The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ilana Mercer ArchiveBlogview
The Old Right Rising
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Paul Gottfried’s essay, “Are Bannon’s Critics For Real?”, dispenses with the no-brainer that Steve Bannon, “Breitbart executive and Donald Trump adviser,” is a white nationalist. After all, argues Gottfried, Bannon “comes from the world of Washington politics and journalism,” not exactly a hotbed of white identity politics. It’s “not at all clear to me that those who write for Bannon’s website publication, some of whom are Orthodox Jews, have much to do with white identitarians who also use the term ‘Altright,’” contends Gottfried.

As co-originator of the Alternative Right concept and phrase, Gottfried is in the know.

His piece appeared on FrontPage Magazine, which openly debates taboo topics—from black-on-white crime (the predominate kind), to slavery (who abolished it; who still practices it), to Islam (it counsels conquest, not co-existence). And now neoconservatism, a deformation of conservatism drastically weakened, inadvertently, by Donald Trump.

Why inadvertently? As Barack Obama remarked recently (“a stopped clock” and all that stuff), President-elect Trump is not an ideologue. It’s a point made in my latest book, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed”:

“Donald Trump is no ‘visionary’ vis-à-vis government. If anything, he’s practical and pragmatic. He wants a fix for Americans, not a fantasy. A healthy patriotism is associated with Trump’s kind of robust particularism—petty provincialism, if you like—and certainly not with the deracinated globalism of the neoconservative and liberal establishment. The Left calls it fascism; patriots call it nationalism. Donald Trump has the potential to be just the provincial, America Firster the doctor ordered.”

Bannon is also catching hell for some hearsay. He’s alleged to have complained about wealthy Jews raising “whiney brats.” Try this on for antisemitism. It’s a flashback. I’m seated at a café with my father. We’re being served by a rather animated waiter. I can’t recall how the conversation turned to Ashkenazi Jews, but our waiter let rip: “If only Hitler had killed all of them,” he fulminated.

The café was in Israel of my youth. The waiter was a Yemeni Jew. The time: Well before American political correctness had percolated around the world. The hatred our waiter had expressed for his East-European brethren was perfectly understandable to Israelis back then.

When they disembarked from the airplanes sent by the Israeli government to airlift the Yemeni Jews to Israel, in 1949—Operation Magic Carpet it was called—these “brown” Jews, a lovely, refined, ancient community, were frequently sprayed with chemical decontaminants and showered with racial contempt by the “white” Jews who ran the country. I know not whether Israelis can get away with such politically improper expression these days, but we laughed mightily at our waiter’s hyperbole. For that’s all it was.

If our waiter is still alive, he’d probably second Steve Bannon’s alleged quip about the spoilt progeny of rich Jews.

In heralding “the beginnings of an effective post-neoconservative Right,” Gottfried also singles out for scorn neoconservatives like Glenn Beck, Jonah Goldberg, writers for the Wall Street Journal, Rich Lowry, and “the perpetually pouting Ben Shapiro,” likening their intellectual heft to that of “community college drop-outs.”

Neoconservative historian Max Boot is another “favorite” of Gottfried. Boot has pride-of-place—not in a good way—in “The Trump Revolution”: On March 2, 2016, Boot, stumping for Stalin, told the New York Times he’d “sooner vote for Josef Stalin than vote for Donald Trump.”

Recounted, too, in “The Trump Revolution” is an account of National Review’s new-found tolerance for journalism favorable to the barbarism of Communist leader Leon Trotsky. In the June 3, 2003 issue, contributor Stephen Schwartz held up “Trotsky for special commendation.”

Indeed, while maligning millions of Trump-supporting American populists, our “Against Trump” “exemplary conservatives” at National Review continued to make overtures to the Left, not least in embracing the Left’s version of history, herstory and history-from-below.

Faithful to this legacy, these “conservatives” now count among their greatest heroes the minor abolitionist Harriet Tubman. Major abolitionist and mass murderer John Brown is close to making the cut, at least in the eyes of National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson. Williamson “reached peak leftism” when he declared his sympathies were “more with John Brown than John Calhoun,” in an article titled “We Have Officially Reached Peak Leftism” (June 24, 2015). In 1856, Brown’s free-soil activists snatched five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, Kansas and split the captives’ skulls with broadswords, in an act of biblical retribution gone mad.

In pondering the quality of the decrepit conservative brain trust, as Gottfried does, one has to wonder how smart was this establishment to come out as a collective in an attempt to overthrow a candidate so popular with the Republican base and beyond, as Trump was—still is. Pretty stupid, if you ask me.

One might say National Review has stood athwart historic conservatism, to borrow from magazine founder William F. Buckley’s famous mission statement to stand athwart history.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alt Right, Donald Trump 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
24 Comments to "The Old Right Rising"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. I’ve never heard of a right wing movement in any country that based its policies on low taxes or small government except America. What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?

    He shouldn’t be so hard on Ben Shapiro though. The guy is eloquent and courageous and is at least opposed to the left in his own way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I’ve never heard of a right wing movement in any country that based its policies on low taxes or small government except America.
     
    Thatcher conservatives in my country, for a start.

    Probably happened in many countries in which government was co-opted by leftists to pursue their ideological goals (welfarism, anti-religion, state education, destruction of conservative resistance to radicalism, etc), or which co-opted leftist goals to be used as a pretext for expanding government.

    What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?
     
    It rather depends what you mean by "right wing", I suppose. But see above.
    , @Joe Franklin

    I’ve never heard of a right wing movement in any country that based its policies on low taxes or small government except America. What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?

     

    Paleo-right wing is classical liberalism, promoting anti-centralization, and government closer to the people, where most lawmaking power is wielded by local and state governments.

    The 9th and 10th amendment codify classical liberalism.

    9th amendment says the people define civil rights, not the federal government.

    10th amendment says the people and state governments protect civil rights, not the federal government.

