I am not sure who is being referred to here, but why would a scholar or a seeker after truth (which all honest people should be) want to avoid certain truths, or approve of others who avoid certain truths, just because those truths are deemed off-limits by the PC totalitarians? This is a dismaying viewpoint all the way around.
It's what used to be termed a "mutually consensual hallucination." The system is kept in place by the vast majority believing in it, no matter how absurdist it gets.
What PC does is give society an existence of its own creation. Perhaps this is a result of the rootlessness of the modern world. Or the alienation caused by the omnipresent media. People do not live their lives, they watch them via reality TV. Borges' short story, "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", talks about how a fake world displaces a real world in need of meaning.
One suspects the fanaticism with which PC is defended only indicates the extnt to which the balloon would burst if a strong enough challenge emerged.
Comment 1:
I just want to rant real fast about that military guy who called me an ignorant racist on facebook.....(have u noticed that this bugs me)
Anyways...
So on his facebook page he recently wrote something along the lines of
"I can't wait to go back to Iraq. Iraq is easier than real life, you just gotta stay alive...but then the military tells you when to wake up...when to go to sleep...what to do. Real life is hard."
Doesn't that just sum it up? I personally don't have this problem at all.
I'm going someplace with this I swear....but its late 
cab: Is he a Obama supporter?
Excellent observations, thank you. Americans all around me (40yo+) are waking up, and they are boiling mad. Trouble is, they think there is little real chance for change, so they either do nothing and start talking about the end of the world, or they pretend the situation is not so bad and continue as before. It's becoming ridiculous. Something's gonna snap if this keeps up.
I would prefer to drop the term “Ellis Islander” and use a more accurate description, like:
Children of hell, sons of the devil, whited sepulchers, offspring of the father of lies, killers of the Prophets, the Synagogue of Satan, the Great Harlot, and the Mother of Prostitutes and the Abominations of the Earth.
That way I won't be confused as to which alien race you’re writing about.
VA,
It's too late for a long comment, but you will find this article interesting: Jewish Power
http://www.righteousjews.org/art.../
article10.html
Also, this may not be exactly on issue, but I have a comment pertaining to the above article posted at Age of Treason, "We're White...".
http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/
It's time for prissy PCer's to piss off.
I think you're being too imprecise in your use of the term "Ellis Islander".
Why dance around the issue? You're replying to Gottfried, and you write of "the victim card".
And here, the trump card comes out: the victim card. ''My ancestors suffered the most; quitcher whining,'' is the implicit -- actually, rather explicit -- message.
In my experience, only Jews make the above argument.
VA, I don't know how you define old-stock American. Is it just descendants of colonial-era settlers? Or is it anyone of northwestern European origin?
patrick - Old-stock American means a descendant of colonist stock, or at least from ancestors who were here before the Revolution. Generally speaking that means Anglo-American but by my rather broad definition it also includes Cajuns, descendants of Dutch colonists and others, generally northwest Europeans. Any northwest Europeans who arrived later are, in my book, part of the extended American family, being kin to begin with, and also being grafted in by the act of coming here and becoming culturally part of America, with undivided allegiances.
No offense is meant to anybody here by my definition.
Some took exception to my term Ellis Islanders, saying it's not specific enough. But to be fair, the Ellis Island syndrome is not limited to Jews, but it's common to other ethnic groups who arrived during that same era and who are still inordinately attached to the immigrant experience, which seems to have some kind of transcendent spiritual significance for them. I can't count the number of times I've heard stories of victimhood, of how those WASP Americans were so mean to somebody's grandma or great-grandpa back when he was just off the boat from wherever. Here's an example.
http://hnn.us/articles/23824.html
Notice the reference to the 'hallowed ground of Ellis Island' in that article.
The syndrome is common to Jews as well as to others whose ancestors landed there. There is unfortunately a whole variety of people who see White Anglo-Americans as their enemies or at least adversaries.
-VA
Unfortunately those stories are true sometimes, not that it really matters today, as those who did these things are long since dead.
People in my grandparents' generation may remember prejudice against immigrants from southern Europe. People in my dad's generation don't remember hostility against them (unless they lived in very homogeneously Anglo and northern European areas) and people in my generation are barely aware that any of these events even happened, nor do they particularly care.
