The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
The French National Front and Donald Trump
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

A certain similarity exists between the French National Front, which garnered slightly over 25 % in the recent EU elections, and the soaring poll numbers of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. Both the supporters of Marine Le Pen, who is president of the Front, and the largely working-class fans of billionaire presidential candidate Donald Trump are routinely denounced in the establishment press as the morally indecent “far right.” From all appearances, however, media attacks on these burgeoning movements have had no impact on their continuing growth.

Although the Republican establishment and the Murdoch press came down gang-busters on Trump after the August 6 debate for Republican presidential candidates, Trump’s poll numbers are continuing to rise. Unlike the Murdoch media, however, the Washington Post (August 5) has dealt objectively with why Trump enjoys almost three times the poll numbers of his nearest rival, Jeb Bush. His attacks on indiscriminate immigration for hurting American workers, whose wages have been stagnating for decades, resonates well with millions of struggling Americans. The Post-reporter, Jim Tankersley, quoting longtime Democratic journalist Mickey Kaus, points out that while Trump “is not the only Republican candidate who’s talking tough on immigration,” “he’s the one framing the argument that ‘we’re being taken advantage of.’ And that appears to be connecting.”

Neither the Postnor Kaus, who has written about the anemic wages of American workers, has a dog in this fight. As far as I know, neither is being paid by the super-donors of the GOP, like the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson. They argue forthrightly that although “immigration may grow GDP,” it is doing nothing to help American workers. Needless to say, this is not a problem most of our Republican presidential candidates would care to engage. When in the debate on August 5 Jeb Bush stressed that amnestying illegals and presumably increasing immigration from Latin America would spur enormous economic growth in the US, none of the far from dispassionate question-askers bothered to grill him on his statements Nor did Mexico-booster Jeb represent the Trump-supporters interviewed by the Post in Virginia, who were full of rage about losing their jobs to cheaper Hispanic laborers: “For white workers, these people are taking their jobs. Literally taking their jobs, as I see it. Almost all the white guys are gone. There’s almost no black guys.”

The National Front may be the European model that resembles the Trump-movement the most closely in terms of its social appeal; and so it may pay here to note a few facts about a mass party in Europe that has prospered in the face of media loathing. Guillaume Fay, a sympathetic critic, sums up the reasons that the Front resonates among its core voters:

[It] crystalizes the anguish of millions of French natives who have become progressively strangers in their own country, in the land of their fathers, who are insulted and stigmatized incessantly by protected oligarchs, ethno-masochists and xenophiles. They are the ones who suffer the ravages of mass immigration and mounting Islamicization. They are the ones whose lives are ruined not only by high taxes that weigh on the middle classes and their families but who submit to a state and justice system that acts in breach of their duty and which do not provide for their safety. Indeed this system does more to aid clandestine families than a Frenchman who has roots in the country [un Francais de souche], someone who is unemployed or retired but who has paid taxes his entire life in the private sector. Such people feel nostalgic for a France that is disappearing and where they lived well.

The National Front stands out among parties in Western Europe because it is the only one that may someday take power in a major European country but which is thundered against in news services as “rightwing extremist”. But progress toward assuming national power will depend on the capacity of Marine Le Pen and her advisers to negotiate alliances with center parties currently allied to the UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire), the biggest and richest party in the media-approved “conservative” coalition.

In France a single mega-party has long dominated politics at all levels, and it is a fusion of Nicholas Sarkozy’s UMP, its changing centrist partners and the Socialist Party on the official left. Frenchmen refer to this as the “UMPS” the way Americans who are disenchanted with our politics-as-usual refer contemptuously to our “Demreps” or “Repdems.” In runoff electoral races, which take place if no single French party or party bloc can win a majority the first time around, the duopoly will mechanically back someone from their ranks, lest the National Front win an elected office. In Michel Houellebecq’s partly satirical novel Soumission, the UMP and the Socialists work together to keep a member of the Front from winning the presidency. As an act of desperation, the establishment parties get behind a Muslim fanatic running in the French presidential race, who, once elected, proceeds to Islamicize France. Houellebecq is underlining the frantic way in which the parties in power closes rank against “the extreme Right,” no matter what the cost of this reflex gesture.

The National Front must therefore work hard to expand its electoral base, in order to build an alliance with one or more of the centrist splinter groups. If it can obtain a majority of the votes for representatives to the National Assembly or in the presidential race, however, it may be able to form its own government despite the intransigent opposition of the “UMPS.” Under Marine Le Pen and the vice president of the Front, Florian Philippot, great efforts have been made to render the party appealing to the indigenous working class and more recently, to France’s huge civil service class. In its latest party program, state employees, particularly teachers, have been assured that the Front will look after them, providing they think of themselves and act as members of the historic French nation.

ORDER IT NOW

Marine has struggled hard to dissociate the Front from the battles of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has had stormy relations with Jewish organizations. The senior Le Pen has struck back furiously at groups that have tried to implicate the French people in the Holocaust. Although Marine and Philippot are being prudent in trying to distance themselves from the verbal indiscretions of the former head of the Front, one may question the wisdom of the extent of her departure from Jean Marie’s more traditional conservative stands. Unlike Marine, Jean-Marie had called for decentralizing France’s public school system, which, like its American counterpart, is occupied mostly by representatives of the Left. Jean-Marie, has also always been wary of France’s vast public administration, which employs about a quarter of the national workforce and has advocated reducing the size and influence of the French administrative class Even more significantly, he goes beyond the modest republican patriotism of his daughter and proclaims France to be a “civilization” reaching back fifteen hundred years. It is the historic nation rather than “republican institutions” that commands his respect. Finally, Jean-Marie has been unflinchingly forthright in speaking about “le grand remplacement,” the process by which the native population in France is being replaced by a growing Third World presence.

Most French traditionalists and French critics of a steadily expanding welfare state believe that the National Front may be going too far in shedding its nationalist and fiscally responsible identity. According to many of its non-leftist critics, the National Front is becoming just another welfare-state party, albeit one that is taking a hard stand regarding illegals and sending back “asylum-seekers.” (Even “asylum-seekers” whose right to stay in France have been denied, have benefited from extended “temporary allocations of aid” and medical assistance.) Guillaume Fay has warned the Front’s leadership against forgetting the major reasons that Frenchmen support it, which are “the problems of immigration, a perceived Islamic threat, physical safety and ethnic-national identity.” Both Marine and Philippot, who was trained as a French administrator at the prestigious Ecole Nationale d’Administration , may falsely imagine that their voters are demanding new social programs, even at the cost of higher taxes. The Front, according to Faye, has elected to take over the “positions of the old extreme Left,” while trying to fuse them with a tough immigration policy.

To whatever extent this criticism may be true, the same can be said about where Trump has positioned himself. Trump’s recent defense of Planned Parenthood, although not the organization’s abortion activities, his backtracking on sending back illegal Mexican residents, and his defenses of the IRS as a tax-collecting agency are clearly indications of Trump’s efforts to expand his base. But these overtures may not help him, any more than Marine’s championing of French functionaries and public school instructors as “integral parts of the Republic” will provide her party with mainstream respectability. She and Trump have been ridiculed by the establishment media and the political establishment for being opportunistic and inconsistent when they try to mainstream themselves. This is to be expected. Spokespersons for the Demreps, establishment columnists like George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Clarence Page and the usual editorialists in Le Monde and Figaroare always on the prowl for right-wingers who are seen as stepping out of line. And once the establishment finds its targets, it’s not going to let up, not even if its preferred targets offer spanking-new social programs. It is also foolish to think that the desperate flock to critics of immigration who are being spat on by the media because these critics are eager to pay civil servants larger pensions or are trying to save government subsidies for Planned Parenthood. Support for the credible Right comes from the angry and alienated, not from Jeb Bush’s ten or twelve corporate backers and least of all from the editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal and New York Times.

It is one thing to assure the forty or fifty percent of the population that (unfortunately) is dependent on government salaries or pensions that they won’t abandoned if the National Front or the Trumpites comes to power. It’s another thing to try to outdo the socialist or Cultural Marxist Left in promising goodies that leftist constituents expect the Left to deliver. There is no way the Right can hope to beat the Left by expanding leftist social programs.

In one critical respect, however, the National Front is in a much stronger position than the Trumpites. They have an organized party with a program, the most recent of which was issued in January 2012, and this widely distributed program limits as well as underlines what the party is committed to doing. By contrast, what Trump stands for depends on what he chooses to say. This is not entirely the Donald’s fault. He is operating in a country in which the duopoly and its protectorshave prevented a third (really a second) party from evolving on the non-prescribed right. Our system is even more locked in place than the French one. We are therefore dependent on charismatic figures in order to galvanize the Right; and these figures, like Buchanan and Trump, have to operate within the Republican Party, an organizational tent whose gate-keepers want nothing to do with them. Given these operational difficulties, Trump may be the best presidential candidate that the American populist Right can find at the present time.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Trump’s appeal is quite simple. He’s the only candidate–Republican or Democrat–that seems to believe that the United States is an actual sovereign country, that has every right to control its borders and send back illegal immigrants. All the other candidates are “post-American.” These post-American candidates believe in open borders, globalism, and fighting wars to spread liberal values/”human rights.” The notion that the United States is a nation state offends the other candidates, especially the shills for Conservative Inc (look at how National Review accused Bernie Sanders of being a “national socialist” for expressing skepticism about open borders and “free trade” policies).

    Read More
    • Agree: E. Burke
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/article/the-french-national-front-and-donald-trump/#comment-1076506
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Trump is killing it with the white working class. I recently spoke with a close working class friend of mine and he prefers Trump and Clinton in that order. What a lot of people don’t understand is Hillary’s popularity with working class voters. She does best with people who remember the “good years” of the 90s when work was easy to find, life was affordable and competition from immigrants not yet noticeable.

    But today this is Hillary’s achilles’ heel. The Democrats have changed. They are essentially a minority party now, and she’s switched from being an immigration restrictionist herself to being a typical open borders progressive.

    Her natural constituency – working white people of modest means – is feeling the burn from the policies she now supports. And she’s wedded to these policies for this election cycle. Trump, more than anyone, can devour these disaffected potential Hillary voters — both male and female. The much-touted women’s vote is a fraud. Hillary may poll extremely well with overeducated lesbians, but they represent less than 1% of the electorate, and no Republican could lay claim to them in any event. Women with working husbands want jobs for their men as much as anyone. Even single women who traditionally support Democrats can be swayed toward Trump with the idea that their dating pool will be more optimistic and, most importantly, employed. This has crossover appeal to blacks and Hispanics, too.

    The progressive class in the US has become so enamored with itself – so prone to navel gazing – that it is incapable of seeing what’s happening right in front of its nose. When Jeb Bush made his politically retarded comments about the need for more NSA surveillance combined with corporate cooperation in the effort it was clear to me that these people are only accustomed to talking to each other, and haven’t the slightest clue what the vast multitudes of American people are thinking. In his calculus, Jeb was saying “I want to increase government data collection programs and give Silicon Valley a big boost of federal money,” and he thought that was the right political message. But he forgot he was talking to the 0.1% and alienating something like 50% of voters.

    Likewise, when Hillary says she supports illegal immigration she’s talking to the same tiny class of people, plus maybe 5% of voters (at most) to whom naturalization of illegals is a pressing issue.

    I have no idea how Trump has tapped into the mentality of the average American, but he’s done it, and that’s the key to his popularity. Maybe he’s a lot smarter than the other candidates. Maybe he has “friends in low places.” Maybe he’s just free to speak his mind because he’s rich. Whatever the case, he’s got an enormous advantage. I don’t think anything will slow him down other than an assassin, and that’s something he really should keep in mind, especially with the threat he poses to the notoriously violent Mexican establishment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dahoit
    Ridiculous;Shillary is a poster girl of the neolibcons who have destroyed the American worker.
    She just wants Latino votes.Yesterday some commenter said the barrios of America will vote!Why do we have barrios(ghettos)in America?
  3. The similarities between Trump and the National Front are very obvious and totally under-reported — so kudos for writing this article. But there are several things that need clarifying.

    First off, as Marine Le Pen often says, the Left/Right dichotomy is for the most part useless. These are partisan sheep pens the oligarchs create to help defend their wealth and power. Half the oligarch friendly ideas are put in the Left camp, the other half in the Right camp so that no matter who wins, enough oligarch friendly policies will be implemented so that oligarchic wealth and power only expands.

    The far more important paradigm is Globalist vs. Nationalist. This is the framework through which to judge political policies. And so far just about everything I have heard coming out of Donald Trump’s mouth is Nationalist. And Nationalism — constraining Oligarchic power through the use of national borders — is as Oligarchic-phobic as you can get. Through tariffs and immigration control, multi-nationals must be forced to produce products in the country they are consumed. Divorcing production and consumption is a death wish for 1st world living standards. The only thing keeping 1st world living standards from plummeting are increasingly high piles of debt.

    And let’s just be clear about one thing: Libertarianism is globalist (it despises the State and national borders) and is therefore extremely Oligarch friendly.

    Indigenous (white) Europeans see the “welfare” state as their birthright. What this means is high quality tax payer financed public schools, universities, health care, and a social safety net. Certainly bringing in some free market principles and consumer choice is always a good thing as well. Many see mass 3rd world immigration as an Oligarchic plot to destroy the European welfare state. Milton Friedman himself said you could have open borders or a welfare state, but not both. And as a good Libertarian, Friedman loved open borders.

    Just like well-trimmed lawns, the welfare state is manifestation of the White will and has only been successfully imitated in a few Asian states.

    So Marine Le Pen is very Keynesian and supports an expanded welfare state. Her father was more of a traditional right winger with a Liberatarian streak — and he is doing everything he can to destroy his daughter. But father-time is not on Jean-Marie’s side.

    So the policies of the National Front give us a clue as to which direction the Trumpening will lead. Despite running as a “Republican” Trump is anything but and he will also be friendly towards the welfare state; specifically implementing universal health care (hopefully a public/private mix, not single-payer) and will protect social security. These are policies working class Americans support — but which are anathema to Oligarchs and their Libertarian mouth-pieces.

    Trump is about the scatter into the four winds the false and constricting Left/Right partisan sheep pens the Oligarch’s thought leader-border collies have herded the American people into.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Through tariffs and immigration control, multi-nationals must be forced to produce products in the country they are consumed.
     
    How would this work in Liechtenstein? Andorra? What would Danes drive? And aren't you talking about embargoes, rather than tariffs?

    Why should a state that could produce everything itself, eg New York or California, not prohibit purchases from neighboring states, to protect its own industries? California already does this with live plants, and many other states with wine.

    Don't forget, too, hundreds of thousands of Southern boys gave their lives fighting this very idea of yours. They wanted those cheap, unlicensed cotton gins from Europe, not Mr Whitney's.

    Divorcing production and consumption is a death wish for 1st world living standards.
     
    In the Third World, families grow what they eat and sew what they wear. It was the Industrial Revolution that divorced production and consumption. And before that, money.

    Just like well-trimmed lawns, the welfare state is manifestation of the White will and has only been successfully imitated in a few Asian states.
     
    You're missing a big point here-- the low-wage foreigner votes for the welfare state at a much higher rate than the native (I was going to say "white man", but that's redundant), and is less fussy about holding it to ethical standards. So it's almost a law of nature that the welfarist party will in time betray the native for the foreigner. They have to. It's their bread and butter.

    And the native reacts as well. It's no accident that the best counties for FDR (the ultimate welfarist) were, just 20 years later, the best counties for Barry Goldwater (the most economically libertarian candidate of the 20th-- or any other-- century). Why? The payee is now the payer.