    Leftist falsely claim the 14th amendment invented new federal civil rights.

    10th amendment also says that state governments and people wield all powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution. Federal government has very limited powers.

    Judicial activism has caused most federal jurists to ignore the 9th and 10th amendment.

    Neocons have coopted the label "conservative" and redefined it to mean Judeo-Christian Zionist heresy and lunacy.

    Neocons falsely portray paleo-right as Nazi or white supremacist.
    , @iffen
    What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?

    If we look at the political spectrum from left to right, the conservative position will be to the right of center.

    Conservatives support the status quo. Conservatives are opposed to using the power of government to "interfere" with the "natural" economic and social processes that sort a society into classes. Liberals and those on the left want to use the power of the government to help the lower classes advance and to ameliorate conditions for the "losers." If a conservative political group has political power and is able to reduce tax revenues and reduce the social welfare agencies of the government, it will help to cripple the effectiveness of the liberal side should they gain political power.
    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/imercer/the-old-right-rising/#comment-1660885
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Ben Shapiro is a mad anti-Trump anti-white identity activist, who will cry “anti-Semitism” as soon as you counter any of his double-standard theories and interests.

    “Courageous”? Well, yes. But there is easy courage, and less easy courage.
    The people at Breitbart, they were courageous in the hard way. They sided with truth during the campaign.
    Shapiro chose to listen to the call of the anti-white tribe, and start lying.

    And like the adage goes, once one starts lying, it’s never easy to stop.

    The essential point is being anti-white.

    That’s why you read on National Review, a bought off magazine as Brimelow has properly underlined, that Shapiro has the right to his free speech but Jared Taylor must not have it, and there must be a limit, and Shapiro is within it while Taylor beyond.

    Read More
  3. @Jason Liu
    I've never heard of a right wing movement in any country that based its policies on low taxes or small government except America. What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?

    He shouldn't be so hard on Ben Shapiro though. The guy is eloquent and courageous and is at least opposed to the left in his own way.

    I’ve never heard of a right wing movement in any country that based its policies on low taxes or small government except America.

    Thatcher conservatives in my country, for a start.

    Probably happened in many countries in which government was co-opted by leftists to pursue their ideological goals (welfarism, anti-religion, state education, destruction of conservative resistance to radicalism, etc), or which co-opted leftist goals to be used as a pretext for expanding government.

    What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?

    It rather depends what you mean by “right wing”, I suppose. But see above.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    What do we mean by right wing? In the U.S. extreme right wing is identified as fascism. But fascism is socialism in which the government controls business in some detail but leaves legal title in the private section –like much of the U.S. Communism is much the same except ownership of productive properties is vested in the government. Both are socialistic.

    Obamacare is fascism in practice. The VA medical system is communistic.
  4. @Randal

    I’ve never heard of a right wing movement in any country that based its policies on low taxes or small government except America.
     
    Thatcher conservatives in my country, for a start.

    Probably happened in many countries in which government was co-opted by leftists to pursue their ideological goals (welfarism, anti-religion, state education, destruction of conservative resistance to radicalism, etc), or which co-opted leftist goals to be used as a pretext for expanding government.

    What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?
     
    It rather depends what you mean by "right wing", I suppose. But see above.

    What do we mean by right wing? In the U.S. extreme right wing is identified as fascism. But fascism is socialism in which the government controls business in some detail but leaves legal title in the private section –like much of the U.S. Communism is much the same except ownership of productive properties is vested in the government. Both are socialistic.

    Obamacare is fascism in practice. The VA medical system is communistic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I'd love to see the VA hospital network revamped on a Cuban style model providing preferential care for veterans but also very low cost care for all who need it. Every hospital would double as a medical teaching facility and every doctor would be followed around by three to four students. The students would be accepted based on merit alone and upon graduation they would be obliged to serve the VA system for ten years before having the liberty to leave and enter the world of private medicine.

    The system would need expanded emergency departments and to produce their own meds.

    The private system could carry on as it is now, treating few and bankrupting many.

    This might sound socialistic and perhaps it is but it would also make good sense economically. Healthy workers are more productive workers and programs such as this would invigorate a devotion to the nation and to the people. I can dream, can't I? and anyway, where I live free healthcare of a high standard is already available. I pay for private health insurance anyway because I can afford it but there's little to no benefit.
  5. Islam (it counsels conquest, not co-existence)

    It counsels both, depending on the circumstances – do you only have a binary switch or something?

    Frontpage Mag is a total Neocon/Israeli-firster* hive and has been for years (here are some positions on the Iraq War and Iran’s dreaded nuke program):

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/180966/iraq-ten-years-later-alan-w-dowd

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/196674/pentagon-report-iran-may-be-able-hit-us-nuke-2015-daniel-greenfield

    Now if you claim they’ve come to the light and changed their ways…well, we’ll have to wait and see, but I’m not holding my breath.

    But for now, flush that …!

    Peace.

    *They’ll deny this of course because, as far as they’re concerned, their is total congruence between Israel’s goals and America’s:
    “ISRAEL IS KURDISTAN’S FIRST CUSTOMER FOR IRAQI OIL”

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/234541/israel-kurdistans-first-customer-iraqi-oil-daniel-greenfield

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    As far as the stuff on Bannon, I tend to agree, he is far more reasonable in his written views than the 'demon monster' that the MSM is trying to make him out to be.
  6. Great article. I’m still kind of surprised that Trump was willing to use the phrase, “America First”; I believe it had rather negative connotations even back in the 1930′s when Lindbergh used it. It’s a very valid and appropriate slogan, but you know how the left smears things.

    On the other hand, GHW Bush used the phrase “New World Order,” which wasn’t that far from Hitler’s “New Order.” The leftist media didn’t make much of an issue out of that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    I’m still kind of surprised that Trump was willing to use the phrase, “America First”; I believe it had rather negative connotations even back in the 1930′s when Lindbergh used it. It’s a very valid and appropriate slogan, but you know how the left smears things.
     