I am part Sicilian, and I sure don't see Anglo-Americans as my enemies, nor does anyone I know.
After all, my mother is an what you call an old-stock American; she is of English, Scots, German and American Indian descent.
I don't, for that matter, see Blacks, Hispanics or other minorities in general as my enemies. If they are hostile to Whites as a group (e.g. Pastor Jeremiah Wright) or are trying to pursue their ethnic interests at the expense of the country as a whole (NAACP and La Raza come to mind), I don't like them at all. But I don't think this describes all individual members of minority groups. Maybe I'm just a naive liberal.
patrick: i agree with you. I'm Italian-American and find the notion that Italians in America have "divided allegencies" to be so .. um.. invented.
Re: Ellis Island Syndrome. Yes, annoying and worse. I'm part Irish, but our family's old Irish immigrant generation was as ferociously patriotic and dedicated to the founding principles as anybody. Sure, they had anecdotes of prejudice, but they attached no lasting meaning to them, and they certainly didn't incorporate them into some silly anti-WASP identity. I speculate that "Ellis Islandism" among later immigrant groups will far more likely be found among people who stayed in the old Eastern cities, and is negligible among those who "lit out for the territories".
If you'll permit a slightly OT meander here - there is nothing sillier, and more personally annoying, than contemporary Americans of Irish origin playing "victim group member" or indulging in any "third world solidarity" tripe. (Dude, you're white, and everybody thinks so, and always has, despite what Noel Ignatiev (sp?) told you. And I've got worse news - everybody thinks of you as "Anglo", too. Grow up and get over it.) 'Course, in my experience these sorts of Irish-Americans are few in number, and probably not as noxious as, say, those Cubans who've recently become aware of the bold new frontier of opportunity opened by rebranding themselves as "Hispanics". LOL - in my youth, a guaranteed method of earning yourself a good beating or at least eternal enmity was to suggest to a Cuban (or a white Puerto Rican, for that matter), that they weren't really white men. Now they're clamoring to be non-white - at least when the gravy-train whistle goes off. (Pretty funny - but not quite as comical as an American of Irish descent posturing as a "person of color".)
Americans whose ancestry traces back to Italy/Sicily have always struck me as especially patriotic and outspoken Americans.
I think what Gottfried was pointing to was this: White Americans, regardless of ancestry or creed, had better get their act together and soon. Before it's too late.
He knows whereof he speaks - no doubt members of his own extended family believed themselves to be upstanding Germans first and foremost and therefore immune from brutal, murderous tyranny right up until they boarded the trains, never to return. He knows good and well that if America goes down, he goes down with her.
Old Stock Americans have had their share of mistakes against themselves. Their original mistake drives them to seek any solution but facing up to it.
All VA is saying is that there's a difference between those of us whose ancestors conceived this country, planted it and nurtured it through its infancy, and those desecended from the ones who came her after it was already developed into a rich and opportunity-providing nation. I look back at my backwoodsmen ancestors, the guys in the buckskin jackets and coonskin caps, living in their wooden shacks on the frontier, eating snakes, constantly threatened with sudden death from Indian attacks -- how did they do it? How did they survive? (Many of them didn't.) How did they know all their trials and travails would ever pay off? They had a much tougher time of it than those who lived in even the worst 19th century New York immigrant slum.
I've already devoted way more time to this thread than I want to, but I will just say one phrase: hyphenated Americans. The hyphen says it all.
I won't respond any more on this thread.
-VA
Americans whose ancestry traces back to Italy/Sicily have always struck me as especially patriotic and outspoken Americans.
You got that right. I think Italians are amoungst the most vocal in expressing their patriotism.
Our families came here with nothing and never looked back.
VA,
What kind of mindset might cause some Ellis Islanders to have a different viewpoint about the reason for being patriotic toward America, or at least be on a diffent plane of thought about giving unswerving loyalty to the country after their assimilation which was from others who came into our country?
I think many can remember when business in America was supportive of America, but it cannot be said to be that way today. The same could be said about earlier American non-governmental and fraternal and social organizations. What has caused the massive "wave of internationalism", both in the mindset of the public and in the operational aspects of those formerly patriotic businesses which steadfastly supported traditional American principles?