    What this means is high quality tax payer financed public schools…
     
    Get real. Schools have been getting richer, and their services poorer, for a century and a half now.

    universities…
     
    ,

    Even the most "private" of them get buckets of federal cash, and look where they are now.

    health care…
     
    Since health care is now a religion, shouldn't it be separate from the state? I propose the single payer be the Vatican.

    What? You object? But if you won't accept my church, why should I accept yours-- the state?

    …and a social safety net.
     
    Again, why does this have to be the guys with the guns? The same people who set immigration policy.
  4. Professor Gottfried exposes the dynamics of group competition presently reaching crisis disequilibrium across borders in several locales of the presently constituted post Judeo-Christian European civilization. Operating under the constraints of one dollar one vote ‘democracy’ western populations have been offerred little real political choice since options are per-decided by elite primaries, eg the Adelson primary. This built in corruption has provided political cover for the transnational elite program of increasing western populations through the importation of both skilled and unskilled labor from neighboring regional labor producers and brain drain tech labor exporters. Economically speaking , the elite shifts the labor supply curve exogenously. This naturally hurts domestic suppliers (Western Citizens ) , helps new imported labor as well as consumers of labor ie Capital. And of course this leads to widening income inequality with increasing profits caputred by Capital relative to Labor. But what is happening outside of this classical micro-economic analysis, that is, in biological terms?

    We have a pluralism of phenotypes operating in various biological niches in which they specialize. These subspecies have corresponding cultural values based adaptions optimal to their recent socio economic history. There are groups which are intersections of these phenotypes specialized in function. One such group might be described as cosmopolitans, transnational mercurials, adapted to intermediation and administration. What do they administer> Market transactions that is allocations of capital that consumes labor inputs. In gross terms these inputs could be described as skilled and unskilled although of course there are graduations and specializations. Tha administrators dont actually make anything. They use the output of labor, that is goods, but they dont make goods. They manage capital allocation to achieve more goods for the owners of capital ( accumulated market power). In biological terms they are intra-specific intra-species social parasites. The labor inputs from whatever phenotype are the Hosts upon which they feed. The political crisis is a result of delegitimization of the system because of democratic corruption ie Adelson primaries. The host has come to understand that they are not iin fact honored soldiers and citizens but rather replaceable food stuffes, farm oxen, elite consumer goods.

    The underlying dynamic is not top down conspiratorial rather simply a revelation of group and phenotype interest revealed preferences. Meme construction is part of the system dynamics. Race-Gender politics is simply an ideology of the transnational multi-phenotype administrative class. It serves to manage the demographics, reproduction,-sterilization of the expensive domestic supply set for replacement. It is merely cultural replacement (ethnocide ) together with phenotype replacement ( genocide ). but not exactly since the desired result is a merger intersection of new and old labor inputs ( foreign and domestic ).

    It is clear that some subspecie groups are better equipped to handle this transition These subgroups may have beeen active in setting forth the foundation for the present dynamics. But what distinguishes the winners here is a profound sense of instrumentality towards the Other, the displaced, the Native, with an almost psychopathic ability to Use the Other in this game of instrumentality. Because the displacement is biological, primary; it can only be achieved through force, that is with the threat of violence.

    Trump through his wealth jumped out of system constraints via financial corruption. He may appeal to the displaced by addressing the real issues of concern. This evades the party elite ideological constraints through immediate polling feedback. It is suggestive here then that this is a business decision , a personal narcisstic errand, rather than an expression of any elite group strategy, indeed it bypasses elite group interests in its appeal to labor inputs. The conflict is between the transnational parasite and the Host sub populations distributed globally.

    Mathematically this is similar if not identical to a predator prey model. It is chaotic. There is but one stable equilibrium (pair). Extinction: Of the Host or the Parasite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hypocritter
    ["Sockpuppetry" is impermissible on this website. Pick a single handle and stick with it, or call yourself "Anonymous"]

    Trump will face the threat of coercion possibly violent coercion from elite groups pushing the displacement and parasitic nursing of the western domestic labor input populations. Before that the elite will return to their phenotype ( racial ) divide and conquer strategy. There is only one solution for this imminent threat. It has several prongs:

    1. Trump must depersonalize his candidacy to remove the personal threat to his family financial health security. This requires a deep broad political organization with possible personal replacements for Trump .

    2. Loose paramilitary organizations must be constructed parallel to the broad deep political organization. These need to eb deployed to avoid disruption of the types faced recently by Sen Sanders ie Mic grabbing, Ferguson 'protests'.A Natural source for these 'Brown Shirts' would be in antiwar returned veterans and in retired law enforcement..

    3. The race divide and conquer threat is diminished by anexplicit appeal to racial groups hit hardest by immigration elite imports. He will need to meet directly and recruit from both Hispanic Farm workers and Black Church Leader communities.

    4.High Tech workers are hurt by H1B displacement as well. He can address domestic tech worker groups and asian american community groups with an interest in preserving domestic wage levels in these industries.

    5. Racial broadening of the Trump appeal must not discourage the domestic white european base of the movement.

    This is the American Workers party. It is resilient , non racially exclusive, but targeting the domestic host the parasite attacks, while depersonalized reoving the personal threat to Trump himself. The Veterans -law enforcement in the AWP Brown Shirt battalions immunize the movement from state security apparatus attacks. The goal is to kill the parasite. The means are democratic but with the threat of undemocratic power assumption ( outside elite corruption mechanisms control ),
    , @uh
    @Predator Prey Model

    You almost had an interesting comment, there. Perhaps you could return to basic English and try again. Check it out:

    "Economically speaking , the elite shifts the labor supply curve exogenously."

    vs.

    "The elite favor non-whites for labor jobs."

    Careful with your adverbs.
  5. @Hypocritter
    Professor Gottfried exposes the dynamics of group competition presently reaching crisis disequilibrium across borders in several locales of the presently constituted post Judeo-Christian European civilization. Operating under the constraints of one dollar one vote 'democracy' western populations have been offerred little real political choice since options are per-decided by elite primaries, eg the Adelson primary. This built in corruption has provided political cover for the transnational elite program of increasing western populations through the importation of both skilled and unskilled labor from neighboring regional labor producers and brain drain tech labor exporters. Economically speaking , the elite shifts the labor supply curve exogenously. This naturally hurts domestic suppliers (Western Citizens ) , helps new imported labor as well as consumers of labor ie Capital. And of course this leads to widening income inequality with increasing profits caputred by Capital relative to Labor. But what is happening outside of this classical micro-economic analysis, that is, in biological terms?

    We have a pluralism of phenotypes operating in various biological niches in which they specialize. These subspecies have corresponding cultural values based adaptions optimal to their recent socio economic history. There are groups which are intersections of these phenotypes specialized in function. One such group might be described as cosmopolitans, transnational mercurials, adapted to intermediation and administration. What do they administer> Market transactions that is allocations of capital that consumes labor inputs. In gross terms these inputs could be described as skilled and unskilled although of course there are graduations and specializations. Tha administrators dont actually make anything. They use the output of labor, that is goods, but they dont make goods. They manage capital allocation to achieve more goods for the owners of capital ( accumulated market power). In biological terms they are intra-specific intra-species social parasites. The labor inputs from whatever phenotype are the Hosts upon which they feed. The political crisis is a result of delegitimization of the system because of democratic corruption ie Adelson primaries. The host has come to understand that they are not iin fact honored soldiers and citizens but rather replaceable food stuffes, farm oxen, elite consumer goods.


    The underlying dynamic is not top down conspiratorial rather simply a revelation of group and phenotype interest revealed preferences. Meme construction is part of the system dynamics. Race-Gender politics is simply an ideology of the transnational multi-phenotype administrative class. It serves to manage the demographics, reproduction,-sterilization of the expensive domestic supply set for replacement. It is merely cultural replacement (ethnocide ) together with phenotype replacement ( genocide ). but not exactly since the desired result is a merger intersection of new and old labor inputs ( foreign and domestic ).

    It is clear that some subspecie groups are better equipped to handle this transition These subgroups may have beeen active in setting forth the foundation for the present dynamics. But what distinguishes the winners here is a profound sense of instrumentality towards the Other, the displaced, the Native, with an almost psychopathic ability to Use the Other in this game of instrumentality. Because the displacement is biological, primary; it can only be achieved through force, that is with the threat of violence.

    Trump through his wealth jumped out of system constraints via financial corruption. He may appeal to the displaced by addressing the real issues of concern. This evades the party elite ideological constraints through immediate polling feedback. It is suggestive here then that this is a business decision , a personal narcisstic errand, rather than an expression of any elite group strategy, indeed it bypasses elite group interests in its appeal to labor inputs. The conflict is between the transnational parasite and the Host sub populations distributed globally.

    Mathematically this is similar if not identical to a predator prey model. It is chaotic. There is but one stable equilibrium (pair). Extinction: Of the Host or the Parasite.

    ["Sockpuppetry" is impermissible on this website. Pick a single handle and stick with it, or call yourself "Anonymous"]

    Trump will face the threat of coercion possibly violent coercion from elite groups pushing the displacement and parasitic nursing of the western domestic labor input populations. Before that the elite will return to their phenotype ( racial ) divide and conquer strategy. There is only one solution for this imminent threat. It has several prongs:

    1. Trump must depersonalize his candidacy to remove the personal threat to his family financial health security. This requires a deep broad political organization with possible personal replacements for Trump .

    2. Loose paramilitary organizations must be constructed parallel to the broad deep political organization. These need to eb deployed to avoid disruption of the types faced recently by Sen Sanders ie Mic grabbing, Ferguson ‘protests’.A Natural source for these ‘Brown Shirts’ would be in antiwar returned veterans and in retired law enforcement..

    3. The race divide and conquer threat is diminished by anexplicit appeal to racial groups hit hardest by immigration elite imports. He will need to meet directly and recruit from both Hispanic Farm workers and Black Church Leader communities.

    4.High Tech workers are hurt by H1B displacement as well. He can address domestic tech worker groups and asian american community groups with an interest in preserving domestic wage levels in these industries.

    5. Racial broadening of the Trump appeal must not discourage the domestic white european base of the movement.

    This is the American Workers party. It is resilient , non racially exclusive, but targeting the domestic host the parasite attacks, while depersonalized reoving the personal threat to Trump himself. The Veterans -law enforcement in the AWP Brown Shirt battalions immunize the movement from state security apparatus attacks. The goal is to kill the parasite. The means are democratic but with the threat of undemocratic power assumption ( outside elite corruption mechanisms control ),

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Good ideas overall, but I doubt the whole 'brown shirt' thing will go over well or look good. Apart from your unfortunate choice of words (do you have any idea how unpopular Nazis are with people who don't comment on Unz?), having paramilitary groups attending his parades is not going to help him with Middle America. Realistically, the police will do the job well enough if you're not dealing with a candidate like Bernie Sanders who's afraid (or unwilling) to order hecklers off.
  6. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    multiculturalism and mass immigration are indeed bad….however, a strong welfare state, including nationalized healthcare etc are good things as long as they are not based on race… the Rightwing has been ideologically poisoned, just as the leftwing has been ideologically poisoned, by the overclass….

    the overclass wants cheap labor, so it inserted multiculturalism propaganda into leftwing ideology..

    the overclass wants a populace dependent on jobs, so it inserted anti-welfare state propaganda into rightwing ideology….

    Now, in europe the white majority is a lot more perceptive about what is going on…that is why National Front in France and similar parties in other european nations have rejected anti-welfare state propaganda….and now that they have rejected anti-welfare state propaganda, they are growing….

    One of the main reasons UKIP lost is because Nigel Farage started getting cozy with the American tea party, which has a strong dose of anti-welfare state propaganda….

    Now, white americans are not as sharp as white europeans…american whites are eating up the rejected anti-welfare state propaganda of the overclass with gusto, and hurting themselves in the process…

    Trump has in the past, and even recently, supported nationalized healthcare….

    Maybe white americans are starting to wise up.

    Aren’t I the independent one? I just explicitly stated that I am both against multiculturalism and at the same time I support the welfare state. Do you know how rare that is in america? The power of peer pressure!! But I always am on the lookout for these sort of social pressure political traps. I seek them out.

    Read More
  7. Trump is the best you can do right now, I agree.

    I wouldn’t assume Trump is trying to expand his base, though. The guy likes attention, as I can tell you from twenty years in New York, and seems to just be saying what he wants.

    As for Marine…well, you and I can come up with suggestions, but she’s gone from 0 to 25 as a third-party candidate, non?

    Read More
  8. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The fundamental issue facing the Historic Native Born White American Majority is the open and deliberate policy if very rapid race-replacement…street by street…town by town….county by county…state by state.

    This open and deliberate policy of race-replacement is driven by the enormous greed of the White Liberal Greedy Cheating Mega-White Male CEO…who owns both the Democratic-Republican Parties. In other words, the low wage-wage slave labor policy of the Greedy Cheating Liberal White Male Mega-CEO is the force behind post-1965 race-replacement immigration policy.

    The only viable option for The Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class is a highly racialized,highly zenophobic, economically populist race-revolt against the Greedy Cheating White Male Mega-CEO within a larger Anarcho-Syndicalist framework.

    Dear Leader Trump can not, and will not, reverse Native Born White American race-replacement. With very high probability, Trump will increase nonwhite legal immigration.

    There is a historical precedent for what I am advocating above. What I wrote above describes the late 19th century US Labor Movement which gave us such wonderfull things such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Sihk Exclusion Act…And we can thank Samuel Gompers…German Jew Socialist Labor Leader… and Irish Immigrant and Socialist Labor Leader Dennis Kearney for the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Sihk Exclusion Act.

    Read More
  9. WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY—AND THE ENEMY IS US.

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. You have a lot of useful information in it and raise a lot of good points. I hope Trump and La Pen win. But there is one point we need to focus on.

    I think given the massive amount of immigration in France and in Europe, and its total destruction by immigration (such as the kidnapping and grooming of girls in UK by the Pakis, the sexual assaults of white women in Sweden by the alien invaders, massive unemployment, etc.) the mystery question is why the people have not voted for far right parties, such as the BNP in UK, La Pen in France, etc. in even greater numbers? It may be a fear of losing the welfare state with rightist parties, but many rightist parties never threatened to dismantle the welfare state either and banning immigration helps save welfare money for the native population so the welfare queens must support banning immigration too.

    To me, it is obvious that they should have voted for these anti-immigration parties years ago, and they should have garnered almost 100% of the white vote. Because this issue is so clear cut and obvious. (Or they should have totally banned immigration through national referenda by now).

    Unless somebody proves to me that there is such voter fraud that a 100% vote is turned into a 10% vote, I think the fact that these parties have not yet gotten enough votes to come into power and ban immigration, despite the continued massive alien invasion, and the war on Europe (and USA) that people can see with their own eyes, leads me to only one unfortunate, but logical and inescapable conclusion:

    Most whites are mentally ill or mentally retarded.

    I don’t mean to say this to be mean or hateful, but unless we make the correct diagnosis, we cannot treat the problem right. I think we need to accept this logical conclusion and focus on why and how to solve this.

    Read More
  10. I appreciate some of your long, well-informed comments, since my text came out of an outline for a book on future reconfiguration of our present political polarities. In this book I’ll be arguing that the Cultural Marxist Left and its big business equivalent will be (and in some cases already is) confronted in some Western countries by a powerful populist Right stressing national or civilizational identity and protective measures for native workers. This Right will replace both neoconservatism and libertarianism as the major force of opposition to the culturally radical, internationalist Left. I am not expressing my own preference here. I would be delighted if we had a society made up of Taft Republicans and paleoconservatives. But that’s not likely to happen in our historical situation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anowow
    Dr. Gottfried,

    What are your thoughts about the long-term consequences of a break between the leaders of Evangelical Christian denominations and the Catholic hierarchy with their congregants? If Trump and his European counterparts are successful enough to effect some significant changes, wouldn't we start to see some real stridency in anti-xenophobic and tolerance sermonizing and perhaps some attendant drops in tithing or legal wrangles between congregations and denominations over church facilities?