    The negative connotation of "America First" and the pejorative description of "isolationism" for the widely-held sentiments of Americans between the two World Wars impress me as almost entirely backward projections of post-WWII attitudes. Thus World War II became the War to Save the Jews, just as the Civil War became the War to Free the Slaves - never mind that almost nobody thought of either of those wars in such ways before or during them.

    As a byproduct of that thinking, opposition to American involvement in European affairs in the years before World War II - as expressed in the "isolationism" of figures like Sen. Burton Wheeler and Charles Lindbergh, and the America First movement - has been characterized in recent times as originating in anti-Semitic sentiment.

    My parents were of the World War II generation (both of them served - dad as a Marine, mom as a WAVE), and their recollection was different. Both of them attributed the "isolationism" of the period to the widespread (and substantially correct) belief during the 1920s and '30s that American participation in World War I had been a colossal waste of American lives and money, accomplishing nothing worthwhile for this country or its citizens. The America First movement appealed to the vast majority of its supporters simply because they wanted to avoid repeating that experience, and had nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

    Once war began in Europe perhaps the most conspicuous source of opposition to American involvement apart from the America Firsters came not from anti-Semites but from the Communist Party and its many fellow-travelers, who toed the Stalinist line during the nineteen months during which the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was in force. These people included many Jewish Americans, including Bella Savitsky (later Abzug), who were or subsequently became prominent on the Left. They of course flip-flopped as soon as Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.
  7. Well the Big Q about the fate of the Buckleyite remnant at NRO, TWS, & Reason mag has to be: how long can a head survive w/o a body ? They appear to be on life support courtesy of a few philanthropists, and those donors’ ROI is getting pretty meager. I stopped my Reason sub in 96, NR in 99 and Human Events shortly thereafter. Their ad revenue must be trivial, and if other magazine behavior (like Rolling Stone) is any clue, they are probably just breaking even or losing $ based on subscriptions. There is current desperation in publishing to prevent declining circulation, eg. Rolling Stone was being pushed on me for free cause I was receiving a fitness mag that sold my address. The RS went directly from mail box to trash can.

    As per their stature based on their largish, but declining circulation, it must be taken with a view to ratio of, “influential readers:issues printed”. How many issues go to libraries, universities, think tanks or book stores (across the English speaking world), and then end up in landfills after just the avg of a few mins scanned per issue. What % of their subscribers fall into the inertia category of folks who just re-up out of residual loyalty for Buckley, Rusher et al., while remaining ambivalent about the content? Time will tell, but a guess is that the handful of Neocon mags still standing will devolve into a sort of cult for delusional nostalgics over the next year, then suffer death by a 1000 cuts till they disappear by 2018.

    Read More
  8. So, are you saying that, having converted Fundamentalist Xians like Reverend Hagee into rabid Zionistas, Señor Netanyahu will not succeed in engineering a White Nationalist Right with crosses and mogen davids on their sheets?

    Actually he is also engineering a Saudi Israeli attack on Iran, or rather a Saudi Israeli demand for a Unitedstatesian attack, which Señor Trump seems–or seemed–to approve.

    Don’t be fooled by his latest slow strangulation gambit. That is just the opening game.

    Woudn’t that be fun–all white nationalist muslim immigrants to the US immediately pass Go, collect $500, and are awarded a ceremonial sheet with cross, mogen david, and star and crescent.

    Anyway Bannon is obviously a Zionista or pro-Zionista, don’t you think?

    Read More
  9. @OutWest
    What do we mean by right wing? In the U.S. extreme right wing is identified as fascism. But fascism is socialism in which the government controls business in some detail but leaves legal title in the private section –like much of the U.S. Communism is much the same except ownership of productive properties is vested in the government. Both are socialistic.

    Obamacare is fascism in practice. The VA medical system is communistic.

    I’d love to see the VA hospital network revamped on a Cuban style model providing preferential care for veterans but also very low cost care for all who need it. Every hospital would double as a medical teaching facility and every doctor would be followed around by three to four students. The students would be accepted based on merit alone and upon graduation they would be obliged to serve the VA system for ten years before having the liberty to leave and enter the world of private medicine.

    The system would need expanded emergency departments and to produce their own meds.

    The private system could carry on as it is now, treating few and bankrupting many.

    This might sound socialistic and perhaps it is but it would also make good sense economically. Healthy workers are more productive workers and programs such as this would invigorate a devotion to the nation and to the people. I can dream, can’t I? and anyway, where I live free healthcare of a high standard is already available. I pay for private health insurance anyway because I can afford it but there’s little to no benefit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "revamped on a Cuban style model"

    The Cuban style model means patients bring their own bandages. Sort of like a Venezuelan model supermarket.
    , @OutWest
    When U.S. citizens, who pay the heavy end of drug development, can buy drugs for the same price as, say, Canada, France and such, then, and only then, will congress be working for the U.S. rather than big pharma. Until such time there is no chance of a workable government medical system. It wouldn’t be difficult to implement.

    There’s still a good deal of housecleaning to do.
  10. @NoseytheDuke
    I'd love to see the VA hospital network revamped on a Cuban style model providing preferential care for veterans but also very low cost care for all who need it. Every hospital would double as a medical teaching facility and every doctor would be followed around by three to four students. The students would be accepted based on merit alone and upon graduation they would be obliged to serve the VA system for ten years before having the liberty to leave and enter the world of private medicine.

    The system would need expanded emergency departments and to produce their own meds.

    The private system could carry on as it is now, treating few and bankrupting many.

    This might sound socialistic and perhaps it is but it would also make good sense economically. Healthy workers are more productive workers and programs such as this would invigorate a devotion to the nation and to the people. I can dream, can't I? and anyway, where I live free healthcare of a high standard is already available. I pay for private health insurance anyway because I can afford it but there's little to no benefit.

