extent) the same kinds of things DJT later said in 2015-16.

December 16, 2006. Millions of people came out of the woodwork to donate, in a coordinated fashion. It was perhaps the first case of right-wing Internet mobilization and organizing in US history.

(People like to chatter about when they put the start-date of "the Internet," and the Internet as we now know it I'd be inclined to put at circa 2010, later than the Ron Paul Tea Party Moneybomb, with 2006 still in a transitional era [about this time, the US spinoff of the tv show The Office did a joke in which the big-dumb-bald character asked a woman out with the line, "Hey, are you on email?"]. To the extent the Internet became the place for political slinging and slugging contests by the mid-2010s, IMO a birthing event was the Ron Paul 2006. Howard Dean on the Left had done a similar thing in 2004, and Howard Dean did seem like a dynamic personality for a short while, even if has since slunk into becoming a Big-Blue whiner, whereas dissident Ron Paul remains saying the same things now, in his old age.)

Dec 16, 2006, was a quietly decisive political moment. To the extent it launched Ron Paul, that day cast a long shadow over the subsequent fifteen years. Not only did it launch Ron Paul as a national personality, it led directly to the 2009-2012 "Tea Party Movement" (important in its time, perhaps now totally forgotten except for its follow-on consequences, of which one again I think was the MAGA-Trump movement following the defeat of Romney in 2012). The Tea Party movement traces its political lineage directly to the Dec 16, 2006, Ron Paul Tea Party thing.

And, hey, I see tomorrow is Dec 16, 2021. A clean fifteen years! Ron Paul is still among us, his son is one of the major political personalities in the USA (the political career of Rand Paul is also entirely a legacy of the Ron Paul movements of 2006-12), and his influence is considerable, even though the regime cracked down hard on the successor political currents.

PS

Another observation on Ron Paul, or perhaps more properly rendered as the Ron Paul Movement, is the so-called "pipeline" which introduced many b.1980s and b.1990s young men to semi-non-system dissident politics (also many later b.1970s men who had previously been neutral politically).

There was so little of this in the 2000s (excluding several dank, poorly lit corners of discourse, often online in that the early Internet era, full of malcontents, an lacking the vigor necessary to break through), there was so little non-system dissident politics before Ron Paul that it was like a sudden burst-through of the Sun and a cool breeze after days of gloomy overcast skies and cold rain.

The people activated or galvanized by the Ron Paul phenomenon of 2006 to 2012 became politically homeless after 2012, but had been activated as a political class, and there was no putting humpty dumpty back together again, even if you could brush humpty dumpty under some bushes (pun semi-intended re: Bush family).

Then in mid-2015, these same people got behind the early MAGA-Trump movement. They formed one of its core bases of support and, critically, a large portion of its activist wing. The MAGA-Trump movement was of course in its essence one of a soft-ethnonationalism for White-Christian Middle America (the Left is correct about this), and so these Ron Paul people had come through this "pipeline" from in-theory-doctrinaire libertarianism to ethnonationalism. In the mid- and late-2010s you heard talk of this "pipeline" in some corners.

PS

I have memories of Ron Paul with other R-Team suits, the only one talking about securing the border and clamping down on illegal immigration, while others had responses ranging from either noncommittal to mockery.

Ron Paul usually paired securing the border and cracking down on illegals with getting out of "policing the world." My memory tells me he proposed ending the wars and deploying the US military on the Mexico border to help police the border and patrol it, to shut down illegal migrant flows. This pair of positions especially earned him ire from usual suspects.

I therefore have to disagree with the characterization that Ron Paul, in his influential 2006-2008 and 2011-2012 campaigns, tip-toed around the Immigration Question.

PS I’m always happy to see someone take even baby steps toward our side of the Great Divide. Especially someone with the sort of following that Ron Paul has. But Libertarianism is simply consistent classical liberalism. Classical liberals can see cultural differences, but if one sees cultural differences as reflecting racial differences, one pretty soon ceases to be a classical liberal.

PS

Mr. Biden’s stance on Hungarian democracy is right up there with US warnings that Russia should not interfere with the “democratic” government in Ukraine... you know, the one the US installed by the US, under the supervision of old State pros like Victoria “F*** the EU” Nuland, to replace the one that was actually elected by the Ukranian people.

Yes, it is easy to laugh at the “Democracy Summit” of a country that holds at least 600 of its own citizens as political prisoners without the benefit of the speedy trial guaranteed by the US Constitution, not to mention the saps held in GITMO for nearly two decades without fair trials because they might actually be acquitted.

I hate to say it, but the Republic has fallen, and it doesn’t look like it can ever get back on its Constitutional footing.