    In the past, the balance of power has been with the institutions, the case of the Episcopal church in Falls Church, Virginia being a good example. The breakaways losing their church to the pro-LGBT denomination. As long as the judiciary remains in the Left's camp this will be the case

    , @Bill Jones
    The battle is, and long has been, between the oligarchs skimming off the top of the economy, for whom GDP growth is an unqualified good and the 90% of working, or want-to-be-working stiffs, for whom GDP per Capita is paramount.
    , @Captain Willard
    Your column was excellent, but you have a long way to go to prove your hypothesis that "This Right will replace neoconservativism and libertarianism as the major force of opposition to the culturally radical, internationalist Left."

    The nationalist Right in the US, as you call it, has precious few assets, intellectual or monetary, with which to oppose the radical international Left. I needn't mention the implacable opposition it faces from the media, the vast government apparatus at all levels, the Deep State and the oligarchy. So this inchoate "nationalist Right" movement has little chance of developing into a powerful force in US politics.

    What you are most likely observing is just an opportunistic "cult of personality" arising around Trump that has filled the credibility void left by the utter policy failure of the Neocons and fringe appeal of libertarianism (which is too bad, speaking as a libertarian). Trump's strange attractiveness in the eyes of this inchoate nationalist Right movement is his perceived mastery of the details of wrestling with the Leviathan government, not his expressed desire to dismantle it as would Libertarians.

    And (pace Milton Friedman) anyway, the Establishment candidates are all Neocons now. Aside from Rand Paul and Sen. Sanders, are there any candidates on the Left or Right arguing for less domestic spying, international meddling and/or warfare? No.

    Oddly enough, despite the wreckage of the Bush Era, the Neocons have left a lasting imprint on US foreign policy. Obama simply gave us a half-assed, poorly-implemented version of the same Neocon crap after all. The next POTUS is certain to give us more of the same. Trump is offering the same crap, but instead promising better execution and to bill foreign countries for our military services. This is hardly a replacement for Neocon foreign policy.

    In contrast the Libertarian movement has delivered some success recently for its adherents: gay marriage and legal pot are major victories and provided a lot of the energy for Libertarians in recent years. But it was never the major national force you think it was. Oddly enough, these recent victories have sapped the strength of the US libertarian movement, not enhanced it. What's the new Libertarian rallying cry that would broaden the appeal of the movement?

    Once again, Libertarians face the State alone. In any case, it's not clear to me that this "nationalist Right" movement you describe is intrinsically anti-State so much as it is Nationalist. So it's not exactly a replacement for the Libertarian ethos, but rather it's something new (or perhaps old) altogether. It's a mistake to conflate Trump's "making government work for Americans" with a libertarian's plea to "reduce the size of the State".

    So perhaps I should avoid the semantic ambiguity around your choice of the word "replace" and agree with you that some vacuum is being filled by this nationalist Right movement. Fine. But you may be better off analyzing this emerging US nationalist movement as more of a de facto schism inside both established parties. To wit, it is the final hiving off of vestigial Reagan Democrats combined with the Pat Buchanan nationalist GOP to form Something New.

    I would love to hear more from you on this topic.
  11. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Democratic Blue State-SJW are pushing the homo-filth norming of American Society with no breaks…full speed ahead!!!! They are gonna use violence against Conservative White Christians. There have already been some very close calls. They are going to create Conservative White Christian Martyrs.

    War with Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia and the Golden Dawn has the great potential to hit the reset button for US Society…if we survive the plutonium fallout.

    And don’t forget that the young SJW are already being set upon by the highly racialized nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc.

    My question for you…and Tom Flemming:should we ever show mercy to the SJW when the day comes that they are the most despised creatures in dsystopic Blade Runner Post-America?

    Read More
  12. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    My comment above..comment #11…is addressed to Paul Gottfried….

    Read More
  13. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The reigning religion of the West is the Holocaust Cult and Racism-as-Ultimate-Evil.

    Since the Right has been associated with Nazism, it is seen, at best, as a necessary evil. Right/Nationalism is regarded in the West as private enterprise was regarded in communist nations: an unfortunate necessity to boost economic productivity. Private plots were allowed to some degree in the USSR to create incentives. But because communism saw capitalism/bourgeoisie as the biggest evil, capitalist practices had to be restricted and reviled even as some of it was tolerated to expand the economy.

    Clearly, the West relies on nationalism to some degree. If every white American and white European felt NO nationalism whatsoever, they would collapse overnight. (Also, white American/European nationalists couldn’t be harnessed to fight the enemies of Israel. Even the homo agenda requires to some degree on white American/European nationalism, i.e. “we good decent more advanced and more evolved white Europeans and Americans must defend the ‘gay’-friendly West from all those darkies who are less evolved on such matters, and we must use our media power, financial influence, and even military might to spread homo-crusade around the world.” After 9/11, Jews relied on American Nationalism to crush nations like Iraq. Also, Jews need white Americans to be nationalist to some degree to create a us-versus-them mentality between US and Russia/Iran/China. Jews don’t want white American nationalism to stand up for white interests, but they find it useful as aggression against nations/peoples that Jews don’t like. So, if Jews don’t like Russia, they need white American nationalism to see Russia as the enemy. If white Americans were completely lacking in nationalism, they would see no nation as their enemy. Of course, Jews sometimes play with fire when they manipulate nationalism this way. For instance, Neocons have been stoking white American nationalism against those Moooooslims. People like the ‘hero’ in THE AMERICAN SNIPER have been very useful for Zionists in their Wars for Israel in the Middle East. As long as white American nationalists see the ‘Muzzies’ as the main threat to the America — “Sharia Law is just around the corner in America!!!!” — , they are willing to fight and kill Muslims to defend their country and those poor helpless wonderful Jews. But what if white American nationalists were to figure out that Muslims wouldn’t hate them if they weren’t in the Middle East in the first place dropping bombs all over? What if white American nationalists figure out that the real enemy that is pushing stuff like ‘amnesty’ and the ‘gay agenda’ are Jews, not Muslims? All their hot hatred against Muslims could turn toward Jews. Jews must know how political passions can shift. During WWII, Jews stoked anti-Jap and anti-Kraut hatred and paranoia to the hilt. But once WWII was over and USSR became the new enemy, all that hatred and ‘paranoia’ shifted toward communists, among whom Jews were very prominent. So, Jews both value and revile white American nationalism. Without it, Americans wouldn’t have fought the Japs and Krauts, the enemies of Jews, in WWII. But white American nationalism has no permanent allies or enemies. It had an up-and-down relations with UK. It was pro-China during WWII but anti-China during the Cold War. During WWII, white American nationalism was allied with USSR and Jews against Nazi Germany. But after WWII, it was allied with newly democratic Germany against USSR and Jewish leftists. Jews need white Americans to be nationalist in order to use their us-versus-them aggressiveness against nations that Jews don’t like. But Jews fear that this white American nationalism may one day grow hostile to Jews. Jews are nervous about white American waking up to the fact that Jews are indeed the most powerful and most dangerous enemy of the white race at this point in history. Jews are trying to train and program white minds so that Jews are ONE PEOPLE who would always be seen as wonderful allies of white people. Now, if white people understand that any people/nation can be a friend or an enemy depending on the political situation, they must sometimes wonder why Jews, among all peoples, must ALWAYS be seen a friends. Only God deserves that kind of loyalty. Via the Holocaust Cult, Jews have made themselves the Saviors of the White Race, i.e. since Jews died for the sins of the West, white folks must worship Jews and atone forever. This isn’t easy as too many Jews are like Howard Stern, Bill Maher, Elena Kagan, Ruth Baird Ginsburg, Victoria Nuland, and Sarah Silverman: nasty, vicious, and vile.)

    [MORE]

    Also in the total absence of nationalism, people will grow even more cynical and refuse to pay taxes or be part of a civil society. A German still pays taxes in the belief in Germany for Germans(even if he has no ill will toward other races and nations). If every ounce of nationalism were to vanish from Germany, why would Germans take part in German civil society? If Germany were to become entirely indistinct from Greece, Russia, Africa, Middle East, and Asia, why would Germans bother to work and pay taxes as members of a meaningful community? If you were a German, would you pay taxes and be a good citizen if you felt you were part of a global community including Cameroonians, Ethiopians, Russians, Bolivians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotians, Turks, Armenians, Azerbaijans, Iranians, etc? Of course not. You remain being a Good German because Germany exists. Now, we want good Germans than bad German(Nazis), but there has to be some kind of ‘Germans for German nation’ for good decent tax-paying Germans to be viable. If the very idea of German community is abolished, then there won’t be good Germans either since any notion of Germanness will have faded away. (Also, pretending that the entire could be ‘German’ is ridiculous. Some Germans may propose a universal German-ness out of generosity but it’s really willfully naive form of hubris.) If bad Germans are bad, you try to turn them into good Germans. But if German-ness is abolished altogether in the name of getting rid of bad Germans, then there is no Germany, period. Since WWII, a lot of Europeans, especially Germans, seem to think that they can either be bad nationals or good internationals. They cannot be good nationals. The ONLY way to be good is to be international. This really means that the only way one can be good is to choose the kind of policies that will lead to the erasure of one’s race, history, heritage, territory.

    Anyway, for white folks in the West to remain good tax-paying citizens with a sense of civic duty, there has to be some degree of nationalism. But because Jews rule the West and since Holocaust Cult dominates everything, Western nationalism tends to be of the ‘cuckerservative’ kind. White folks are allowed to feel proud in doing something for OTHER races; West is best because it looks out for — even sacrifices itself for — the rest. Also, as ‘racism’ has become the bogeyman of ultimate evil in the West, nationalism has to be detoxed of its racial element. In other words, nationalism is great as long as its universal, i.e. anyone can be German and anyone can be French, or ‘the greatest kind of nationalism is open to all’. But this is a contradiction. What use is a nationalism if it fails to defend and preserve its own race and culture while ‘propositionally’ embracing all the world? But Jews want this kind of nationalism since nativist-majoritarian nationalism might lead to challenge of Jewish elite power.

    Because of their talent, intelligence, cunning, unity, experience, and drive, Jews are ‘condemned’ to be the elites of any society, and this is a both a blessing and a curse for Jews. If Jews were just ordinary like most white folks, they would be content to assimilate and become a peaceable minority. But because Jews are fated to rise to the top and take ruling positions, they get very nervous about majority gentile power.
    If Jews didn’t rise to the top in disproportional numbers, they would be far less paranoid since there would no reason for the majority to resent them. Suppose Jews, as 2% of US population, comprised only 2% of US elites and 2% of US wealth. Gentiles wouldn’t worry about Jewish power and influence, and Jews wouldn’t worry about gentile hostility since Jewish power wouldn’t be anything special. But Jews, a small minority in Western nations, hold tremendous power over finance, media, academia, publishing, entertainment, gambling, law, and etc. So, Jewish power and influence over goyim is immense. Goyim are bound to feel anxious and even resentful. (How would Jews in Israel feel if Polish Catholics were 2% of the population in that country but had the kind of power that Jews have in the US?) So, Jews would have us believe that any critical view of Jew is a form of ‘antisemitism’. Jews have used ADL’s Foxman as their Joseph McCarthowicz to smoke out anyone who might have harbored an ‘antisemitic’ thought.

    Read More
  14. @Bill P
    Trump is killing it with the white working class. I recently spoke with a close working class friend of mine and he prefers Trump and Clinton in that order. What a lot of people don't understand is Hillary's popularity with working class voters. She does best with people who remember the "good years" of the 90s when work was easy to find, life was affordable and competition from immigrants not yet noticeable.

    But today this is Hillary's achilles' heel. The Democrats have changed. They are essentially a minority party now, and she's switched from being an immigration restrictionist herself to being a typical open borders progressive.

    Her natural constituency - working white people of modest means - is feeling the burn from the policies she now supports. And she's wedded to these policies for this election cycle. Trump, more than anyone, can devour these disaffected potential Hillary voters -- both male and female. The much-touted women's vote is a fraud. Hillary may poll extremely well with overeducated lesbians, but they represent less than 1% of the electorate, and no Republican could lay claim to them in any event. Women with working husbands want jobs for their men as much as anyone. Even single women who traditionally support Democrats can be swayed toward Trump with the idea that their dating pool will be more optimistic and, most importantly, employed. This has crossover appeal to blacks and Hispanics, too.

    The progressive class in the US has become so enamored with itself - so prone to navel gazing - that it is incapable of seeing what's happening right in front of its nose. When Jeb Bush made his politically retarded comments about the need for more NSA surveillance combined with corporate cooperation in the effort it was clear to me that these people are only accustomed to talking to each other, and haven't the slightest clue what the vast multitudes of American people are thinking. In his calculus, Jeb was saying "I want to increase government data collection programs and give Silicon Valley a big boost of federal money," and he thought that was the right political message. But he forgot he was talking to the 0.1% and alienating something like 50% of voters.

    Likewise, when Hillary says she supports illegal immigration she's talking to the same tiny class of people, plus maybe 5% of voters (at most) to whom naturalization of illegals is a pressing issue.

    I have no idea how Trump has tapped into the mentality of the average American, but he's done it, and that's the key to his popularity. Maybe he's a lot smarter than the other candidates. Maybe he has "friends in low places." Maybe he's just free to speak his mind because he's rich. Whatever the case, he's got an enormous advantage. I don't think anything will slow him down other than an assassin, and that's something he really should keep in mind, especially with the threat he poses to the notoriously violent Mexican establishment.

    Ridiculous;Shillary is a poster girl of the neolibcons who have destroyed the American worker.
    She just wants Latino votes.Yesterday some commenter said the barrios of America will vote!Why do we have barrios(ghettos)in America?

    Read More
  15. I’m sorry but this article is of poor quality.

    The comparison of a man, Trump, newly emerged on the scene, with a well-known and longstanding party, the National Front, is a quite a stretch, even if there may be some overlap in their supporters. What’s worse, many of the observations about the French political scene are terribly approximate, confused, or plain wrong.

    > A certain similarity exists between the French National Front … and the soaring poll numbers of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate.

    Confused phrasing representative of the article as a whole.

    > Both the supporters of Marine Le Pen [and of] Donald Trump are routinely denounced in the establishment press as the morally indecent “far right.”

    Not the same at all. To be “far right” in Europe is like being a Nazi, and therefore beyond the pale, much more so than Trump or Buchanan or Goldwater ever were. It’s like being David Duke.

    > Guillaume Fay, a sympathetic critic

    He is in the same “far right” category as the National Front. And an odd and obscure choice as an “above the fray” commentator on the French political scene.

    > The National Front stands out among parties in Western Europe because it is the only one that may someday take power in a major European country but which is thundered against in news services as “rightwing extremist”.

    Not the only one at all. There have been such parties in the Netherlands and Austria, for example.

    > progress toward assuming national power will depend on the capacity of Marine Le Pen and her advisers to negotiate alliances with center parties currently allied to the UMP

    Not with center parties, with the more right-wing members of the UMP. Still quite a long shot at this time, as no significant alliances have emerged. Le Pen remains beyond the pale for all other parties.

    > Frenchmen refer to this as the “UMPS”

    Not Frenchmen. It’s a term only used by “far right” sympathizers. Just using the term marks you as far right.

    > In Michel Houllebecq’s partly satirical novel Soumission, … the establishment parties get behind a Muslim fanatic running in the French presidential race, who, once elected, …

    Spelling: Houellebecq. And his Muslim president is far from a fanatic. That’s one of the key ideas of the novel — it’s a surprisingly gentle, easy, reasonable, and plausible slide into Islamism and away from Enlightenment ideals.