    “revamped on a Cuban style model”

    The Cuban style model means patients bring their own bandages. Sort of like a Venezuelan model supermarket.

    Read More
  11. @Jason Liu
    I've never heard of a right wing movement in any country that based its policies on low taxes or small government except America. What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?

    He shouldn't be so hard on Ben Shapiro though. The guy is eloquent and courageous and is at least opposed to the left in his own way.

    I’ve never heard of a right wing movement in any country that based its policies on low taxes or small government except America. What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?

    Paleo-right wing is classical liberalism, promoting anti-centralization, and government closer to the people, where most lawmaking power is wielded by local and state governments.

    The 9th and 10th amendment codify classical liberalism.

    9th amendment says the people define civil rights, not the federal government.

    10th amendment says the people and state governments protect civil rights, not the federal government.

    Leftist falsely claim the 14th amendment invented new federal civil rights.

    10th amendment also says that state governments and people wield all powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution. Federal government has very limited powers.

    Judicial activism has caused most federal jurists to ignore the 9th and 10th amendment.

    Neocons have coopted the label “conservative” and redefined it to mean Judeo-Christian Zionist heresy and lunacy.

    Neocons falsely portray paleo-right as Nazi or white supremacist.

    Read More
  12. @Talha

    Islam (it counsels conquest, not co-existence)
     
    It counsels both, depending on the circumstances - do you only have a binary switch or something?

    Frontpage Mag is a total Neocon/Israeli-firster* hive and has been for years (here are some positions on the Iraq War and Iran's dreaded nuke program):
    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/180966/iraq-ten-years-later-alan-w-dowd
    https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/196674/pentagon-report-iran-may-be-able-hit-us-nuke-2015-daniel-greenfield

    Now if you claim they've come to the light and changed their ways...well, we'll have to wait and see, but I'm not holding my breath.

    But for now, flush that ...!

    Peace.

    *They'll deny this of course because, as far as they're concerned, their is total congruence between Israel's goals and America's:
    "ISRAEL IS KURDISTAN'S FIRST CUSTOMER FOR IRAQI OIL"
    https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/234541/israel-kurdistans-first-customer-iraqi-oil-daniel-greenfield

    As far as the stuff on Bannon, I tend to agree, he is far more reasonable in his written views than the ‘demon monster’ that the MSM is trying to make him out to be.

    Read More
  13. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    This sums up the American racial conundrum.

    One story reports the continuing black-on-white violence.

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/23/white-schoolgirls-say-black-gang-racially-targeted-them-in-bus-attack/

    Another news reports on yet another blonde white woman with jungle fever.

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/23/lindsey-vonn-has-a-new-boyfriend/

    White women want most in their beds what they fear most on the streets.

    Read More
  14. I have to admit I’m not too pleased with most of Trump’s picks so far. Reince Priebus, Nikki Haley, Mitt Romney? This is not what draining the swamp looks like. Ditto the non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton. It’s almost as if Trump blew up the old GOP, but then walked around the blast site picking up pieces of corrugated metal and plywood with which to cobble together an even meaner structure from the same flimsy materials.

    I was one of Trump’s most ferocious supporters during the campaign because I believed it was absolutely necessary to spare the country a Hillary presidency. If Trump stabs us in the back, I will be equally ferocious in opposing him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.
    In my view,

    Reince Priebus

    is a modest, unassuming person, and he's proven himself capable in his role.

    Nikki Haley

    was moved from margins to ... margins.

    Mitt Romney

    His nomination is still just a rumor. My nerves really can't afford to take worrying hearsay seriously.

    non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton

    In my view, this a misinterpretation of the news. Trump said he is not "inclined" to pursue the HRC cases himself. In other words, he wouldn't pressure the FBI to pursue it more intensely than the FBI would otherwise do.

    what draining the swamp looks like

    It looks like a long-term undertaking, fraught with uncertainties. Trump said it's about a collective effort : "Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment .... The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you. The only force strong enough to save our country is us. The only people brave enough to vote out this corrupt establishment is you, the American people.”

    If Trump stabs us in the back, I will be equally ferocious in opposing him.

    I'm already preparing criticisms of him.
    (At the same time, I enjoy Bill Mitchell's tweets. )
  15. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I wonder if proggies understand that their vision of a better society is predicated on the ‘exploitation’ of foreign workers, especially the Mexicans and other Meso-Americans and the Chinese/Southeast-Asians/Hindus.

    Proggy idea of socio-economic improvement for Americans is TAX THE RICH MORE AND GIVE OUT MORE FREE STUFF.

    Progs argue that the rich have gotten so rich over the years that they can afford to be taxed at much higher rates and offer more goodies to all Americans.
    Maybe the proggies are right about this.

    BUT, how did the globalist super-rich become so rich? Because they could outsource factories and jobs to other nations like China and Mexico. Because they could even outsource service jobs to India. And in those non-Western nations, there are almost no environmental laws, no labor protections, and etc. So, the workers can be treated like ants and drones. And since the workers don’t have to be paid much, the globalists have increased their profits by huge margins.

    The progs who supported Hillary were for globalism. Even Bernie Sanders was more about “tax the rich more and give out more goodies” than “protect American jobs” or “do something for American workers”.

    Sanders’ socialism isn’t about jobs but about goodies… like free college education for every lazy loser.

    But the ONLY way such programs can be funded is by taxing the rich more. But then, i order for the rich to be super-rich enough to be taxed A LOT more, they need globalism to fatten their wallets. And globalism is profitable because Western companies can exploit dirt-cheap labor in other nations that have little use for environmental, legal, or labor protections.