The following may give some indication what some differences may be:
Quotes from The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews Volume One
Published by The Nation of Islam, Chicago, Illinois 1991
http://users.cyberone.com.au/mye...ers/
secret.html
"...the Dutch West India Company colonized and settled the Western Hemisphere solely to establish a steady flow of natural wealth back to its European investors, not to any national authority. This is a critical distinction and the source of much of the animosity against the Jews. The Gentiles were, for the most part, nationalists, owing their allegiance to the nation in whose territory they resided. They respected the edicts of their government particularly with regard to international relations. The Jews, on the other hand, considered themselves as Jews first, particularly in international commerce. They remained internationalists without the patriotic fervor of their Gentile countrymen. When their host country was at war with a trading partner of the Jews, and on whom an embargo had been placed, the Jews would continue trade by various methods including the changing the name of the ship and/or its owner to one suiting the law in the port where they desired entry. They did not see this smuggling as illegal or even harmful just business. These were, after all, private transactions among private businesses and individuals - not with any government....".
---
Nation of Islam book? What's wrong.. couldn't find the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Vince, I'm just an American trying to find answers to why problems are happening in our country which should never have become a problem, and I don't have the "Protocals" (maybe you will lend me your copy?).
I am not adverse to gaining and discussing information from different sources. I'm sure you prefer information from "approved" or Jewish sources, and would prefer that everyone's information came only from them. That may be your definition of free speech, but it is not an American's definition.
You may prefer a source where the author was also a Zionist:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/...cle.asp?
ID=5379
---
Flanders Fields.. Going to the Nation of Islam to find solutions to help America?
Puh-lease.
I understand your point that the information is not good, because of the source of the information, Vince. I understood it the last time you said it, too.
It is apparant that you prefer your information from other, "more mainstream", sources:
"Decent, ordinary Americans are forced to begin to question whether Jews are bad for this country. I realize how inflammatory this statement is ... I do know that I am not alone in this concern ...The spokesmen for groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Veterans of America and Lesbian Task Force are all too often Jewish. Many of the member organizations of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice are Jewish. The membership of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a champion of ultra-liberal causes, is disproportionately high in Jews. The ACLU's leadership is almost reminiscent of a temple board meeting ... So many of the enthusiasts for the radical homosexual agenda, increased immorality, and expanded abortion rights are Jewish."
- rabbi Daniel Lapin, "America's Real War," (1999)
------------
"When the Hungarians opposed the outrages of those Jews, the cry of "white terror" was sent broadcast, and Count Teleki says "we (Hungarians) had no means to defend ourselves," for the reason that the dissemination of news and, therefore, the means to mold public opinion, were in the hands and control of Jews in Europe. Those Polish and Russian Jews could torture the Hungarians,--they could wait in front of Christian Churches for the Hungarian Christians and as those Christians came out of the churches they could be hanged to the nearest trees; but Christian civilization did not hear of it. But if a Hungarian Christian happened to step on the small toe of any of those Jews the Jew had yelled so loud, that the whole of Christendom had heard it."
- Birinyi, The Tragedy of Hungary, Ch. XX, p. 180-181.
------
"Modern banking, according to many economic historians, actually began in the nineteenth century with the rise of the House of Rothschild. Other Jewish banking houses followed suit: Bleichroder in Berlin, Warburg in Hamburg, Oppenheim in Cologne, Speyer in Frankfurt, the Sassoons in Bombay, and Haym Salomon of American Revolutionary War fame."
------
"The most glaring overrepresentation of Jews in German commerce was in the entertainment sector. For example, in 1930, 80 percent of Berlin's theater directors were Jewish and 75 percent of the plays produced were written by Jews."
- Both above: Dr. Joshua Halberstam, Schmoozing: the Private Conversations of American Jews (1997)
------------
"It is true that Jews are represented in the media business in numbers far out of proportion to their share of the population."
---
"And in a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation."
---
"Whatever
You should look into the Muslim influence.
Guess which nations have like TRILLIANS of dollars and are infiltrating or buying all of our institutions?
I mean if you want a conspiracy , there's a real one.. greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world is on-going right now.
All of our wealth is being sucked into the pit of Arabia.. who are building entire new cities from the desert.