    > The National Front must therefore … build an alliance with one or more of the centrist splinter groups

    Huh? There are no such centrist groups.

    > The senior Le Pen has struck back furiously at groups that have tried to implicate the French people in the Holocaust.

    That’s not really an accurate description of Le Pen’s few and controversial comments about the Holocaust or France’s involvement in it.

    > Jean-Marie has been unflinchingly forthright in speaking about “le grand remplacement”

    Not really. He’s been consistently anti-immigrant, but “grand remplacement” is a recent expression, and only very recently mentioned by Le Pen.

    > The Front, according to Faye, has elected to take over the “positions of the old extreme Left,” while trying to fuse them with a tough immigration policy.

    This gradual leftward tilt of the “new” National Front has been noticed by all observers. Why attribute this to Faye, who is obscure and not representative?

    > There is no way the Right can hope to beat the Left by expanding leftist social programs.

    Untrue in France. The argument is that current spending favors civil servants and immigrants. That spending (on housing, for example) could be redirected to the natives who deserve it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Luke Lea
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks for taking the time to give an informative comment.

    It is gratifying to see that there are still people who start with facts and build from there.
    , @SecretaryNS
    Several of your criticisms are not well-reasoned, such as of this comment:

    Both the supporters of Marine Le Pen [and of] Donald Trump are routinely denounced in the establishment press as the morally indecent “far right.”

    That does not say they are the same. It says they "are routinely denounced in the establishment press as the morally indecent 'far right.'" The subject of the sentence is the establishment press' judgment, not the equation of Le Pen and Trump supporters. The writer is 100% correct in what he wrote.

    OR

    In Michel Houllebecq’s partly satirical novel

    Spelling: Houellebecq.

     

    Who gives a shit?

    A little selective editing of your comment would have gone a long way.
  16. @paul gottfried
    I appreciate some of your long, well-informed comments, since my text came out of an outline for a book on future reconfiguration of our present political polarities. In this book I'll be arguing that the Cultural Marxist Left and its big business equivalent will be (and in some cases already is) confronted in some Western countries by a powerful populist Right stressing national or civilizational identity and protective measures for native workers. This Right will replace both neoconservatism and libertarianism as the major force of opposition to the culturally radical, internationalist Left. I am not expressing my own preference here. I would be delighted if we had a society made up of Taft Republicans and paleoconservatives. But that's not likely to happen in our historical situation.

    Dr. Gottfried,

    What are your thoughts about the long-term consequences of a break between the leaders of Evangelical Christian denominations and the Catholic hierarchy with their congregants? If Trump and his European counterparts are successful enough to effect some significant changes, wouldn’t we start to see some real stridency in anti-xenophobic and tolerance sermonizing and perhaps some attendant drops in tithing or legal wrangles between congregations and denominations over church facilities?

    In the past, the balance of power has been with the institutions, the case of the Episcopal church in Falls Church, Virginia being a good example. The breakaways losing their church to the pro-LGBT denomination. As long as the judiciary remains in the Left’s camp this will be the case

    Read More
  17. @paul gottfried
    I appreciate some of your long, well-informed comments, since my text came out of an outline for a book on future reconfiguration of our present political polarities. In this book I'll be arguing that the Cultural Marxist Left and its big business equivalent will be (and in some cases already is) confronted in some Western countries by a powerful populist Right stressing national or civilizational identity and protective measures for native workers. This Right will replace both neoconservatism and libertarianism as the major force of opposition to the culturally radical, internationalist Left. I am not expressing my own preference here. I would be delighted if we had a society made up of Taft Republicans and paleoconservatives. But that's not likely to happen in our historical situation.

    The battle is, and long has been, between the oligarchs skimming off the top of the economy, for whom GDP growth is an unqualified good and the 90% of working, or want-to-be-working stiffs, for whom GDP per Capita is paramount.

    Read More
  18. @paul gottfried
    I appreciate some of your long, well-informed comments, since my text came out of an outline for a book on future reconfiguration of our present political polarities. In this book I'll be arguing that the Cultural Marxist Left and its big business equivalent will be (and in some cases already is) confronted in some Western countries by a powerful populist Right stressing national or civilizational identity and protective measures for native workers. This Right will replace both neoconservatism and libertarianism as the major force of opposition to the culturally radical, internationalist Left. I am not expressing my own preference here. I would be delighted if we had a society made up of Taft Republicans and paleoconservatives. But that's not likely to happen in our historical situation.

    Your column was excellent, but you have a long way to go to prove your hypothesis that “This Right will replace neoconservativism and libertarianism as the major force of opposition to the culturally radical, internationalist Left.”

    The nationalist Right in the US, as you call it, has precious few assets, intellectual or monetary, with which to oppose the radical international Left. I needn’t mention the implacable opposition it faces from the media, the vast government apparatus at all levels, the Deep State and the oligarchy. So this inchoate “nationalist Right” movement has little chance of developing into a powerful force in US politics.

    What you are most likely observing is just an opportunistic “cult of personality” arising around Trump that has filled the credibility void left by the utter policy failure of the Neocons and fringe appeal of libertarianism (which is too bad, speaking as a libertarian). Trump’s strange attractiveness in the eyes of this inchoate nationalist Right movement is his perceived mastery of the details of wrestling with the Leviathan government, not his expressed desire to dismantle it as would Libertarians.

    And (pace Milton Friedman) anyway, the Establishment candidates are all Neocons now. Aside from Rand Paul and Sen. Sanders, are there any candidates on the Left or Right arguing for less domestic spying, international meddling and/or warfare? No.

    Oddly enough, despite the wreckage of the Bush Era, the Neocons have left a lasting imprint on US foreign policy. Obama simply gave us a half-assed, poorly-implemented version of the same Neocon crap after all. The next POTUS is certain to give us more of the same. Trump is offering the same crap, but instead promising better execution and to bill foreign countries for our military services. This is hardly a replacement for Neocon foreign policy.

    In contrast the Libertarian movement has delivered some success recently for its adherents: gay marriage and legal pot are major victories and provided a lot of the energy for Libertarians in recent years. But it was never the major national force you think it was. Oddly enough, these recent victories have sapped the strength of the US libertarian movement, not enhanced it. What’s the new Libertarian rallying cry that would broaden the appeal of the movement?

    Once again, Libertarians face the State alone. In any case, it’s not clear to me that this “nationalist Right” movement you describe is intrinsically anti-State so much as it is Nationalist. So it’s not exactly a replacement for the Libertarian ethos, but rather it’s something new (or perhaps old) altogether. It’s a mistake to conflate Trump’s “making government work for Americans” with a libertarian’s plea to “reduce the size of the State”.

    So perhaps I should avoid the semantic ambiguity around your choice of the word “replace” and agree with you that some vacuum is being filled by this nationalist Right movement. Fine. But you may be better off analyzing this emerging US nationalist movement as more of a de facto schism inside both established parties. To wit, it is the final hiving off of vestigial Reagan Democrats combined with the Pat Buchanan nationalist GOP to form Something New.

    I would love to hear more from you on this topic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "Once again, Libertarians face the State alone."

    I feel honored and humbled to be in the presence of such a heroic martyr. Give yourself a pat on the back for me.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    …gay marriage and legal pot are major victories and provided a lot of the energy for Libertarians in recent years.
     
    Were you toking when you wrote this? "Gay marriage" is the polar opposite of a libertarian position; it's something the state pulled out of its institutional colon, and now wields with an iron fist.

    Real marriage predated the state, and even civilization. In the West, it was the business of the Church, and only the Church, for over a thousand years. It's the ultimate libertarian institution.

    If "gay marriage" were real, it would have existed and grown alongside the genuine article, with no assistance from the state. If it's so libertarian, how come its champions are so keen to crush bakers, photographers, and pizza parlors which, in the words of Tim Cook's company, "think different"?
  19. @Captain Willard
    Your column was excellent, but you have a long way to go to prove your hypothesis that "This Right will replace neoconservativism and libertarianism as the major force of opposition to the culturally radical, internationalist Left."

    The nationalist Right in the US, as you call it, has precious few assets, intellectual or monetary, with which to oppose the radical international Left. I needn't mention the implacable opposition it faces from the media, the vast government apparatus at all levels, the Deep State and the oligarchy. So this inchoate "nationalist Right" movement has little chance of developing into a powerful force in US politics.

    What you are most likely observing is just an opportunistic "cult of personality" arising around Trump that has filled the credibility void left by the utter policy failure of the Neocons and fringe appeal of libertarianism (which is too bad, speaking as a libertarian). Trump's strange attractiveness in the eyes of this inchoate nationalist Right movement is his perceived mastery of the details of wrestling with the Leviathan government, not his expressed desire to dismantle it as would Libertarians.

    And (pace Milton Friedman) anyway, the Establishment candidates are all Neocons now. Aside from Rand Paul and Sen. Sanders, are there any candidates on the Left or Right arguing for less domestic spying, international meddling and/or warfare? No.

    Oddly enough, despite the wreckage of the Bush Era, the Neocons have left a lasting imprint on US foreign policy. Obama simply gave us a half-assed, poorly-implemented version of the same Neocon crap after all. The next POTUS is certain to give us more of the same. Trump is offering the same crap, but instead promising better execution and to bill foreign countries for our military services. This is hardly a replacement for Neocon foreign policy.

    In contrast the Libertarian movement has delivered some success recently for its adherents: gay marriage and legal pot are major victories and provided a lot of the energy for Libertarians in recent years. But it was never the major national force you think it was. Oddly enough, these recent victories have sapped the strength of the US libertarian movement, not enhanced it. What's the new Libertarian rallying cry that would broaden the appeal of the movement?

    Once again, Libertarians face the State alone. In any case, it's not clear to me that this "nationalist Right" movement you describe is intrinsically anti-State so much as it is Nationalist. So it's not exactly a replacement for the Libertarian ethos, but rather it's something new (or perhaps old) altogether. It's a mistake to conflate Trump's "making government work for Americans" with a libertarian's plea to "reduce the size of the State".

    So perhaps I should avoid the semantic ambiguity around your choice of the word "replace" and agree with you that some vacuum is being filled by this nationalist Right movement. Fine. But you may be better off analyzing this emerging US nationalist movement as more of a de facto schism inside both established parties. To wit, it is the final hiving off of vestigial Reagan Democrats combined with the Pat Buchanan nationalist GOP to form Something New.

    I would love to hear more from you on this topic.

    “Once again, Libertarians face the State alone.”

    I feel honored and humbled to be in the presence of such a heroic martyr. Give yourself a pat on the back for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Captain Willard
    We await even the slightest shred of critical thinking from you. Try harder please.
  20. @Hypocritter
    ["Sockpuppetry" is impermissible on this website. Pick a single handle and stick with it, or call yourself "Anonymous"]

    Trump will face the threat of coercion possibly violent coercion from elite groups pushing the displacement and parasitic nursing of the western domestic labor input populations. Before that the elite will return to their phenotype ( racial ) divide and conquer strategy. There is only one solution for this imminent threat. It has several prongs:

    1. Trump must depersonalize his candidacy to remove the personal threat to his family financial health security. This requires a deep broad political organization with possible personal replacements for Trump .

    2. Loose paramilitary organizations must be constructed parallel to the broad deep political organization. These need to eb deployed to avoid disruption of the types faced recently by Sen Sanders ie Mic grabbing, Ferguson 'protests'.A Natural source for these 'Brown Shirts' would be in antiwar returned veterans and in retired law enforcement..

    3. The race divide and conquer threat is diminished by anexplicit appeal to racial groups hit hardest by immigration elite imports. He will need to meet directly and recruit from both Hispanic Farm workers and Black Church Leader communities.

    4.High Tech workers are hurt by H1B displacement as well. He can address domestic tech worker groups and asian american community groups with an interest in preserving domestic wage levels in these industries.

    5. Racial broadening of the Trump appeal must not discourage the domestic white european base of the movement.

    This is the American Workers party. It is resilient , non racially exclusive, but targeting the domestic host the parasite attacks, while depersonalized reoving the personal threat to Trump himself. The Veterans -law enforcement in the AWP Brown Shirt battalions immunize the movement from state security apparatus attacks. The goal is to kill the parasite. The means are democratic but with the threat of undemocratic power assumption ( outside elite corruption mechanisms control ),

    Good ideas overall, but I doubt the whole ‘brown shirt’ thing will go over well or look good. Apart from your unfortunate choice of words (do you have any idea how unpopular Nazis are with people who don’t comment on Unz?), having paramilitary groups attending his parades is not going to help him with Middle America. Realistically, the police will do the job well enough if you’re not dealing with a candidate like Bernie Sanders who’s afraid (or unwilling) to order hecklers off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea

    Good ideas overall, but I doubt the whole ‘brown shirt’ thing will go over well or look good
     
    .

    That's an understatement.
    , @silviosilver
    I think "Trump's Brown Shirts" is taken from a comparison made by a media figure (no prizes for guessing of which ethnicity) of Trump supporters and fascists. (Why not? Like the fascists, they are both politically impassioned and white.)
  21. To whatever extent this criticism may be true, the same can be said about where Trump has positioned himself. Trump’s recent defense of Planned Parenthood, although not the organization’s abortion activities, his backtracking on sending back illegal Mexican residents, and his defenses of the IRS as a tax-collecting agency are clearly indications of Trump’s efforts to expand his base.

    No evidence of this at all. If anything, his movements to the right are to win the Republican nomination. There’s never been any evidence that Trump has any problem with abortion. He’s secular and always said he was pro-choice until very recently.

    And I’ve watched a lot of interviews with him, and I don’t see any evidence of backtracking on sending back illegals. It’s one of the best things about him.

    I think Trump moved a bit on abortion because he had to. But he does very little pandering, which is his appeal to even those who disagree with him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "I think Trump moved a bit on abortion because he had to."

    To me, it is unbelievably absurd that people would decide their vote on an issue that isn't going to change no matter who you vote for.
  22. @Hepp

    To whatever extent this criticism may be true, the same can be said about where Trump has positioned himself. Trump’s recent defense of Planned Parenthood, although not the organization’s abortion activities, his backtracking on sending back illegal Mexican residents, and his defenses of the IRS as a tax-collecting agency are clearly indications of Trump’s efforts to expand his base.
     
    No evidence of this at all. If anything, his movements to the right are to win the Republican nomination. There's never been any evidence that Trump has any problem with abortion. He's secular and always said he was pro-choice until very recently.

    And I've watched a lot of interviews with him, and I don't see any evidence of backtracking on sending back illegals. It's one of the best things about him.

    I think Trump moved a bit on abortion because he had to. But he does very little pandering, which is his appeal to even those who disagree with him.

    “I think Trump moved a bit on abortion because he had to.”

    To me, it is unbelievably absurd that people would decide their vote on an issue that isn’t going to change no matter who you vote for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hepp
    If that's what you think, you haven't been paying much attention to the issue. Republicans have basically succeeded in shutting down a large portion of all abortion clinics in states like Texas and Louisiana. One more Supreme Court justice, and Roe is overturned. Elections matter, although not from your perspective if you're too far outside the mainstream.
  23. For me, racial issues trump everything (haha). If it means reversing the race-replacement of the west and establishing a semblance of white racial nationalism, you can layer on communism, anarchism, libertarianism, leftism, conservatism, monarchy, theocracy, or anything else you like.

    A pox on all your -isms.

    Read More
  24. @Ozymandias
    "I think Trump moved a bit on abortion because he had to."

    To me, it is unbelievably absurd that people would decide their vote on an issue that isn't going to change no matter who you vote for.

    If that’s what you think, you haven’t been paying much attention to the issue. Republicans have basically succeeded in shutting down a large portion of all abortion clinics in states like Texas and Louisiana. One more Supreme Court justice, and Roe is overturned. Elections matter, although not from your perspective if you’re too far outside the mainstream.