    So, proggy ‘socialism’ turns a blind eye to globalism’s exploitative aspects.
    Naomi Klein is something of a nut, but she was honest enough to point out the ravages of globalism in non-western nations.
    In contrast, most proggies are totally self-absorbed and myopic in their demands. They may be correct to complain that the Rich are not paying enough and could afford to pay a lot more so that Americans can get more goodies.
    BUT they ignore the fact that the ONLY REASON why the rich have gotten so much richer is because globalism allows them to exploit foreign labor that has no protections.

    It’s like proggies are similarly myopic about the Muslim issue. They just to virtue-signal as People of Compassion who lend a hand to all those ‘Syrian refugees’, but they completely(and even willfully) turn a blind eye to the fact that the refugee crisis is essentially the result of crazy Zionist-fueled US foreign policy that worked with psycho-Saudis to mess up the entire region with sanctions, wars, and shadow-support for Jihadis.
    Current Proggism is like the moon. It is utterly unaware of the dark side of the moon.

    But then, proggism is really selfish. It’s not like true socialism of the past where workers demanded better pay, conditions, and protections for their class as a whole.
    Proggism of today is me-me-me-centric demand for more freebies to be paid for by the nanny state. And Proggism is for globalism because globalism makes it possible for the rich to become so very rich enough to be squeezed for more free stuff for the people.

    Globalism is like this.

    Suppose Robert has hired John for decent pay and benefits. But Robert can give the job to Ed for lower pay and benefits and keep more profits for himself.
    Robert fires John and hires Ed, and his profits go up.

    Now, John can complain not only that he no longer has a job but that Robert is exploiting Ed and keeping more profits for himself. It is win-win for Robert but lose-lose for John and Ed. John is out of job, and even though Ed has a job, he must work for pittance with no protections.

    So, what is to be done?

    John may demand that the job be returned to him. But Robert may argue that if the job is given back, John must accept Ed’s wages since Ed is willing to do the job for lower wages if John doesn’t want to.
    John wants the job back but not for the pittance that Ed is getting.

    Then a prog comes along and offers a solution. Robert will let Ed keep the job for very low pay, but he will share some of his loot with John or create some bogus make-work job for John that requires no real effort(like all those paper shuffling government jobs). This is win-win for Robert and John. Robert keeps making more profits by exploiting Ed, but now John gets some trickle-down stuff from Robert’s largess.
    But what about Ed who must toil to enrich Robert and make things easy for John who lives on freebies provided by super-rich Robert?

    Do proggies understand that their vision depends on total exploitation of the Developing World?

    But then, the globalists will argue that Eds of the world have no reason to complain since they have some kind of job… whereas without globalism, they would have NO job. But is that really true?

    This is why globalism isn’t sustainable in the long run… unless meso-americans, hindus, and Chinese want to work forever like ants so that the rich can get rich and rest can take it easy in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SinghArya
    Add to that the fact that progs think their secular values derived from Protestant Christianity must be spread to the whole world. You essentially have medieval muslim loving trash using their national wealth to lavish wealth on a few feudal lords & convert the third world heathens.

    Thankfully the europeans don't have the demographic strength to put up with this much longer & will have to rebel.
    , @Joe Levantine
    Great article and great insight. Thanks Anon for helping us to think from outside the box.
  16. @J1234
    Great article. I'm still kind of surprised that Trump was willing to use the phrase, "America First"; I believe it had rather negative connotations even back in the 1930's when Lindbergh used it. It's a very valid and appropriate slogan, but you know how the left smears things.

    On the other hand, GHW Bush used the phrase "New World Order," which wasn't that far from Hitler's "New Order." The leftist media didn't make much of an issue out of that.

    I’m still kind of surprised that Trump was willing to use the phrase, “America First”; I believe it had rather negative connotations even back in the 1930′s when Lindbergh used it. It’s a very valid and appropriate slogan, but you know how the left smears things.

    The negative connotation of “America First” and the pejorative description of “isolationism” for the widely-held sentiments of Americans between the two World Wars impress me as almost entirely backward projections of post-WWII attitudes. Thus World War II became the War to Save the Jews, just as the Civil War became the War to Free the Slaves – never mind that almost nobody thought of either of those wars in such ways before or during them.

    As a byproduct of that thinking, opposition to American involvement in European affairs in the years before World War II – as expressed in the “isolationism” of figures like Sen. Burton Wheeler and Charles Lindbergh, and the America First movement – has been characterized in recent times as originating in anti-Semitic sentiment.

    My parents were of the World War II generation (both of them served – dad as a Marine, mom as a WAVE), and their recollection was different. Both of them attributed the “isolationism” of the period to the widespread (and substantially correct) belief during the 1920s and ’30s that American participation in World War I had been a colossal waste of American lives and money, accomplishing nothing worthwhile for this country or its citizens. The America First movement appealed to the vast majority of its supporters simply because they wanted to avoid repeating that experience, and had nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

    Once war began in Europe perhaps the most conspicuous source of opposition to American involvement apart from the America Firsters came not from anti-Semites but from the Communist Party and its many fellow-travelers, who toed the Stalinist line during the nineteen months during which the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was in force. These people included many Jewish Americans, including Bella Savitsky (later Abzug), who were or subsequently became prominent on the Left. They of course flip-flopped as soon as Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

    Read More
  17. @Anon
    I wonder if proggies understand that their vision of a better society is predicated on the 'exploitation' of foreign workers, especially the Mexicans and other Meso-Americans and the Chinese/Southeast-Asians/Hindus.

    Proggy idea of socio-economic improvement for Americans is TAX THE RICH MORE AND GIVE OUT MORE FREE STUFF.

    Progs argue that the rich have gotten so rich over the years that they can afford to be taxed at much higher rates and offer more goodies to all Americans.
    Maybe the proggies are right about this.

    BUT, how did the globalist super-rich become so rich? Because they could outsource factories and jobs to other nations like China and Mexico. Because they could even outsource service jobs to India. And in those non-Western nations, there are almost no environmental laws, no labor protections, and etc. So, the workers can be treated like ants and drones. And since the workers don't have to be paid much, the globalists have increased their profits by huge margins.