That money comes right back here in the guise of things like CAIR and the Muslim Student Association , and endowments to Universities.. and on and on and on. Saudi Arabia is buying the Professors at our elite schools so that they can control what is taught about Islam. I don’t think anyone would be surprised to find out the Dept of State is a subsidiary of Saudi Arabia. We have Islamists in the Pentagon making sure any staff who could get fired, threaten people who make noise about Islam with firing.
So.. I don’t know.. maybe you're onto something with your Jew obsession.. but it’s odd that you would ignore a similar nefarious plot that is a million times larger. If I had to choose who my evil overlords would be , I would pick the Jews… Life under Sharia law is unbearable. Plus I don’t think the Jews want to destroy us in a nuclear annihilation. The Muslims do.. and with how stupid this country is getting, they probably will
(Halo's limit cut-off was reached). The following will complete the post:
"Whatever their situation, however, in almost every country about which we have information, a segment of the Jewish community played a very vital role in movements designed to undermine the existing order."
The above three comments were from - S.Rothman and S. R. Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians and the Left (1982).
If you haven't noticed, Vince, all of the above were from Jewish authors. A couple of quotes from other sources, some unidentified (but not from Nation of Islam) will complete the comment:
"Why should Whites focus their attention on the Jews and not on Blacks or Mexicans? Simple. Blacks don't dominate Hollywood. Mexicans don't dominate the U.S. media. Further, Asians don't influence our U.S. Congress to a horrifying degree. Indians don't dominate U.S. gun control activism."
---
"If racial diversity makes America stronger, then America must have been a weak country in 1955."
------
A final quote, from Finley Peter Dunne, may be wise for most of us to keep in mind, Vince. I try to keep it in mind, also:
"What you don't know isn't the problem; it's what you do 'know' that just isn't so."
I'm fed up with the antics of both jews and muslims. The idea that we have to choose one or the other is a false dichotomy. Whites don't need either.
The Islamic eschatology teaches Muslims that in their last days, that they, the Muslims, will conquer the Jews and annihilate them.
That the future Caliph will base the Caliphate empire in Jerusalem, and then once there is a legal authority, the call go out to all Muslims around the world to begin the Global Offensive Jihad to bring about the long-promised condition of the entire world being under sharia law.
If you think you could throw under Israel under the bus because of your cowardace or selfishness and somehow think the Muslims will be content with just the Jews, then you're deluded.
Being Pro-Israel is being Pro-American.
If you dont believe me look up
"First comes Saturday then comes Sunday"
I'm sorry you swallow that crap. Truly.
I dont have to follow that crap.
That is what they believe. It doesn't matter what I think about it. If you want to understand what their intentions are, and what the consequences of your idea is (which was to not support Israel because it is not in our interest) then you have to try , just a little, to understand how they would perceive their destroying Israel and how that affects their bellegerence towards us.
If they destroy Israel, tey will have total 100% self-confidence that our destruction is assured. We're already hobbled , we hvae no will to fight, and becauase of political correctness we can't even call our enemy what they are.
Wars are won by the people who decide to fight the longest. They have been at it for 1,400 years... We've had one of the least costly wars all things being equal, and apparently 5 years is just way tooooo long. The Muslims understand this inability we have to see anythign through.
I dont understand why all you well-researched Jewish conspiracy throwbacks don't research the even greater, and more importantly, real, "conspiracy" that is right in front of everyone's eyes.
I'm not talking about islam. I have a shelf full of books about islam. Stop lecturing me about it.
Why don't you educate yourself a bit about European and jewish history? How did we get "hobbled"?
You might start by googling "jewish golden age".
They you might try and look into the root of political correctness. Try googling "cultural marxism".
You said "we" don't need either the jews or muslims.. I responded that we do need Israel because if the Muslims destroy it, it will set them in a frenzy.
You called that viewpoint "crap".
Apparently you needed the lecture since you didn't read your books.
The crap to which I referred is your zionism.
If the muslims destroy israel...what's your point? That Americans should be willing to fly around the world and die to protect israel and the interests of internationalist plutocrats who couldn't care less about our own borders? No thanks.
Who pried open our borders to the turd world? Who shipped all our jobs overseas? Who is bailing out the Wall Street fatcats? Muslims?