    Read More
  25. @SFG
    Good ideas overall, but I doubt the whole 'brown shirt' thing will go over well or look good. Apart from your unfortunate choice of words (do you have any idea how unpopular Nazis are with people who don't comment on Unz?), having paramilitary groups attending his parades is not going to help him with Middle America. Realistically, the police will do the job well enough if you're not dealing with a candidate like Bernie Sanders who's afraid (or unwilling) to order hecklers off.

    Good ideas overall, but I doubt the whole ‘brown shirt’ thing will go over well or look good

    .

    That’s an understatement.

    Read More
  26. @Ozymandias
    "Once again, Libertarians face the State alone."

    I feel honored and humbled to be in the presence of such a heroic martyr. Give yourself a pat on the back for me.

    We await even the slightest shred of critical thinking from you. Try harder please.

    Read More
  27. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Captain Willard
    We await even the slightest shred of critical thinking from you. Try harder please.

    So you looked on his works and despaired?

    Read More
  28. It’s turning into a reasonably good year for politically incorrect populists, among other positive signs:

    The Australian centre-right Liberals standing up for their relatively tough illegal immigration policies

    Big anti-immigration protests in Italy (though not yet being translated into political action)

    More good local elections results for the FN in France

    Good election results and opinion poll showings for the Swedish Democrats, True Finns, and Danish People’s Party

    Growing anti-EU sentiment in the UK which is beginning to be noticed by the Conservatives.

    Read More
  29. @Shine a Light
    The similarities between Trump and the National Front are very obvious and totally under-reported -- so kudos for writing this article. But there are several things that need clarifying.

    First off, as Marine Le Pen often says, the Left/Right dichotomy is for the most part useless. These are partisan sheep pens the oligarchs create to help defend their wealth and power. Half the oligarch friendly ideas are put in the Left camp, the other half in the Right camp so that no matter who wins, enough oligarch friendly policies will be implemented so that oligarchic wealth and power only expands.

    The far more important paradigm is Globalist vs. Nationalist. This is the framework through which to judge political policies. And so far just about everything I have heard coming out of Donald Trump's mouth is Nationalist. And Nationalism -- constraining Oligarchic power through the use of national borders -- is as Oligarchic-phobic as you can get. Through tariffs and immigration control, multi-nationals must be forced to produce products in the country they are consumed. Divorcing production and consumption is a death wish for 1st world living standards. The only thing keeping 1st world living standards from plummeting are increasingly high piles of debt.

    And let's just be clear about one thing: Libertarianism is globalist (it despises the State and national borders) and is therefore extremely Oligarch friendly.

    Indigenous (white) Europeans see the "welfare" state as their birthright. What this means is high quality tax payer financed public schools, universities, health care, and a social safety net. Certainly bringing in some free market principles and consumer choice is always a good thing as well. Many see mass 3rd world immigration as an Oligarchic plot to destroy the European welfare state. Milton Friedman himself said you could have open borders or a welfare state, but not both. And as a good Libertarian, Friedman loved open borders.

    Just like well-trimmed lawns, the welfare state is manifestation of the White will and has only been successfully imitated in a few Asian states.

    So Marine Le Pen is very Keynesian and supports an expanded welfare state. Her father was more of a traditional right winger with a Liberatarian streak -- and he is doing everything he can to destroy his daughter. But father-time is not on Jean-Marie's side.

    So the policies of the National Front give us a clue as to which direction the Trumpening will lead. Despite running as a "Republican" Trump is anything but and he will also be friendly towards the welfare state; specifically implementing universal health care (hopefully a public/private mix, not single-payer) and will protect social security. These are policies working class Americans support -- but which are anathema to Oligarchs and their Libertarian mouth-pieces.

    Trump is about the scatter into the four winds the false and constricting Left/Right partisan sheep pens the Oligarch's thought leader-border collies have herded the American people into.

    Through tariffs and immigration control, multi-nationals must be forced to produce products in the country they are consumed.

    How would this work in Liechtenstein? Andorra? What would Danes drive? And aren’t you talking about embargoes, rather than tariffs?

    Why should a state that could produce everything itself, eg New York or California, not prohibit purchases from neighboring states, to protect its own industries? California already does this with live plants, and many other states with wine.

    Don’t forget, too, hundreds of thousands of Southern boys gave their lives fighting this very idea of yours. They wanted those cheap, unlicensed cotton gins from Europe, not Mr Whitney’s.

    Divorcing production and consumption is a death wish for 1st world living standards.

    In the Third World, families grow what they eat and sew what they wear. It was the Industrial Revolution that divorced production and consumption. And before that, money.

    Just like well-trimmed lawns, the welfare state is manifestation of the White will and has only been successfully imitated in a few Asian states.

    You’re missing a big point here– the low-wage foreigner votes for the welfare state at a much higher rate than the native (I was going to say “white man”, but that’s redundant), and is less fussy about holding it to ethical standards. So it’s almost a law of nature that the welfarist party will in time betray the native for the foreigner. They have to. It’s their bread and butter.

    And the native reacts as well. It’s no accident that the best counties for FDR (the ultimate welfarist) were, just 20 years later, the best counties for Barry Goldwater (the most economically libertarian candidate of the 20th– or any other– century). Why? The payee is now the payer.

    What this means is high quality tax payer financed public schools…

    Get real. Schools have been getting richer, and their services poorer, for a century and a half now.

    universities…

    ,

    Even the most “private” of them get buckets of federal cash, and look where they are now.

    health care…

    Since health care is now a religion, shouldn’t it be separate from the state? I propose the single payer be the Vatican.

    What? You object? But if you won’t accept my church, why should I accept yours– the state?

    …and a social safety net.

    Again, why does this have to be the guys with the guns? The same people who set immigration policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn

    Don’t forget, too, hundreds of thousands of Southern boys gave their lives fighting this very idea of yours. They wanted those cheap, unlicensed cotton gins from Europe, not Mr Whitney’s.
     
    I guess most people don't know that the GOP was the party of protectionism from 1861-1945 while the D's were the party of free trade. Protectionism didn't make much sense in the immediate aftermath of WWII since the US was the only industrial power left standing and was now the center of a worldwide empire.
    , @Shine a Light

    How would this work in Liechtenstein? Andorra? What would Danes drive? And aren’t you talking about embargoes, rather than tariffs?
     
    What you are really asking here is: for economic nationalism to function well, what is the optimal national area (ONA)? Obviously Liechtenstein is not. But this example certainly does not refute the notion of economic nationalism. As the global economic situation changes, so will the size of an ONA. For example, most of the current countries of the EU could form an economically nationalist nation with protected borders -- against immigration and products of cheap labor -- if they chose to do so (they currently don’t). Your question about Denmark is interesting, Sweden, with roughly twice the population, has two major car -- Vovlo and Saab. But it must also be pointed out that a (ONA) will not necessarily match a traditional blood and soil type of homogenous national group. A more flexible type of economic nationalism (Steve Sailer” Citizenism) must be developed to address the rarity of a homogenous ethnic (blood) area actually matching an ONA.

    Why should a state that could produce everything itself, eg New York or California, not prohibit purchases from neighboring states, to protect its own industries? California already does this with live plants, and many other states with wine.
     
    I’m calling on NATIONS (not states within a nation) to produce as much domestically as possible. The inefficiencies up to a point are more than compensated for by the fact that your fellow citizens are working, spending, and paying taxes. With multiplier factors included, despite some products being more expensive than they would be produced in China, the society as a whole will be wealthier, healthier, and more cohesive if fellow citizens buy locally. Obviously there are limits, Sweden is not going to produce bananas any time soon.

    Don’t forget, too, hundreds of thousands of Southern boys gave their lives fighting this very idea of yours. They wanted those cheap, unlicensed cotton gins from Europe, not Mr Whitney’s.
     
    True, the Civil War can be read as a war of imperial conquest by an economically nationalist North against a South that was still economically a colony of Britain. Its often like that with weak pawns, had the South been more economically nationalist, they may have developed the wherewithal to stand up to Northern imperial aggression. As it was, due to their refusal to diversify COMBINED with their desire to be independent, they were a weak independent entity and as Thucydides says, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

    In the Third World, families grow what they eat and sew what they wear. It was the Industrial Revolution that divorced production and consumption. And before that, money.
     
    True, in the 3rd world, production matches consumption. Are you saying this causes the 3rd world’s plight? Correlation does not always equal causation (CDNAEC). And yes the Industrial Revolution did temporarily divorce production from consumption but nations such as Germany, the US, and France applied economic nationalism and resisted Britain’s industrial monopoly and set up industries of their own and thrived while backwaters like the South who refused to industrialize became the bitches of those who did. Just 40 years ago most of the West had more or less a balance between consumption and production and this coincided with a Western Golden Age . Yes I know CDNAEC but at least this shows balanced consumption and production is not compatible with a wealthy and healthy society.

    You’re missing a big point here– the low-wage foreigner votes for the welfare state at a much higher rate than the native (I was going to say “white man”, but that’s redundant), and is less fussy about holding it to ethical standards. So it’s almost a law of nature that the welfarist party will in time betray the native for the foreigner. They have to. It’s their bread and butter.
     
    I agree and would go even further. The low-wage “other” is the death of a welfare state. Pre-immigration both Left and Right in most European countries were pro-welfare state. In fact, as shown in California, with the Republican-inspired California Public University system, the Right were often better at the welfare state than the Left. This shows the wisdom of Otto von Bismarck (founding father of the Western welfare state) who always held that parties should take the helm to carry out policies which they opposed. “If reactionary measures are to be carried, the Liberal party takes the rudder, from the correct assumption that it will not overstep the necessary limits; if liberal measures are to be carried, the Conservative party takes office in its turn from the same consideration.”

    So in the 60’s the Left were the natural opponents of cheap labor immigration (as they should be) with Cesar Chavez leading the charge. The right (Big Ag in Cali, Big Car in France) imported cheap docile foreign labor to counter the native man’s labor unions.

    The death knell of the welfare state are cheaters, or to appropriate a Stalinist term, “Wreckers”. One huge problem in the US constraining the full development of a welfare state was the presence of the 10% black population who were seen as potential Wreckers. And so initial moves towards a welfare state excluded them

    Goldwater’s utter failure to arouse the white masses against the welfare state only proves the point: even with the potential black Wreckers within, white America overwhelmingly rejected his attacks on the welfare state. What the Civil Rights Acts then did was to give the Wreckers access to the welfare state which eventually helped fuel Reagan’s attacks -- which this time were widely embraced.

    And so 3rd world immigration works in a similar way. Interestingly our elites pulled a sort of Bismarck and put the Left in charge of cheerleading the cheap labor invasion while the Right pretended to be against it. In the end the Right double profited, they could attack the welfare state with waves of Wreckers rushing into the country and benefit as more and more wealth was transferred to the rich as the poor man’s wages fell (George Borjas estimates illegal immigration transfers $100 billion a year from the working class to the wealthy).

    In Europe the traditional center right parties on the one hand are all-in on the 3rd world invasion while on the other nad they use it to cut the European welfare state – which was impossible before due to the lack of Wreckers.

    So what is a patriotic Identitarian (français de souche – old ethnic stock Frenchmen) or American to do?

    The welfare state is at once his birthright but at the same time is acting as a Wrecker-magnet to destroy his society. The answer is three-fold:

    1. Stop Wreckers from coming into your country.
    2. Deport (or pressure/bribe to emigrate) as many of the Wreckers as possible.
    3. Convert non-deportable Wreckers into workers.

    The first two policies reinforce the third. The unwritten portion of Trump’s program is that once the wall is built and the illegals are deported, we will have labor shortages which will imperatively need to be filled by African Americans.
  30. @Captain Willard
    Your column was excellent, but you have a long way to go to prove your hypothesis that "This Right will replace neoconservativism and libertarianism as the major force of opposition to the culturally radical, internationalist Left."

    The nationalist Right in the US, as you call it, has precious few assets, intellectual or monetary, with which to oppose the radical international Left. I needn't mention the implacable opposition it faces from the media, the vast government apparatus at all levels, the Deep State and the oligarchy. So this inchoate "nationalist Right" movement has little chance of developing into a powerful force in US politics.

    What you are most likely observing is just an opportunistic "cult of personality" arising around Trump that has filled the credibility void left by the utter policy failure of the Neocons and fringe appeal of libertarianism (which is too bad, speaking as a libertarian). Trump's strange attractiveness in the eyes of this inchoate nationalist Right movement is his perceived mastery of the details of wrestling with the Leviathan government, not his expressed desire to dismantle it as would Libertarians.

    And (pace Milton Friedman) anyway, the Establishment candidates are all Neocons now. Aside from Rand Paul and Sen. Sanders, are there any candidates on the Left or Right arguing for less domestic spying, international meddling and/or warfare? No.

    Oddly enough, despite the wreckage of the Bush Era, the Neocons have left a lasting imprint on US foreign policy. Obama simply gave us a half-assed, poorly-implemented version of the same Neocon crap after all. The next POTUS is certain to give us more of the same. Trump is offering the same crap, but instead promising better execution and to bill foreign countries for our military services. This is hardly a replacement for Neocon foreign policy.

    In contrast the Libertarian movement has delivered some success recently for its adherents: gay marriage and legal pot are major victories and provided a lot of the energy for Libertarians in recent years. But it was never the major national force you think it was. Oddly enough, these recent victories have sapped the strength of the US libertarian movement, not enhanced it. What's the new Libertarian rallying cry that would broaden the appeal of the movement?

    Once again, Libertarians face the State alone. In any case, it's not clear to me that this "nationalist Right" movement you describe is intrinsically anti-State so much as it is Nationalist. So it's not exactly a replacement for the Libertarian ethos, but rather it's something new (or perhaps old) altogether. It's a mistake to conflate Trump's "making government work for Americans" with a libertarian's plea to "reduce the size of the State".

    So perhaps I should avoid the semantic ambiguity around your choice of the word "replace" and agree with you that some vacuum is being filled by this nationalist Right movement. Fine. But you may be better off analyzing this emerging US nationalist movement as more of a de facto schism inside both established parties. To wit, it is the final hiving off of vestigial Reagan Democrats combined with the Pat Buchanan nationalist GOP to form Something New.

    I would love to hear more from you on this topic.

    …gay marriage and legal pot are major victories and provided a lot of the energy for Libertarians in recent years.

    Were you toking when you wrote this? “Gay marriage” is the polar opposite of a libertarian position; it’s something the state pulled out of its institutional colon, and now wields with an iron fist.

    Real marriage predated the state, and even civilization. In the West, it was the business of the Church, and only the Church, for over a thousand years. It’s the ultimate libertarian institution.

    If “gay marriage” were real, it would have existed and grown alongside the genuine article, with no assistance from the state. If it’s so libertarian, how come its champions are so keen to crush bakers, photographers, and pizza parlors which, in the words of Tim Cook’s company, “think different”?

    Read More
  31. @European-American
    I'm sorry but this article is of poor quality.

    The comparison of a man, Trump, newly emerged on the scene, with a well-known and longstanding party, the National Front, is a quite a stretch, even if there may be some overlap in their supporters. What's worse, many of the observations about the French political scene are terribly approximate, confused, or plain wrong.

    > A certain similarity exists between the French National Front ... and the soaring poll numbers of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate.

    Confused phrasing representative of the article as a whole.

    > Both the supporters of Marine Le Pen [and of] Donald Trump are routinely denounced in the establishment press as the morally indecent “far right.”

    Not the same at all. To be "far right" in Europe is like being a Nazi, and therefore beyond the pale, much more so than Trump or Buchanan or Goldwater ever were. It's like being David Duke.