    The progs who supported Hillary were for globalism. Even Bernie Sanders was more about "tax the rich more and give out more goodies" than "protect American jobs" or "do something for American workers".

    Sanders' socialism isn't about jobs but about goodies... like free college education for every lazy loser.

    But the ONLY way such programs can be funded is by taxing the rich more. But then, i order for the rich to be super-rich enough to be taxed A LOT more, they need globalism to fatten their wallets. And globalism is profitable because Western companies can exploit dirt-cheap labor in other nations that have little use for environmental, legal, or labor protections.

    So, proggy 'socialism' turns a blind eye to globalism's exploitative aspects.
    Naomi Klein is something of a nut, but she was honest enough to point out the ravages of globalism in non-western nations.
    In contrast, most proggies are totally self-absorbed and myopic in their demands. They may be correct to complain that the Rich are not paying enough and could afford to pay a lot more so that Americans can get more goodies.
    BUT they ignore the fact that the ONLY REASON why the rich have gotten so much richer is because globalism allows them to exploit foreign labor that has no protections.

    It's like proggies are similarly myopic about the Muslim issue. They just to virtue-signal as People of Compassion who lend a hand to all those 'Syrian refugees', but they completely(and even willfully) turn a blind eye to the fact that the refugee crisis is essentially the result of crazy Zionist-fueled US foreign policy that worked with psycho-Saudis to mess up the entire region with sanctions, wars, and shadow-support for Jihadis.
    Current Proggism is like the moon. It is utterly unaware of the dark side of the moon.

    But then, proggism is really selfish. It's not like true socialism of the past where workers demanded better pay, conditions, and protections for their class as a whole.
    Proggism of today is me-me-me-centric demand for more freebies to be paid for by the nanny state. And Proggism is for globalism because globalism makes it possible for the rich to become so very rich enough to be squeezed for more free stuff for the people.

    Globalism is like this.

    Suppose Robert has hired John for decent pay and benefits. But Robert can give the job to Ed for lower pay and benefits and keep more profits for himself.
    Robert fires John and hires Ed, and his profits go up.

    Now, John can complain not only that he no longer has a job but that Robert is exploiting Ed and keeping more profits for himself. It is win-win for Robert but lose-lose for John and Ed. John is out of job, and even though Ed has a job, he must work for pittance with no protections.

    So, what is to be done?

    John may demand that the job be returned to him. But Robert may argue that if the job is given back, John must accept Ed's wages since Ed is willing to do the job for lower wages if John doesn't want to.
    John wants the job back but not for the pittance that Ed is getting.

    Then a prog comes along and offers a solution. Robert will let Ed keep the job for very low pay, but he will share some of his loot with John or create some bogus make-work job for John that requires no real effort(like all those paper shuffling government jobs). This is win-win for Robert and John. Robert keeps making more profits by exploiting Ed, but now John gets some trickle-down stuff from Robert's largess.
    But what about Ed who must toil to enrich Robert and make things easy for John who lives on freebies provided by super-rich Robert?

    Do proggies understand that their vision depends on total exploitation of the Developing World?

    But then, the globalists will argue that Eds of the world have no reason to complain since they have some kind of job... whereas without globalism, they would have NO job. But is that really true?

    This is why globalism isn't sustainable in the long run... unless meso-americans, hindus, and Chinese want to work forever like ants so that the rich can get rich and rest can take it easy in the West.

    Add to that the fact that progs think their secular values derived from Protestant Christianity must be spread to the whole world. You essentially have medieval muslim loving trash using their national wealth to lavish wealth on a few feudal lords & convert the third world heathens.

    Thankfully the europeans don’t have the demographic strength to put up with this much longer & will have to rebel.

    Read More
  18. @Anon
    I wonder if proggies understand that their vision of a better society is predicated on the 'exploitation' of foreign workers, especially the Mexicans and other Meso-Americans and the Chinese/Southeast-Asians/Hindus.

    Proggy idea of socio-economic improvement for Americans is TAX THE RICH MORE AND GIVE OUT MORE FREE STUFF.

    Progs argue that the rich have gotten so rich over the years that they can afford to be taxed at much higher rates and offer more goodies to all Americans.
    Maybe the proggies are right about this.

    BUT, how did the globalist super-rich become so rich? Because they could outsource factories and jobs to other nations like China and Mexico. Because they could even outsource service jobs to India. And in those non-Western nations, there are almost no environmental laws, no labor protections, and etc. So, the workers can be treated like ants and drones. And since the workers don't have to be paid much, the globalists have increased their profits by huge margins.

    The progs who supported Hillary were for globalism. Even Bernie Sanders was more about "tax the rich more and give out more goodies" than "protect American jobs" or "do something for American workers".

    Sanders' socialism isn't about jobs but about goodies... like free college education for every lazy loser.

    But the ONLY way such programs can be funded is by taxing the rich more. But then, i order for the rich to be super-rich enough to be taxed A LOT more, they need globalism to fatten their wallets. And globalism is profitable because Western companies can exploit dirt-cheap labor in other nations that have little use for environmental, legal, or labor protections.

    So, proggy 'socialism' turns a blind eye to globalism's exploitative aspects.
    Naomi Klein is something of a nut, but she was honest enough to point out the ravages of globalism in non-western nations.
    In contrast, most proggies are totally self-absorbed and myopic in their demands. They may be correct to complain that the Rich are not paying enough and could afford to pay a lot more so that Americans can get more goodies.
    BUT they ignore the fact that the ONLY REASON why the rich have gotten so much richer is because globalism allows them to exploit foreign labor that has no protections.