Lecturer, educate thyself.
Who is bailing out the Wall Street fatcats? Muslims?
The Arab world gets $2.1 BILLION dollar from one day's fuel cost from America every day
I"m sure they're doing nothing with that money.
Some secret group of Jews with Trillians is the right answer right?
Because muslims are your boogeymen it makes sense you think jews are mine. You can't seem to get it through your head that neither of them cares very much for anyone but their own. I'm not muslim or jew, how about you?
Vince, I think Tanstaafl has the right question to you in his last comment. What is the answer?
You had earlier asked:
"Guess which nations have like TRILLIANS of dollars and are infiltrating or buying all of our institutions?"
Guess which "non-nations from the many nations" have like TRILLIONS of dollars and have not only bought managing interest in most of our institutions but have transferred most of the producing assets out of our country? Why are multinationals based in the US no longer loyal to US interests?
>Vince, I think Tanstaafl has the right question to you in his last comment. What is the answer?
What's the question. (I'm not playing games.. but the conversation is muddled)
>Guess which "non-nations from the many nations" have like TRILLIONS of dollars and have not only bought managing interest in most of our institutions but have transferred most of the producing assets out of our country? Why are multinationals based in the US no longer loyal to US interests?
This is econ 101. I'm not a tutor.
Vince,
You seem to evade the question asked by Tanstaafl, but that is of no concern since, either as a Zionist or as a "Christian" Zionist you realize that all criticism of Israel, and by extension, you, is anti-semitic, and therefore unjustified.
What is of concern is whether you know who you support and why.
"The new ruling elites do not care much for Christ or Muhammad, it is true, but they have a lot of religious feeling towards another old Deity, Mammon. This ancient god of greed was much loved by Pharisees, some two millennia back, as we learn from the Gospel. Jesus told them: you can not serve both God and Mammon. But Pharisees sneered at him, because they loved money’[i]. This faith was pushed away by the following developments. Love of Mammon became known as Avarice, one of the Mortal Sins, it was condemned by Christian and Muslim societies alike.
But it did not disappear completely. Two thousand years later, a grandson of the Trier Rabbi, Karl Marx, came to a revolutionary conclusion: the faith of Mammon, this ‘weekday religion of Jews’, in his words, became the real religion of American elites. Marx approvingly quoted a colonel Hamilton, ‘Mammon is Yankees’ idol, they worship it not only with their lips, but with all strength of their body and soul. In their eyes, the earth is but a stock exchange, and they are convinced that they do not have other purpose on earth but to become richer than their neighbours’. Marx concluded, ‘The practical domination of Jewish spirit over the Christian world has achieved in North America its unambiguous, complete expression’."
---
"But Zionism is a local disease. Its big brother, Mammonitis, is a world-wide plague, that wants to turn the world into a “ Big Israel”, with shopping malls and destroyed villages, settlements for the chosen few, and many-many refugees as a source of cheap labour. Zionists ruined nature of Palestine, Mammonites ruin the world environment. Zionists uprooted Palestinians, Mammonites uproot all.
Zionists fight Christ. In modern Israel, St Paul and St Peter would be jailed for teaching Gospel. Mammonites fight every faith, every conviction, Christ and Muhammad, Nationalism and Communism. Enemies of Zionism hope Mammonites will reign the Zionists in, as too independent policy of Zionists can become an obstacle to the world-embracing plans of Mammonites. But I tell you, God tolerates the excesses of Zionists so you would notice the plans of Mammonites."
The above is from Israel Shamir, "On the Move":
http://www.israelshamir.net/
Engl...On_the_Move.htm
>You seem to evade the question asked by Tanstaafl, but that is of no concern since, either as a Zionist or as a "Christian" Zionist you realize that all criticism of Israel, and by extension, you, is anti-semitic, and therefore unjustified.
Not at all. If I understand the Jewish conspiracty correctly.. these are non-religious secular Jews, not connected to Israel in any way.
As such, I see nothing distinctive about them.. they have nothing that their fellow-non-Jewish conspirators don't have.
That's why I think it's silly to focus on just the Jewish internationalists. They have plenty of non-Jewish compadres.