    > Guillaume Fay, a sympathetic critic

    He is in the same "far right" category as the National Front. And an odd and obscure choice as an "above the fray" commentator on the French political scene.

    > The National Front stands out among parties in Western Europe because it is the only one that may someday take power in a major European country but which is thundered against in news services as “rightwing extremist”.

    Not the only one at all. There have been such parties in the Netherlands and Austria, for example.

    > progress toward assuming national power will depend on the capacity of Marine Le Pen and her advisers to negotiate alliances with center parties currently allied to the UMP

    Not with center parties, with the more right-wing members of the UMP. Still quite a long shot at this time, as no significant alliances have emerged. Le Pen remains beyond the pale for all other parties.

    > Frenchmen refer to this as the “UMPS”

    Not Frenchmen. It's a term only used by "far right" sympathizers. Just using the term marks you as far right.

    > In Michel Houllebecq’s partly satirical novel Soumission, ... the establishment parties get behind a Muslim fanatic running in the French presidential race, who, once elected, ...

    Spelling: Houellebecq. And his Muslim president is far from a fanatic. That's one of the key ideas of the novel -- it's a surprisingly gentle, easy, reasonable, and plausible slide into Islamism and away from Enlightenment ideals.

    > The National Front must therefore ... build an alliance with one or more of the centrist splinter groups

    Huh? There are no such centrist groups.

    > The senior Le Pen has struck back furiously at groups that have tried to implicate the French people in the Holocaust.

    That's not really an accurate description of Le Pen's few and controversial comments about the Holocaust or France's involvement in it.

    > Jean-Marie has been unflinchingly forthright in speaking about "le grand remplacement"

    Not really. He's been consistently anti-immigrant, but "grand remplacement" is a recent expression, and only very recently mentioned by Le Pen.

    > The Front, according to Faye, has elected to take over the “positions of the old extreme Left,” while trying to fuse them with a tough immigration policy.

    This gradual leftward tilt of the "new" National Front has been noticed by all observers. Why attribute this to Faye, who is obscure and not representative?

    > There is no way the Right can hope to beat the Left by expanding leftist social programs.

    Untrue in France. The argument is that current spending favors civil servants and immigrants. That spending (on housing, for example) could be redirected to the natives who deserve it.

    Thanks for taking the time to give an informative comment.

    It is gratifying to see that there are still people who start with facts and build from there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @European-American
    Glad you liked it :)

    I am sorry to be so negative in my response.

    There certainly is an interesting comparison to be made between the "anti-immigrant" etc. message of Trump and the similar messages of European parties such as the National Front, UKIP, Vlaams Belang, etc., i.e. the "right-wing populists". But better to argue with accurate information.

    In the last few years in France there have been a few politically incorrect trends in intellectual and political circles, listed here by increasing incorrectness:

    -- "souverainisme": claiming the right of France as a sovereign nation to guard its borders, protect its economy, etc. -- in opposition to globalist dogma. This is popular on the left and on the right, but of course mostly only the "extreme fringes" of both.

    -- "nouveaux réactionnaires": a growing number of figures are appearing in mainstream outlets arguing "reactionary" points of view on many subjects: education, globalism, family values, etc.

    -- anti-immigration: there's no real word for this. It's still pretty unacceptable (and often illegal) to say anything bad about immigrants or their numbers or any negative effects they might have. So most of that speech is left to the "fachosphère", a term applied broadly to blogs, public figures, and parties suspect of quasi-"fascist" views.

    The funny thing is, it turns out that, while these views are still beyond the pale for the mainstream media, intellectuals, and politicians, they are great for ratings. Scandal sells!

    So there is a narrow but growing window of opportunity for people who can voice contrarian opinions without shocking too much. But woe to those who go too far! They become non-persons.

    Zemmour, Finkielkraut, Houellebecq, and Onfray can carry on precariously peddling gloom, doom, and so-called "rancid" or "nausea-inducing" views. Their books sell and their public appearances attract attention.

    But those who have gone too far, like Richard Millet, Renaud Camus, Alain Soral, and Dieudonné have been banned from polite society, and are not welcome in the press, on the air waves, or in publishing houses.

    As for the National Front, it is still mostly banned from polite discussion. They are mostly mentioned as the ogre to scare people into behaving. "Surely you don't want to pave the way for the National Front?!" is an effective way of ending an argument. But some allowance has to be made for their impossible-to-ignore presence in opinion polls. So a few of their top figures show up regularly on TV.

    Still, they are very, very isolated, almost completely absent from electoral offices, and will remain so -- barring an electoral tsunami.
  32. @Reg Cæsar

    Through tariffs and immigration control, multi-nationals must be forced to produce products in the country they are consumed.
     
    How would this work in Liechtenstein? Andorra? What would Danes drive? And aren't you talking about embargoes, rather than tariffs?

    Why should a state that could produce everything itself, eg New York or California, not prohibit purchases from neighboring states, to protect its own industries? California already does this with live plants, and many other states with wine.

    Don't forget, too, hundreds of thousands of Southern boys gave their lives fighting this very idea of yours. They wanted those cheap, unlicensed cotton gins from Europe, not Mr Whitney's.

    Divorcing production and consumption is a death wish for 1st world living standards.
     
    In the Third World, families grow what they eat and sew what they wear. It was the Industrial Revolution that divorced production and consumption. And before that, money.

    Just like well-trimmed lawns, the welfare state is manifestation of the White will and has only been successfully imitated in a few Asian states.
     
    You're missing a big point here-- the low-wage foreigner votes for the welfare state at a much higher rate than the native (I was going to say "white man", but that's redundant), and is less fussy about holding it to ethical standards. So it's almost a law of nature that the welfarist party will in time betray the native for the foreigner. They have to. It's their bread and butter.

    And the native reacts as well. It's no accident that the best counties for FDR (the ultimate welfarist) were, just 20 years later, the best counties for Barry Goldwater (the most economically libertarian candidate of the 20th-- or any other-- century). Why? The payee is now the payer.


    What this means is high quality tax payer financed public schools…
     
    Get real. Schools have been getting richer, and their services poorer, for a century and a half now.

    universities…
     
    ,

    Even the most "private" of them get buckets of federal cash, and look where they are now.

    health care…
     
    Since health care is now a religion, shouldn't it be separate from the state? I propose the single payer be the Vatican.

    What? You object? But if you won't accept my church, why should I accept yours-- the state?

    …and a social safety net.
     
    Again, why does this have to be the guys with the guns? The same people who set immigration policy.

    Don’t forget, too, hundreds of thousands of Southern boys gave their lives fighting this very idea of yours. They wanted those cheap, unlicensed cotton gins from Europe, not Mr Whitney’s.

    I guess most people don’t know that the GOP was the party of protectionism from 1861-1945 while the D’s were the party of free trade. Protectionism didn’t make much sense in the immediate aftermath of WWII since the US was the only industrial power left standing and was now the center of a worldwide empire.

    Read More
  33. @iffen
    Thanks for taking the time to give an informative comment.

    It is gratifying to see that there are still people who start with facts and build from there.

    Glad you liked it :)

    I am sorry to be so negative in my response.

    There certainly is an interesting comparison to be made between the “anti-immigrant” etc. message of Trump and the similar messages of European parties such as the National Front, UKIP, Vlaams Belang, etc., i.e. the “right-wing populists”. But better to argue with accurate information.

    In the last few years in France there have been a few politically incorrect trends in intellectual and political circles, listed here by increasing incorrectness:

    – “souverainisme”: claiming the right of France as a sovereign nation to guard its borders, protect its economy, etc. — in opposition to globalist dogma. This is popular on the left and on the right, but of course mostly only the “extreme fringes” of both.

    – “nouveaux réactionnaires”: a growing number of figures are appearing in mainstream outlets arguing “reactionary” points of view on many subjects: education, globalism, family values, etc.

    – anti-immigration: there’s no real word for this. It’s still pretty unacceptable (and often illegal) to say anything bad about immigrants or their numbers or any negative effects they might have. So most of that speech is left to the “fachosphère”, a term applied broadly to blogs, public figures, and parties suspect of quasi-”fascist” views.

    The funny thing is, it turns out that, while these views are still beyond the pale for the mainstream media, intellectuals, and politicians, they are great for ratings. Scandal sells!

    So there is a narrow but growing window of opportunity for people who can voice contrarian opinions without shocking too much. But woe to those who go too far! They become non-persons.

    Zemmour, Finkielkraut, Houellebecq, and Onfray can carry on precariously peddling gloom, doom, and so-called “rancid” or “nausea-inducing” views. Their books sell and their public appearances attract attention.

    But those who have gone too far, like Richard Millet, Renaud Camus, Alain Soral, and Dieudonné have been banned from polite society, and are not welcome in the press, on the air waves, or in publishing houses.

    As for the National Front, it is still mostly banned from polite discussion. They are mostly mentioned as the ogre to scare people into behaving. “Surely you don’t want to pave the way for the National Front?!” is an effective way of ending an argument. But some allowance has to be made for their impossible-to-ignore presence in opinion polls. So a few of their top figures show up regularly on TV.

    Still, they are very, very isolated, almost completely absent from electoral offices, and will remain so — barring an electoral tsunami.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    There is real anxiety in the Republican establishment and it spills over into the MSM. Foxland and the MSM have never collaborated so openly before in order to take down a candidate. When the dis-invite to the Red State confab on the weekend following the debate failed to be the coup de grâce, all alarms went into full condition red mode. Red State and others vigorously tried to backpedal that stationary bike to no avail. Very quickly the Red State faction switched to the convoluted logic that support for Trump would ensure the selection of Bush. Just as quickly the real powers that be realized that the base is never going to accept Bush and would sit the election out in meaningful numbers if he gained the nomination. Bush has now been sacrificed and sent forth to fall on his sword by going mano a mano with Trump. Efforts going forward will be toward trying to coalesce support behind someone like Rubio or Walker. This might work because there is a significant faction that thinks that it would be better to have any Republican, whether establishment or Tea Party type, rather than Hillary.
  34. @SFG
    Good ideas overall, but I doubt the whole 'brown shirt' thing will go over well or look good. Apart from your unfortunate choice of words (do you have any idea how unpopular Nazis are with people who don't comment on Unz?), having paramilitary groups attending his parades is not going to help him with Middle America. Realistically, the police will do the job well enough if you're not dealing with a candidate like Bernie Sanders who's afraid (or unwilling) to order hecklers off.

    I think “Trump’s Brown Shirts” is taken from a comparison made by a media figure (no prizes for guessing of which ethnicity) of Trump supporters and fascists. (Why not? Like the fascists, they are both politically impassioned and white.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Sure, but so are most Democrats. It was a weak analogy.

    My point is, many of you seem to think Nazis got a bad rap and everyone would love them if it weren't for those Jewish media manipulators. Who exist, but starting the largest war in human history doesn't endear you to most people.
  35. @silviosilver
    I think "Trump's Brown Shirts" is taken from a comparison made by a media figure (no prizes for guessing of which ethnicity) of Trump supporters and fascists. (Why not? Like the fascists, they are both politically impassioned and white.)

    Sure, but so are most Democrats. It was a weak analogy.

    My point is, many of you seem to think Nazis got a bad rap and everyone would love them if it weren’t for those Jewish media manipulators. Who exist, but starting the largest war in human history doesn’t endear you to most people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Sure, but so are most Democrats. It was a weak analogy.
     
    Neither the media figure who made the comparison nor the poster on this thread were trying to draw an analogy. The former was trying to discredit Trump by associating him with the epitome of evil, while the latter was making sarcastic use of the attempt - as was I with my parenthetical comment.

    I'm not part of the "many of you" that you think I am, I can assure you. But truth is truth and bs is bs and I prefer the former.

    Believing that the well is poisoned against fascism doesn't commit me to claiming "everyone would love them." It's simply a fact that the last thing that our liberal system (and I really mean liberal here, that's not a euphemism for Jewish) encourages is rational analysis of why the fascists believed and acted as they did. You're just required to hate them - for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons.

    And by the way, Britain and France declaring war on Germany is what initiated the sequence of events we've come to call WWII. I know historical correctness is a nuisance, but see my second sentence above.

  36. @SFG
    Sure, but so are most Democrats. It was a weak analogy.

    My point is, many of you seem to think Nazis got a bad rap and everyone would love them if it weren't for those Jewish media manipulators. Who exist, but starting the largest war in human history doesn't endear you to most people.

    Sure, but so are most Democrats. It was a weak analogy.

    Neither the media figure who made the comparison nor the poster on this thread were trying to draw an analogy. The former was trying to discredit Trump by associating him with the epitome of evil, while the latter was making sarcastic use of the attempt – as was I with my parenthetical comment.

    I’m not part of the “many of you” that you think I am, I can assure you. But truth is truth and bs is bs and I prefer the former.

    Believing that the well is poisoned against fascism doesn’t commit me to claiming “everyone would love them.” It’s simply a fact that the last thing that our liberal system (and I really mean liberal here, that’s not a euphemism for Jewish) encourages is rational analysis of why the fascists believed and acted as they did. You’re just required to hate them – for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons.

    And by the way, Britain and France declaring war on Germany is what initiated the sequence of events we’ve come to call WWII. I know historical correctness is a nuisance, but see my second sentence above.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    I know historical correctness is a nuisance, but see my second sentence above.
     
    I edited the comment, so my remark about preferring truth over bs is no longer that second sentence.
    , @SFG
    OK, I understand now. My apologies. Sarcasm tends to get lost over the Internet...and I don't doubt someone tried to compare Trump to the Nazis. I doubt it will stick...more likely he'll just say something outrageous that will drive away his base. But he seems to have driven other Republican candidates away from amnesty, so some good may come of the whole thing.

    As for why the fascists acted as they did--wasn't everybody afraid of Soviet Communism, which was indeed pretty scary, especially further east?

    As for WW2...didn't the Germans invade Poland? With Soviets invading on the other end?

  37. @silviosilver

    Sure, but so are most Democrats. It was a weak analogy.
     
    Neither the media figure who made the comparison nor the poster on this thread were trying to draw an analogy. The former was trying to discredit Trump by associating him with the epitome of evil, while the latter was making sarcastic use of the attempt - as was I with my parenthetical comment.

    I'm not part of the "many of you" that you think I am, I can assure you. But truth is truth and bs is bs and I prefer the former.

    Believing that the well is poisoned against fascism doesn't commit me to claiming "everyone would love them." It's simply a fact that the last thing that our liberal system (and I really mean liberal here, that's not a euphemism for Jewish) encourages is rational analysis of why the fascists believed and acted as they did. You're just required to hate them - for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons.

    And by the way, Britain and France declaring war on Germany is what initiated the sequence of events we've come to call WWII. I know historical correctness is a nuisance, but see my second sentence above.

    I know historical correctness is a nuisance, but see my second sentence above.

    I edited the comment, so my remark about preferring truth over bs is no longer that second sentence.

    Read More
  38. @European-American
    Glad you liked it :)

    I am sorry to be so negative in my response.

    There certainly is an interesting comparison to be made between the "anti-immigrant" etc. message of Trump and the similar messages of European parties such as the National Front, UKIP, Vlaams Belang, etc., i.e. the "right-wing populists". But better to argue with accurate information.

    In the last few years in France there have been a few politically incorrect trends in intellectual and political circles, listed here by increasing incorrectness:

    -- "souverainisme": claiming the right of France as a sovereign nation to guard its borders, protect its economy, etc. -- in opposition to globalist dogma. This is popular on the left and on the right, but of course mostly only the "extreme fringes" of both.

    -- "nouveaux réactionnaires": a growing number of figures are appearing in mainstream outlets arguing "reactionary" points of view on many subjects: education, globalism, family values, etc.