    It's like proggies are similarly myopic about the Muslim issue. They just to virtue-signal as People of Compassion who lend a hand to all those 'Syrian refugees', but they completely(and even willfully) turn a blind eye to the fact that the refugee crisis is essentially the result of crazy Zionist-fueled US foreign policy that worked with psycho-Saudis to mess up the entire region with sanctions, wars, and shadow-support for Jihadis.
    Current Proggism is like the moon. It is utterly unaware of the dark side of the moon.

    But then, proggism is really selfish. It's not like true socialism of the past where workers demanded better pay, conditions, and protections for their class as a whole.
    Proggism of today is me-me-me-centric demand for more freebies to be paid for by the nanny state. And Proggism is for globalism because globalism makes it possible for the rich to become so very rich enough to be squeezed for more free stuff for the people.

    Globalism is like this.

    Suppose Robert has hired John for decent pay and benefits. But Robert can give the job to Ed for lower pay and benefits and keep more profits for himself.
    Robert fires John and hires Ed, and his profits go up.

    Now, John can complain not only that he no longer has a job but that Robert is exploiting Ed and keeping more profits for himself. It is win-win for Robert but lose-lose for John and Ed. John is out of job, and even though Ed has a job, he must work for pittance with no protections.

    So, what is to be done?

    John may demand that the job be returned to him. But Robert may argue that if the job is given back, John must accept Ed's wages since Ed is willing to do the job for lower wages if John doesn't want to.
    John wants the job back but not for the pittance that Ed is getting.

    Then a prog comes along and offers a solution. Robert will let Ed keep the job for very low pay, but he will share some of his loot with John or create some bogus make-work job for John that requires no real effort(like all those paper shuffling government jobs). This is win-win for Robert and John. Robert keeps making more profits by exploiting Ed, but now John gets some trickle-down stuff from Robert's largess.
    But what about Ed who must toil to enrich Robert and make things easy for John who lives on freebies provided by super-rich Robert?

    Do proggies understand that their vision depends on total exploitation of the Developing World?

    But then, the globalists will argue that Eds of the world have no reason to complain since they have some kind of job... whereas without globalism, they would have NO job. But is that really true?

    This is why globalism isn't sustainable in the long run... unless meso-americans, hindus, and Chinese want to work forever like ants so that the rich can get rich and rest can take it easy in the West.

    Great article and great insight. Thanks Anon for helping us to think from outside the box.

    Read More
  19. @Intelligent Dasein
    I have to admit I'm not too pleased with most of Trump's picks so far. Reince Priebus, Nikki Haley, Mitt Romney? This is not what draining the swamp looks like. Ditto the non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton. It's almost as if Trump blew up the old GOP, but then walked around the blast site picking up pieces of corrugated metal and plywood with which to cobble together an even meaner structure from the same flimsy materials.

    I was one of Trump's most ferocious supporters during the campaign because I believed it was absolutely necessary to spare the country a Hillary presidency. If Trump stabs us in the back, I will be equally ferocious in opposing him.

    In my view,

    Reince Priebus

    is a modest, unassuming person, and he’s proven himself capable in his role.

    Nikki Haley

    was moved from margins to … margins.

    Mitt Romney

    His nomination is still just a rumor. My nerves really can’t afford to take worrying hearsay seriously.

    non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton

    In my view, this a misinterpretation of the news. Trump said he is not “inclined” to pursue the HRC cases himself. In other words, he wouldn’t pressure the FBI to pursue it more intensely than the FBI would otherwise do.

    what draining the swamp looks like

    It looks like a long-term undertaking, fraught with uncertainties. Trump said it’s about a collective effort : “Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment …. The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you. The only force strong enough to save our country is us. The only people brave enough to vote out this corrupt establishment is you, the American people.”

    If Trump stabs us in the back, I will be equally ferocious in opposing him.

    I’m already preparing criticisms of him.
    (At the same time, I enjoy Bill Mitchell’s tweets. )

    Read More
    • Replies: @va-con
    I suspect that Trump backing off on Hillary may be a tactical move more than anything. Indeed, when he says that they have been through enough, he is correct. He reads people well, and understands that he completely eviscerated Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party is now in shambles. Her life's dream was stolen from her by an eccentric, billionaire TV star. She has been thoroughly humiliated.

    To your point about draining the swamp, I believe that he was sincere in planning to do so. He is a narcissist, as well as a results-orirented guy. He is not bound by ideology, but rather he is a man of meritocratic measure. I'd rather him accomplish what he intends to do, and I trust his judgement.

    One thing I've learned so far, never doubt or underestimate Donald Trump.
  20. @Ivan K.
    In my view,

    Reince Priebus

    is a modest, unassuming person, and he's proven himself capable in his role.

    Nikki Haley

    was moved from margins to ... margins.

    Mitt Romney

    His nomination is still just a rumor. My nerves really can't afford to take worrying hearsay seriously.

    non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton

    In my view, this a misinterpretation of the news. Trump said he is not "inclined" to pursue the HRC cases himself. In other words, he wouldn't pressure the FBI to pursue it more intensely than the FBI would otherwise do.

    what draining the swamp looks like

    It looks like a long-term undertaking, fraught with uncertainties. Trump said it's about a collective effort : "Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment .... The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you. The only force strong enough to save our country is us. The only people brave enough to vote out this corrupt establishment is you, the American people.”

    If Trump stabs us in the back, I will be equally ferocious in opposing him.

    I'm already preparing criticisms of him.
    (At the same time, I enjoy Bill Mitchell's tweets. )

    I suspect that Trump backing off on Hillary may be a tactical move more than anything. Indeed, when he says that they have been through enough, he is correct. He reads people well, and understands that he completely eviscerated Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party is now in shambles. Her life’s dream was stolen from her by an eccentric, billionaire TV star. She has been thoroughly humiliated.

    To your point about draining the swamp, I believe that he was sincere in planning to do so. He is a narcissist, as well as a results-orirented guy. He is not bound by ideology, but rather he is a man of meritocratic measure. I’d rather him accomplish what he intends to do, and I trust his judgement.