I admit to not being up-to-speed on these things because i think it's all ridiculious.
The original zionists were secular socialists
Today's Zionists are the religous. The secular socialists are doing thier best to destroy all countries.
Here's what I was talking about:
http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=1374
Arabs Buying Out Collapsing Western Banks
First it was Citibank. Now it’s Barclay’s and New York City’s Chrysler Building skyscraper. Muslim Arabs are buying out collapsing Western banks and businesses and gaining growing international power, but some Arab investors are worried their investments may go down the drain with the American economy.
The current financial crisis in the United States has spread to other countries because of a massive debt that was not backed by enough real and liquid collateral. Banks and businesses gasping for financial breath are up for sale at basement prices, but no one is certain if the basement is the bottom.
“The possibility remains that more Arab white knights will be sought to rescue ailing financial institutions,” wrote Dr. Mohammed Ramady, a former banker and Visiting Associate Professor at the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in the Financial Adviser magazine. He said he fears that Arab investors will end up chasing their investments with more money to keep them from going under.
The Abu Dhabi Investment Council of the oil-rich United Arab Emirates kingdom of Abu Dhabi last November announced it was bailing out the mammoth Citibank financial institution, formerly headed by Bank of Israel Governor Prof. Stanley Fischer, with $7.5 billion.
Next in line was Britain’s Barclay’s Bank, which raised $9 billion from investors in the oil-rich kingdom of Qatar and in Asian countries. The Abu Dhabi Investment Council last month forked out approximately $800 million for a 75 percent stake in New York City’s 1,046-foot-tall Chrysler Building, which was the world’s tallest building for a year until the Empire State Building surpassed it in the 1930’s.
The purchase of American banks by foreigners has been blocked in the past by security and political considerations, but the barriers have come down, wrote Dr. Ramady. “How long this lasts is only a matter of guesswork, as once again, the specter of foreign takeovers of ‘national’ symbols will be hard to accept,” he added.
The latest American symbol to go down the drain is the Anheuser-Busch beer brewer. The Times of London wrote, “The weak dollar and weak economy mean the United States is up for sale. Japs are conquering the car industry. Arabs just bought part of the Chrysler Building. Jeez, they even tried to buy the ports a while back. Whatever next? A hijab on the Statue of Liberty?”
In a more serious vein, The Australian editor-at-large Paul Kelly wrote earlier this month that the foreign investments, headed by Arabs, signal a major change in international power.
“The energy, financial and political woes that grip the U.S. signal a decisive shift in world power, mocking the liberal delusion that Barack Obama or John McCain can return American prestige and power to its pre-Bush year 2000 nirvana,” he wrote. “There is no such nirvana. There is instead a ne
“The energy, financial and political woes that grip the U.S. signal a decisive shift in world power, mocking the liberal delusion that Barack Obama or John McCain can return American prestige and power to its pre-Bush year 2000 nirvana,” he wrote. “There is no such nirvana. There is instead a new reality: the greatest transfer of income in human history [and] the rise of a new breed of wealthy autocracies that cripple U.S. hopes of dominating the global system and demands on the U.S. to make fresh compromises in a world where power is rapidly being diversified.”
Flynt Leverett, former director of Middle East Affairs on the National Security Council, thinks that “the international economic position of the United States has deteriorated substantially since the new millennium.”
In the current issue of The American Interest, Gal Luft, from the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, warned that OPEC’s Arab countries could potentially “buy the Bank of America with two months’ worth of production and General Motors with six days’ worth.”
The growing Arab takeover of American businesses continues unhindered. The giant Dow Chemical company and a Kuwaiti company have agreed to set up world headquarters for their joint petrochemical venture in Dearborn, Michigan, which has a high concentration of American Arabs.
The Abu Dubai Investment Council years ago entered the international media business, buying a nine percent stake in Reuters News Agency, which usually reports with an open anti-Israeli bias.
However, Abu Dhabi’s’ director of international affairs, Yousef al Otaiba, has reassured American officials that its purchase of Citibank will not be used to exert political pressure on the U.S. He wrote the Treasury Department, “It is important to be absolutely clear that the Abu Dhabi government has never and will never use its investment organizations or individual investments as a foreign policy tool.”
Commenting by HaloScan