    -- anti-immigration: there's no real word for this. It's still pretty unacceptable (and often illegal) to say anything bad about immigrants or their numbers or any negative effects they might have. So most of that speech is left to the "fachosphère", a term applied broadly to blogs, public figures, and parties suspect of quasi-"fascist" views.

    The funny thing is, it turns out that, while these views are still beyond the pale for the mainstream media, intellectuals, and politicians, they are great for ratings. Scandal sells!

    So there is a narrow but growing window of opportunity for people who can voice contrarian opinions without shocking too much. But woe to those who go too far! They become non-persons.

    Zemmour, Finkielkraut, Houellebecq, and Onfray can carry on precariously peddling gloom, doom, and so-called "rancid" or "nausea-inducing" views. Their books sell and their public appearances attract attention.

    But those who have gone too far, like Richard Millet, Renaud Camus, Alain Soral, and Dieudonné have been banned from polite society, and are not welcome in the press, on the air waves, or in publishing houses.

    As for the National Front, it is still mostly banned from polite discussion. They are mostly mentioned as the ogre to scare people into behaving. "Surely you don't want to pave the way for the National Front?!" is an effective way of ending an argument. But some allowance has to be made for their impossible-to-ignore presence in opinion polls. So a few of their top figures show up regularly on TV.

    Still, they are very, very isolated, almost completely absent from electoral offices, and will remain so -- barring an electoral tsunami.

    There is real anxiety in the Republican establishment and it spills over into the MSM. Foxland and the MSM have never collaborated so openly before in order to take down a candidate. When the dis-invite to the Red State confab on the weekend following the debate failed to be the coup de grâce, all alarms went into full condition red mode. Red State and others vigorously tried to backpedal that stationary bike to no avail. Very quickly the Red State faction switched to the convoluted logic that support for Trump would ensure the selection of Bush. Just as quickly the real powers that be realized that the base is never going to accept Bush and would sit the election out in meaningful numbers if he gained the nomination. Bush has now been sacrificed and sent forth to fall on his sword by going mano a mano with Trump. Efforts going forward will be toward trying to coalesce support behind someone like Rubio or Walker. This might work because there is a significant faction that thinks that it would be better to have any Republican, whether establishment or Tea Party type, rather than Hillary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I think the billionaires club promised Rand that if he bit at Trump's ankles like one of those obnoxious lap dogs that the they would back him next time around for a Senate and Presidential run. That is why he attacked after the debate when it was obvious he was going down for the count. Unfortunately by then, even people who supported Rand in the beginning when he was anti-mideast war and against government intrusion into our private lives had stopped listening to him and it had no effect.
  39. I’ve been thinking along these same lines, that what Trump is doing is basically creating an American UKIP. For the past few years, insurgency on the right has meant the Tea Party, but at this point, it’s pretty obvious that the Tea Party, if not failed, has not won. The result has been a low grade civil war within the party for years, and given the conduct of the Republican majority in Congress, the establishment is definitely winning.

    And then there’s Trump. Anti immigration, and economic nationalist; just like the right leaning parties in Europe. Trump may well usher in a massive re-alignment in American politics,

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The only hope is to split the Republican party.

    Corporate globalists and followers in one group and populist types who care about Americans who work for a living in the other. The populist group can draw significant support from the talented tenths (maybe the talented twentieths or more) and socially conservative people who currently vote for the Demos. In a three way split working people could win it.
  40. @iffen
    There is real anxiety in the Republican establishment and it spills over into the MSM. Foxland and the MSM have never collaborated so openly before in order to take down a candidate. When the dis-invite to the Red State confab on the weekend following the debate failed to be the coup de grâce, all alarms went into full condition red mode. Red State and others vigorously tried to backpedal that stationary bike to no avail. Very quickly the Red State faction switched to the convoluted logic that support for Trump would ensure the selection of Bush. Just as quickly the real powers that be realized that the base is never going to accept Bush and would sit the election out in meaningful numbers if he gained the nomination. Bush has now been sacrificed and sent forth to fall on his sword by going mano a mano with Trump. Efforts going forward will be toward trying to coalesce support behind someone like Rubio or Walker. This might work because there is a significant faction that thinks that it would be better to have any Republican, whether establishment or Tea Party type, rather than Hillary.

    I think the billionaires club promised Rand that if he bit at Trump’s ankles like one of those obnoxious lap dogs that the they would back him next time around for a Senate and Presidential run. That is why he attacked after the debate when it was obvious he was going down for the count. Unfortunately by then, even people who supported Rand in the beginning when he was anti-mideast war and against government intrusion into our private lives had stopped listening to him and it had no effect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    There is absolutely no way that somebody who looks like a poodle with a bad grooming can be elected president.
  41. @MarkinLA
    I think the billionaires club promised Rand that if he bit at Trump's ankles like one of those obnoxious lap dogs that the they would back him next time around for a Senate and Presidential run. That is why he attacked after the debate when it was obvious he was going down for the count. Unfortunately by then, even people who supported Rand in the beginning when he was anti-mideast war and against government intrusion into our private lives had stopped listening to him and it had no effect.

    There is absolutely no way that somebody who looks like a poodle with a bad grooming can be elected president.

    Read More
  42. @Mike Street Station
    I've been thinking along these same lines, that what Trump is doing is basically creating an American UKIP. For the past few years, insurgency on the right has meant the Tea Party, but at this point, it's pretty obvious that the Tea Party, if not failed, has not won. The result has been a low grade civil war within the party for years, and given the conduct of the Republican majority in Congress, the establishment is definitely winning.

    And then there's Trump. Anti immigration, and economic nationalist; just like the right leaning parties in Europe. Trump may well usher in a massive re-alignment in American politics,

    The only hope is to split the Republican party.

    Corporate globalists and followers in one group and populist types who care about Americans who work for a living in the other. The populist group can draw significant support from the talented tenths (maybe the talented twentieths or more) and socially conservative people who currently vote for the Demos. In a three way split working people could win it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike Street Station

    The only hope is to split the Republican party.

    Corporate globalists and followers in one group and populist types who care about Americans who work for a living in the other.
     

    Splitting the Republican Party is a ticket to ensure Democratic domination immediately, without even a significant opposition to put the brakes on crazy. Far better to drive the Globalist out of the Republican Party to the Democrats. The Chamber of Commerce threatened as much anyway.

    UKIP drew not only from dissatisfied Tories but from working class Labour Party voters. Bernie Sanders is touching (barely) a little bit of that on the left. I think it would be better under our system to push globalists out of the Republicans and try to attract the remaining working class out of the Democratic field. It would be a massive realignment of political power, but it's not impossible. It could also break the Democrats racial politics game.

  43. @silviosilver

    Sure, but so are most Democrats. It was a weak analogy.
     
    Neither the media figure who made the comparison nor the poster on this thread were trying to draw an analogy. The former was trying to discredit Trump by associating him with the epitome of evil, while the latter was making sarcastic use of the attempt - as was I with my parenthetical comment.

    I'm not part of the "many of you" that you think I am, I can assure you. But truth is truth and bs is bs and I prefer the former.

    Believing that the well is poisoned against fascism doesn't commit me to claiming "everyone would love them." It's simply a fact that the last thing that our liberal system (and I really mean liberal here, that's not a euphemism for Jewish) encourages is rational analysis of why the fascists believed and acted as they did. You're just required to hate them - for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons.

    And by the way, Britain and France declaring war on Germany is what initiated the sequence of events we've come to call WWII. I know historical correctness is a nuisance, but see my second sentence above.

    OK, I understand now. My apologies. Sarcasm tends to get lost over the Internet…and I don’t doubt someone tried to compare Trump to the Nazis. I doubt it will stick…more likely he’ll just say something outrageous that will drive away his base. But he seems to have driven other Republican candidates away from amnesty, so some good may come of the whole thing.

    As for why the fascists acted as they did–wasn’t everybody afraid of Soviet Communism, which was indeed pretty scary, especially further east?

    As for WW2…didn’t the Germans invade Poland? With Soviets invading on the other end?

    Read More
  44. @Reg Cæsar

    Through tariffs and immigration control, multi-nationals must be forced to produce products in the country they are consumed.
     
    How would this work in Liechtenstein? Andorra? What would Danes drive? And aren't you talking about embargoes, rather than tariffs?

    Why should a state that could produce everything itself, eg New York or California, not prohibit purchases from neighboring states, to protect its own industries? California already does this with live plants, and many other states with wine.

    Don't forget, too, hundreds of thousands of Southern boys gave their lives fighting this very idea of yours. They wanted those cheap, unlicensed cotton gins from Europe, not Mr Whitney's.

    Divorcing production and consumption is a death wish for 1st world living standards.
     
    In the Third World, families grow what they eat and sew what they wear. It was the Industrial Revolution that divorced production and consumption. And before that, money.

    Just like well-trimmed lawns, the welfare state is manifestation of the White will and has only been successfully imitated in a few Asian states.
     
    You're missing a big point here-- the low-wage foreigner votes for the welfare state at a much higher rate than the native (I was going to say "white man", but that's redundant), and is less fussy about holding it to ethical standards. So it's almost a law of nature that the welfarist party will in time betray the native for the foreigner. They have to. It's their bread and butter.

    And the native reacts as well. It's no accident that the best counties for FDR (the ultimate welfarist) were, just 20 years later, the best counties for Barry Goldwater (the most economically libertarian candidate of the 20th-- or any other-- century). Why? The payee is now the payer.


    What this means is high quality tax payer financed public schools…
     
    Get real. Schools have been getting richer, and their services poorer, for a century and a half now.

    universities…
     
    ,

    Even the most "private" of them get buckets of federal cash, and look where they are now.

    health care…
     
    Since health care is now a religion, shouldn't it be separate from the state? I propose the single payer be the Vatican.

    What? You object? But if you won't accept my church, why should I accept yours-- the state?

    …and a social safety net.
     
    Again, why does this have to be the guys with the guns? The same people who set immigration policy.

    How would this work in Liechtenstein? Andorra? What would Danes drive? And aren’t you talking about embargoes, rather than tariffs?

    What you are really asking here is: for economic nationalism to function well, what is the optimal national area (ONA)? Obviously Liechtenstein is not. But this example certainly does not refute the notion of economic nationalism. As the global economic situation changes, so will the size of an ONA. For example, most of the current countries of the EU could form an economically nationalist nation with protected borders — against immigration and products of cheap labor — if they chose to do so (they currently don’t). Your question about Denmark is interesting, Sweden, with roughly twice the population, has two major car — Vovlo and Saab. But it must also be pointed out that a (ONA) will not necessarily match a traditional blood and soil type of homogenous national group. A more flexible type of economic nationalism (Steve Sailer” Citizenism) must be developed to address the rarity of a homogenous ethnic (blood) area actually matching an ONA.

    Why should a state that could produce everything itself, eg New York or California, not prohibit purchases from neighboring states, to protect its own industries? California already does this with live plants, and many other states with wine.

    I’m calling on NATIONS (not states within a nation) to produce as much domestically as possible. The inefficiencies up to a point are more than compensated for by the fact that your fellow citizens are working, spending, and paying taxes. With multiplier factors included, despite some products being more expensive than they would be produced in China, the society as a whole will be wealthier, healthier, and more cohesive if fellow citizens buy locally. Obviously there are limits, Sweden is not going to produce bananas any time soon.

    Don’t forget, too, hundreds of thousands of Southern boys gave their lives fighting this very idea of yours. They wanted those cheap, unlicensed cotton gins from Europe, not Mr Whitney’s.

    True, the Civil War can be read as a war of imperial conquest by an economically nationalist North against a South that was still economically a colony of Britain. Its often like that with weak pawns, had the South been more economically nationalist, they may have developed the wherewithal to stand up to Northern imperial aggression. As it was, due to their refusal to diversify COMBINED with their desire to be independent, they were a weak independent entity and as Thucydides says, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

    In the Third World, families grow what they eat and sew what they wear. It was the Industrial Revolution that divorced production and consumption. And before that, money.

    True, in the 3rd world, production matches consumption. Are you saying this causes the 3rd world’s plight? Correlation does not always equal causation (CDNAEC). And yes the Industrial Revolution did temporarily divorce production from consumption but nations such as Germany, the US, and France applied economic nationalism and resisted Britain’s industrial monopoly and set up industries of their own and thrived while backwaters like the South who refused to industrialize became the bitches of those who did. Just 40 years ago most of the West had more or less a balance between consumption and production and this coincided with a Western Golden Age . Yes I know CDNAEC but at least this shows balanced consumption and production is not compatible with a wealthy and healthy society.

    You’re missing a big point here– the low-wage foreigner votes for the welfare state at a much higher rate than the native (I was going to say “white man”, but that’s redundant), and is less fussy about holding it to ethical standards. So it’s almost a law of nature that the welfarist party will in time betray the native for the foreigner. They have to. It’s their bread and butter.

    I agree and would go even further. The low-wage “other” is the death of a welfare state. Pre-immigration both Left and Right in most European countries were pro-welfare state. In fact, as shown in California, with the Republican-inspired California Public University system, the Right were often better at the welfare state than the Left. This shows the wisdom of Otto von Bismarck (founding father of the Western welfare state) who always held that parties should take the helm to carry out policies which they opposed. “If reactionary measures are to be carried, the Liberal party takes the rudder, from the correct assumption that it will not overstep the necessary limits; if liberal measures are to be carried, the Conservative party takes office in its turn from the same consideration.”

    So in the 60’s the Left were the natural opponents of cheap labor immigration (as they should be) with Cesar Chavez leading the charge. The right (Big Ag in Cali, Big Car in France) imported cheap docile foreign labor to counter the native man’s labor unions.

    The death knell of the welfare state are cheaters, or to appropriate a Stalinist term, “Wreckers”. One huge problem in the US constraining the full development of a welfare state was the presence of the 10% black population who were seen as potential Wreckers. And so initial moves towards a welfare state excluded them

    Goldwater’s utter failure to arouse the white masses against the welfare state only proves the point: even with the potential black Wreckers within, white America overwhelmingly rejected his attacks on the welfare state. What the Civil Rights Acts then did was to give the Wreckers access to the welfare state which eventually helped fuel Reagan’s attacks — which this time were widely embraced.

    And so 3rd world immigration works in a similar way. Interestingly our elites pulled a sort of Bismarck and put the Left in charge of cheerleading the cheap labor invasion while the Right pretended to be against it. In the end the Right double profited, they could attack the welfare state with waves of Wreckers rushing into the country and benefit as more and more wealth was transferred to the rich as the poor man’s wages fell (George Borjas estimates illegal immigration transfers $100 billion a year from the working class to the wealthy).

    In Europe the traditional center right parties on the one hand are all-in on the 3rd world invasion while on the other nad they use it to cut the European welfare state – which was impossible before due to the lack of Wreckers.

    So what is a patriotic Identitarian (français de souche – old ethnic stock Frenchmen) or American to do?

    The welfare state is at once his birthright but at the same time is acting as a Wrecker-magnet to destroy his society. The answer is three-fold:

    1. Stop Wreckers from coming into your country.
    2. Deport (or pressure/bribe to emigrate) as many of the Wreckers as possible.
    3. Convert non-deportable Wreckers into workers.

    The first two policies reinforce the third. The unwritten portion of Trump’s program is that once the wall is built and the illegals are deported, we will have labor shortages which will imperatively need to be filled by African Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Shine a Light
    oops, the following sentence should read:

    Yes I know CDNAEC but at least this shows balanced consumption and production is not INcompatible with a wealthy and healthy society.

    or to get rid of the annoying double negative:

    Yes I know CDNAEC but at least this shows balanced consumption and production is compatible with a wealthy and healthy society.
  45. @Shine a Light

    How would this work in Liechtenstein? Andorra? What would Danes drive? And aren’t you talking about embargoes, rather than tariffs?
     