    One thing I’ve learned so far, never doubt or underestimate Donald Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I suspect that Trump backing off on Hillary may be a tactical move more than anything. Indeed, when he says that they have been through enough, he is correct. He reads people well, and understands that he completely eviscerated Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party is now in shambles.
     
    Trump is smart enough to realise that pursuing failed presidential candidates is a very dangerous precedent to set.

    The best way to punish Clinton is to ignore her. She's been swept into the dustbin of history and the best thing to do is to leave her there.
  21. @va-con
    I suspect that Trump backing off on Hillary may be a tactical move more than anything. Indeed, when he says that they have been through enough, he is correct. He reads people well, and understands that he completely eviscerated Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party is now in shambles. Her life's dream was stolen from her by an eccentric, billionaire TV star. She has been thoroughly humiliated.

    To your point about draining the swamp, I believe that he was sincere in planning to do so. He is a narcissist, as well as a results-orirented guy. He is not bound by ideology, but rather he is a man of meritocratic measure. I'd rather him accomplish what he intends to do, and I trust his judgement.

    One thing I've learned so far, never doubt or underestimate Donald Trump.

    I suspect that Trump backing off on Hillary may be a tactical move more than anything. Indeed, when he says that they have been through enough, he is correct. He reads people well, and understands that he completely eviscerated Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party is now in shambles.

    Trump is smart enough to realise that pursuing failed presidential candidates is a very dangerous precedent to set.

    The best way to punish Clinton is to ignore her. She’s been swept into the dustbin of history and the best thing to do is to leave her there.

    Read More
  22. @Jason Liu
    I've never heard of a right wing movement in any country that based its policies on low taxes or small government except America. What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?

    He shouldn't be so hard on Ben Shapiro though. The guy is eloquent and courageous and is at least opposed to the left in his own way.

    What do those things have to do with right wing ideology in the first place?

    If we look at the political spectrum from left to right, the conservative position will be to the right of center.

    Conservatives support the status quo. Conservatives are opposed to using the power of government to “interfere” with the “natural” economic and social processes that sort a society into classes. Liberals and those on the left want to use the power of the government to help the lower classes advance and to ameliorate conditions for the “losers.” If a conservative political group has political power and is able to reduce tax revenues and reduce the social welfare agencies of the government, it will help to cripple the effectiveness of the liberal side should they gain political power.

    Read More
  23. The time: Well before American political correctness had percolated around the world.

    You make it appear as though political correctness is as American as apple pie. As you well know, the provenance of political correctness is the Franfurt School. Here’s a little background info on this American institution:

    [the] grouping of social and political thinkers briefly based at the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research until Hitler’s arrival to power forced them into exile,… was predominantly German Jews. Yet to date, whether to praise or — more often — blame these philosophers, sociologists, and psychoanalysts influenced by Karl Marx, there has been no concentrated analysis of how Judaism impacted their lives and work.

    This lack of analysis was addressed by Jack Jacobs who wrote the book The Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives, and Antisemitism. Here are a few notable excerpts from a book review:

    Such clarifications are useful because although professional writings before their exile from Germany were not explicitly about Jewish matters, “Dialectic of Enlightenment” and “The Authoritarian Personality,” also co-authored by Adorno, would be “deeply colored by the desire to elucidate and confront hatred of Jews,” Jacobs reminds us.

    Once in America, Horkheimer and Adorno sought funding for studies on anti-Semitism there. They may have felt that Europe was already a familiar lost cause, but in the U.S.A., they were freshly surprised to learn that anti-Semitism was also rife, from university quotas barring Jewish students and faculty to popular radio broadcasts by the Roman Catholic priest Charles Edward Coughlin, who preached hatred of the Jews to 1930s America.

    To this effect, Adorno wrote home to his parents in 1940: “Fascism in Germany, which is inseparable from anti-Semitism, is no psychological anomaly of the German national character. It is a universal tendency …The conditions for it – and I mean all of them, not only the economic but also the mass psychological ones – are at least as present [in America] as in Germany…and the barbaric semi-civilization of this country will spawn forms no less terrible than those in Germany.”

    The exiles of the Frankfurt School were appalled to find that in America, some forms of prejudice were even more blatantly established than as yet had been the case in Germany, such as openly barring Jews from hotels and jobs.

    Finally, regarding the lack of analysis of how Judaism impacted their lives and work, here’s how the book reviewer answered that question:

    While they remain appropriate targets for vehement political criticism today, the thinkers of the Frankfurt school must henceforth be seen, thanks to Jacobs’ lucid presentation, in the light of their Jewish ancestry and awareness of the international blight of anti-Semitism.

    http://forward.com/culture/211598/deconstructing-the-jewishness-of-the-frankfurt-sch/

    Read More
  24. @NoseytheDuke
    I'd love to see the VA hospital network revamped on a Cuban style model providing preferential care for veterans but also very low cost care for all who need it. Every hospital would double as a medical teaching facility and every doctor would be followed around by three to four students. The students would be accepted based on merit alone and upon graduation they would be obliged to serve the VA system for ten years before having the liberty to leave and enter the world of private medicine.

    The system would need expanded emergency departments and to produce their own meds.

    The private system could carry on as it is now, treating few and bankrupting many.

    This might sound socialistic and perhaps it is but it would also make good sense economically. Healthy workers are more productive workers and programs such as this would invigorate a devotion to the nation and to the people. I can dream, can't I? and anyway, where I live free healthcare of a high standard is already available. I pay for private health insurance anyway because I can afford it but there's little to no benefit.

    When U.S. citizens, who pay the heavy end of drug development, can buy drugs for the same price as, say, Canada, France and such, then, and only then, will congress be working for the U.S. rather than big pharma. Until such time there is no chance of a workable government medical system. It wouldn’t be difficult to implement.

    There’s still a good deal of housecleaning to do.

    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 Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.