    What you are really asking here is: for economic nationalism to function well, what is the optimal national area (ONA)? Obviously Liechtenstein is not. But this example certainly does not refute the notion of economic nationalism. As the global economic situation changes, so will the size of an ONA. For example, most of the current countries of the EU could form an economically nationalist nation with protected borders -- against immigration and products of cheap labor -- if they chose to do so (they currently don’t). Your question about Denmark is interesting, Sweden, with roughly twice the population, has two major car -- Vovlo and Saab. But it must also be pointed out that a (ONA) will not necessarily match a traditional blood and soil type of homogenous national group. A more flexible type of economic nationalism (Steve Sailer” Citizenism) must be developed to address the rarity of a homogenous ethnic (blood) area actually matching an ONA.

    Why should a state that could produce everything itself, eg New York or California, not prohibit purchases from neighboring states, to protect its own industries? California already does this with live plants, and many other states with wine.
     
    I’m calling on NATIONS (not states within a nation) to produce as much domestically as possible. The inefficiencies up to a point are more than compensated for by the fact that your fellow citizens are working, spending, and paying taxes. With multiplier factors included, despite some products being more expensive than they would be produced in China, the society as a whole will be wealthier, healthier, and more cohesive if fellow citizens buy locally. Obviously there are limits, Sweden is not going to produce bananas any time soon.

    Don’t forget, too, hundreds of thousands of Southern boys gave their lives fighting this very idea of yours. They wanted those cheap, unlicensed cotton gins from Europe, not Mr Whitney’s.
     
    True, the Civil War can be read as a war of imperial conquest by an economically nationalist North against a South that was still economically a colony of Britain. Its often like that with weak pawns, had the South been more economically nationalist, they may have developed the wherewithal to stand up to Northern imperial aggression. As it was, due to their refusal to diversify COMBINED with their desire to be independent, they were a weak independent entity and as Thucydides says, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

    In the Third World, families grow what they eat and sew what they wear. It was the Industrial Revolution that divorced production and consumption. And before that, money.
     
    True, in the 3rd world, production matches consumption. Are you saying this causes the 3rd world’s plight? Correlation does not always equal causation (CDNAEC). And yes the Industrial Revolution did temporarily divorce production from consumption but nations such as Germany, the US, and France applied economic nationalism and resisted Britain’s industrial monopoly and set up industries of their own and thrived while backwaters like the South who refused to industrialize became the bitches of those who did. Just 40 years ago most of the West had more or less a balance between consumption and production and this coincided with a Western Golden Age . Yes I know CDNAEC but at least this shows balanced consumption and production is not compatible with a wealthy and healthy society.

    You’re missing a big point here– the low-wage foreigner votes for the welfare state at a much higher rate than the native (I was going to say “white man”, but that’s redundant), and is less fussy about holding it to ethical standards. So it’s almost a law of nature that the welfarist party will in time betray the native for the foreigner. They have to. It’s their bread and butter.
     
    I agree and would go even further. The low-wage “other” is the death of a welfare state. Pre-immigration both Left and Right in most European countries were pro-welfare state. In fact, as shown in California, with the Republican-inspired California Public University system, the Right were often better at the welfare state than the Left. This shows the wisdom of Otto von Bismarck (founding father of the Western welfare state) who always held that parties should take the helm to carry out policies which they opposed. “If reactionary measures are to be carried, the Liberal party takes the rudder, from the correct assumption that it will not overstep the necessary limits; if liberal measures are to be carried, the Conservative party takes office in its turn from the same consideration.”

    So in the 60’s the Left were the natural opponents of cheap labor immigration (as they should be) with Cesar Chavez leading the charge. The right (Big Ag in Cali, Big Car in France) imported cheap docile foreign labor to counter the native man’s labor unions.

    The death knell of the welfare state are cheaters, or to appropriate a Stalinist term, “Wreckers”. One huge problem in the US constraining the full development of a welfare state was the presence of the 10% black population who were seen as potential Wreckers. And so initial moves towards a welfare state excluded them

    Goldwater’s utter failure to arouse the white masses against the welfare state only proves the point: even with the potential black Wreckers within, white America overwhelmingly rejected his attacks on the welfare state. What the Civil Rights Acts then did was to give the Wreckers access to the welfare state which eventually helped fuel Reagan’s attacks -- which this time were widely embraced.

    And so 3rd world immigration works in a similar way. Interestingly our elites pulled a sort of Bismarck and put the Left in charge of cheerleading the cheap labor invasion while the Right pretended to be against it. In the end the Right double profited, they could attack the welfare state with waves of Wreckers rushing into the country and benefit as more and more wealth was transferred to the rich as the poor man’s wages fell (George Borjas estimates illegal immigration transfers $100 billion a year from the working class to the wealthy).

    In Europe the traditional center right parties on the one hand are all-in on the 3rd world invasion while on the other nad they use it to cut the European welfare state – which was impossible before due to the lack of Wreckers.

    So what is a patriotic Identitarian (français de souche – old ethnic stock Frenchmen) or American to do?

    The welfare state is at once his birthright but at the same time is acting as a Wrecker-magnet to destroy his society. The answer is three-fold:

    1. Stop Wreckers from coming into your country.
    2. Deport (or pressure/bribe to emigrate) as many of the Wreckers as possible.
    3. Convert non-deportable Wreckers into workers.

    The first two policies reinforce the third. The unwritten portion of Trump’s program is that once the wall is built and the illegals are deported, we will have labor shortages which will imperatively need to be filled by African Americans.

    oops, the following sentence should read:

    Yes I know CDNAEC but at least this shows balanced consumption and production is not INcompatible with a wealthy and healthy society.

    or to get rid of the annoying double negative:

    Yes I know CDNAEC but at least this shows balanced consumption and production is compatible with a wealthy and healthy society.

    Read More
  46. @iffen
    The only hope is to split the Republican party.

    Corporate globalists and followers in one group and populist types who care about Americans who work for a living in the other. The populist group can draw significant support from the talented tenths (maybe the talented twentieths or more) and socially conservative people who currently vote for the Demos. In a three way split working people could win it.

    The only hope is to split the Republican party.

    Corporate globalists and followers in one group and populist types who care about Americans who work for a living in the other.

    Splitting the Republican Party is a ticket to ensure Democratic domination immediately, without even a significant opposition to put the brakes on crazy. Far better to drive the Globalist out of the Republican Party to the Democrats. The Chamber of Commerce threatened as much anyway.

    UKIP drew not only from dissatisfied Tories but from working class Labour Party voters. Bernie Sanders is touching (barely) a little bit of that on the left. I think it would be better under our system to push globalists out of the Republicans and try to attract the remaining working class out of the Democratic field. It would be a massive realignment of political power, but it’s not impossible. It could also break the Democrats racial politics game.

    Read More
  47. […] The French National Front and Donald Trump by Paul Gottfried for the Unz Review. […]

    Read More
  48. Either way would be okay with me.

    The people with real power are not worried at all about Hillary.

    Read More
  49. @European-American
    I'm sorry but this article is of poor quality.

    The comparison of a man, Trump, newly emerged on the scene, with a well-known and longstanding party, the National Front, is a quite a stretch, even if there may be some overlap in their supporters. What's worse, many of the observations about the French political scene are terribly approximate, confused, or plain wrong.

    > A certain similarity exists between the French National Front ... and the soaring poll numbers of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate.

    Confused phrasing representative of the article as a whole.

    > Both the supporters of Marine Le Pen [and of] Donald Trump are routinely denounced in the establishment press as the morally indecent “far right.”

    Not the same at all. To be "far right" in Europe is like being a Nazi, and therefore beyond the pale, much more so than Trump or Buchanan or Goldwater ever were. It's like being David Duke.

    > Guillaume Fay, a sympathetic critic

    He is in the same "far right" category as the National Front. And an odd and obscure choice as an "above the fray" commentator on the French political scene.

    > The National Front stands out among parties in Western Europe because it is the only one that may someday take power in a major European country but which is thundered against in news services as “rightwing extremist”.

    Not the only one at all. There have been such parties in the Netherlands and Austria, for example.

    > progress toward assuming national power will depend on the capacity of Marine Le Pen and her advisers to negotiate alliances with center parties currently allied to the UMP

    Not with center parties, with the more right-wing members of the UMP. Still quite a long shot at this time, as no significant alliances have emerged. Le Pen remains beyond the pale for all other parties.

    > Frenchmen refer to this as the “UMPS”

    Not Frenchmen. It's a term only used by "far right" sympathizers. Just using the term marks you as far right.

    > In Michel Houllebecq’s partly satirical novel Soumission, ... the establishment parties get behind a Muslim fanatic running in the French presidential race, who, once elected, ...

    Spelling: Houellebecq. And his Muslim president is far from a fanatic. That's one of the key ideas of the novel -- it's a surprisingly gentle, easy, reasonable, and plausible slide into Islamism and away from Enlightenment ideals.

    > The National Front must therefore ... build an alliance with one or more of the centrist splinter groups

    Huh? There are no such centrist groups.

    > The senior Le Pen has struck back furiously at groups that have tried to implicate the French people in the Holocaust.

    That's not really an accurate description of Le Pen's few and controversial comments about the Holocaust or France's involvement in it.

    > Jean-Marie has been unflinchingly forthright in speaking about "le grand remplacement"

    Not really. He's been consistently anti-immigrant, but "grand remplacement" is a recent expression, and only very recently mentioned by Le Pen.

    > The Front, according to Faye, has elected to take over the “positions of the old extreme Left,” while trying to fuse them with a tough immigration policy.

    This gradual leftward tilt of the "new" National Front has been noticed by all observers. Why attribute this to Faye, who is obscure and not representative?

    > There is no way the Right can hope to beat the Left by expanding leftist social programs.

    Untrue in France. The argument is that current spending favors civil servants and immigrants. That spending (on housing, for example) could be redirected to the natives who deserve it.

    Several of your criticisms are not well-reasoned, such as of this comment:

    Both the supporters of Marine Le Pen [and of] Donald Trump are routinely denounced in the establishment press as the morally indecent “far right.”

    That does not say they are the same. It says they “are routinely denounced in the establishment press as the morally indecent ‘far right.’” The subject of the sentence is the establishment press’ judgment, not the equation of Le Pen and Trump supporters. The writer is 100% correct in what he wrote.

    OR

    In Michel Houllebecq’s partly satirical novel

    Spelling: Houellebecq.

    Who gives a shit?

    A little selective editing of your comment would have gone a long way.

    Read More
  50. @Hypocritter
    Professor Gottfried exposes the dynamics of group competition presently reaching crisis disequilibrium across borders in several locales of the presently constituted post Judeo-Christian European civilization. Operating under the constraints of one dollar one vote 'democracy' western populations have been offerred little real political choice since options are per-decided by elite primaries, eg the Adelson primary. This built in corruption has provided political cover for the transnational elite program of increasing western populations through the importation of both skilled and unskilled labor from neighboring regional labor producers and brain drain tech labor exporters. Economically speaking , the elite shifts the labor supply curve exogenously. This naturally hurts domestic suppliers (Western Citizens ) , helps new imported labor as well as consumers of labor ie Capital. And of course this leads to widening income inequality with increasing profits caputred by Capital relative to Labor. But what is happening outside of this classical micro-economic analysis, that is, in biological terms?

    We have a pluralism of phenotypes operating in various biological niches in which they specialize. These subspecies have corresponding cultural values based adaptions optimal to their recent socio economic history. There are groups which are intersections of these phenotypes specialized in function. One such group might be described as cosmopolitans, transnational mercurials, adapted to intermediation and administration. What do they administer> Market transactions that is allocations of capital that consumes labor inputs. In gross terms these inputs could be described as skilled and unskilled although of course there are graduations and specializations. Tha administrators dont actually make anything. They use the output of labor, that is goods, but they dont make goods. They manage capital allocation to achieve more goods for the owners of capital ( accumulated market power). In biological terms they are intra-specific intra-species social parasites. The labor inputs from whatever phenotype are the Hosts upon which they feed. The political crisis is a result of delegitimization of the system because of democratic corruption ie Adelson primaries. The host has come to understand that they are not iin fact honored soldiers and citizens but rather replaceable food stuffes, farm oxen, elite consumer goods.


    The underlying dynamic is not top down conspiratorial rather simply a revelation of group and phenotype interest revealed preferences. Meme construction is part of the system dynamics. Race-Gender politics is simply an ideology of the transnational multi-phenotype administrative class. It serves to manage the demographics, reproduction,-sterilization of the expensive domestic supply set for replacement. It is merely cultural replacement (ethnocide ) together with phenotype replacement ( genocide ). but not exactly since the desired result is a merger intersection of new and old labor inputs ( foreign and domestic ).

    It is clear that some subspecie groups are better equipped to handle this transition These subgroups may have beeen active in setting forth the foundation for the present dynamics. But what distinguishes the winners here is a profound sense of instrumentality towards the Other, the displaced, the Native, with an almost psychopathic ability to Use the Other in this game of instrumentality. Because the displacement is biological, primary; it can only be achieved through force, that is with the threat of violence.

    Trump through his wealth jumped out of system constraints via financial corruption. He may appeal to the displaced by addressing the real issues of concern. This evades the party elite ideological constraints through immediate polling feedback. It is suggestive here then that this is a business decision , a personal narcisstic errand, rather than an expression of any elite group strategy, indeed it bypasses elite group interests in its appeal to labor inputs. The conflict is between the transnational parasite and the Host sub populations distributed globally.

    Mathematically this is similar if not identical to a predator prey model. It is chaotic. There is but one stable equilibrium (pair). Extinction: Of the Host or the Parasite.

    @Predator Prey Model

    You almost had an interesting comment, there. Perhaps you could return to basic English and try again. Check it out:

    “Economically speaking , the elite shifts the labor supply curve exogenously.”

    vs.

    “The elite favor non-whites for labor jobs.”

    Careful with your adverbs.

    Read More
  51. Really, I can’t believe some of the arguments on this thread, especially the defense of libertarianism.

    Do you people not realize that libertarianism is a complete and utter failure? It is a fantasy movement, with no practical application anywhere. It is so impractical that people elect to not have any libertarianism at all…by simply not voting for libertarian candidates. Put simply, the only thing libertarians achieve is helping to push leftist policies, like gay marriage and legal pot.

    To actually reduce the size of the State requires you to seize the power of the State. But since libertarians cannot effectively seize the power of the state, then they can never actually shrink. The movement is dead in the water.

    Look at how poor libertarian analysis is of Donald Trump. Trump’s entire popularity is attributed to his straight talk about immigration and his unwillingness to bend to media shibboleths that would doom a lesser candidate. Trump recognizes the “undervalued property” of the immigration issue so he talks it up and his personality prevents TPTB from forcing a backtrack on his positions.

    The libertarians do nothing but sneer at this development. Why? Don’t the libertarians understand the existential threat that current mass immigration poses to the United States? Trumps supporters certainly do, so they welcome a candidate that addresses the issue. This analysis should be obvious.

    Yet, the libertarians keep falling back on Trump being a big government goon, or a flip-flopper, or a Nazi, as if any of this matters. This is how out of touch libertardians are with reality.

    Read More
  52. Put simply, the only thing libertarians achieve is helping to push leftist policies, like gay marriage and legal pot.

    Lib lib libertarians ARE cultural Marxists.

    Read More
  53. […] Trump insurgence in particular is expressing a populist frustration which is also manifesting in such things as the surge in the National Front in France, […]

    Read More
  54. […] on the far right reach the mainstream, as that of Guillaume Fay, a member of the New Right and a passionate opponent of immigration, arguing that the Front “crystalizes the anguish of millions of French natives who have become […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS