The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Republican Terror and Anger
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Donald Trump has been dominating American news ever since he announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination six months ago. Trump is known to be a deeply divisive figure, who in a two-way race with his likely Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, would lose the distaff vote by about seventeen percent. He has also emerged as the major domestic villain of the establishment Republican-neoconservative press. In fact no one has rattled our political-journalistic establishment as often as has “the Donald,” as this billionaire real estate mogul refers to himself and is referred to by his numerous fans. From his speeches about sending back our 11 million plus illegal immigrants (instead of amnestying them) to their homelands, mostly south of our border, to his persistent announcement “I’m not politically correct,” “the Donald” is everything that our establishment is not. He revels in needling the Left, takes no prisoners, and projects a macho image that reminds one of Putin (with whom he shares a mutual admiration society.)

There’s already been very loud talk from such establishmentarians as George Will and Bill Kristol and throughout the GOP media empire (paid for mostly by Rupert Murdoch) that it may be necessary to create a new Republican Party that would reflect the “moderate” views of past ( that is, glaringly unsuccessful) presidential nominees such as Mitt Romney and John McCain. The establishment favorites this year, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, have not done well against Trump according to the pre-primary election polls, and Bush may soon drop out for want of popular interest as someone whom Trump has publicly ridiculed as having “low energy.” The state Republican committees have been busily working against an eventual Trump victory by changing rules for who gets to vote in their primaries. Since Trump enjoys a backing that goes beyond his technical party affiliation, state committees want to allow only registered party members to vote for the Republican nominee.

One might easily suppose that establishment donors and more surreptitiously, neoconservative pundits would try to cut a deal with the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who would be more congenial for this power elite than Trump. The establishment GOP, to whatever extent it has social views, holds mostly the same ones as a left-leaning Tory like David Cameron in England. They hope to court the gay and feminist perspectives; they express “liberal” views on all immigration-related issues, except for allowing especially dangerous-looking Muslims to enter the country; and they call for getting tough with “the Russian thug” and standing up “for human rights” throughout the world by “projecting American strength.” An effusive endorsement of the Israeli Right is de rigueur among establishment Republicans. And this has less to do with courting Jewish voters (who vote overwhelmingly left) than as it does with the Republican Party’s donor base. Establishment Republican “think tanks” and politicians like Marco Rubio are awash in funds from wealthy Zionists, like the Las Vegas casino owners Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn. Needless to say, Boeing, Haliburton and other producers of military hardware have not stinted in their support of the GOP establishment.

It is not that Hillary would feel especially beholden to neoconservative deal-makers if they helped get her elected. But their positions generally mesh well, if we discount the posturing that establishment Republican candidates engage in when they’re trying to appeal to the Evangelical vote. In all probability, it would make no difference to most of this establishment which party they linked up with, providing their foreign policy concerns and need for sinecures were met. Even the Obama administration has not been totally impenetrable to neoconservative aspirations, and one of their leading publicists Robert Kagan has seen his wife Victoria Nuland rise to high position as a foreign policy adviser in the present administration. Trump, by contrast, scares the bejesus out of the neoconservatives, as one immediately discovers from reading such organs of theirs as the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and the Weekly Standard.

The reason for this has far less to do with Trump’s actual positions, which are often nebulous, than with the difficulty that the neoconservatives and the GOP establishment would have in managing him as a candidate or as president. Trump is the opposite of the amiable dolt who occupied the White House before Obama, and whom advisers talked into launching a “preventive war” against Iraq. Trump cannot be scripted. He pays for his campaign out of his considerable fortune and makes fun of his opponents “for belonging to other people.” He also sounds insufficiently belligerent about “leading from the front,” which is a favorite slogan of Rubio and Jeb. Although Trump has promised to “wipe out ISIS,” and although his pro-Jewish sentiments cannot be questioned (his daughter is married to an Orthodox Jew), he speaks about “negotiating” with rather than confronting Putin. The Republican establishment candidates want nothing less than a showdown with the Russian government, which they tell their constituents is an extension of the Soviet tyranny or else a repressive nationalist regime that persecutes homosexuals.

ORDER IT NOW

The last reason on Earth that the Republican establishment and the neoconservatives are resisting Trump is the one they often give: “he’s not a real conservative.” This charge does have, on its face, some substance, since Trump as late as 2008 was a Hillary Clinton supporter and until recently, fit in easily with GOP establishment donors. His politics were very much the same as those of the Australian media baron Rupert Murdoch, who subsidizes most of the leading neoconservative PR organs (including the Jerusalem Post). Like Murdoch, who has now turned against Trump as a political nuisance, “the Donald” used to be liberal on most social issues, including immigration, as well as friendly toward Israel. His movement toward the right has been a recent occurrence, and when Trump tells his Evangelical audiences about his conversion from being pro- to anti-abortion or his rediscovery of his Presbyterian identity, one is justified in questioning his sincerity. But those who accuse him of political hypocrisy while claiming to be on the right, like Jonah Goldberg at National Review have happily acclaimed the legalization of gay marriage and still endorse amnesty for illegals. Moreover, the Christian traditionalists in the Republican presidential race, like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, have not been the favorites of those accusing Trump of being a faux conservatives. Although Cruz has been in striking distance of Trump, the neoconservatives and establishment Republicans have gone after him as well. He’s been denounced by them as a religious extremist (Cruz has openly opposed gay marriage), most conspicuously in a WSJ editorial by Max Boot.

But Trump may be hard to stop from winning his party’s nomination if present trends continue. He has almost 40% support among likely Republican voters, and among Republicans polled, a majority believe that he is the “most capable” of governing the country of all GOP candidates. His nearest competitor, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, trails Trump at about 17% support and the only neoconservative candidate with any chance of winning the nomination sweepstakes, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, is fluctuating between 12 and 14%. The media establishment has pulled out much of the same denunciatory ammunition against Trump that it once deployed against Buchanan, when this populist presidential candidate tried to scramble the ideological cards. Although Trump has behaved churlishly, Buchanan was treated just as badly by the media and political establishment even when he practiced exemplary courtesy. Of course those who are attacking Trump are correct to view him as a disruptive force, from the perspective of their interests.

Someone who hardly supports him, Jim Tankersley, explains in the Washington Post (August 5, 2015), “Donald Trump is winning” precisely because “he can speak to the anxieties that are animating so many of the [Republican] party’s core voters.” The frequently heard complaint against him in the establishment Republican press, namely that he appeals to the uneducated without college diplomas (only 8 percent of his GOP supporters are college graduates), can be understood in a different way. Those afflicted with stagnating or declining incomes have no interest in competing with cheap foreign labor and feel particularly impacted by crimes associated with illegals. As one of his reluctant admirers points out in the Post: “he’s a huckster. He’s a loudmouth New Yorker. People don’t like people like that.” But on the positive side, continued the speaker from Rappahannock County, Virginia, “He just seems like the guy who can take on the people who Trump supporters think have been screwing with them for so long.”

David Frum in The Atlantic (January/February 2016) perceptively observes that the emotion of college students when they mounted the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations pales in import beside the feelings being released by Trump’s candidacy. Among Republican voters and many independents who have rallied to Trump, there is “a rebellion against the power of organized money.” Those who were Tea Party rebels are angry that the GOP establishment treated them like mindless foot-soldiers, while others who cheer on Trump are reacting against the arrogance of wealth. A social war, notes Frum, has erupted in the Republican Party, and it may split that party apart. “The dividing line that used to be the most crucial of them all, class, has become a division within the parties, not between them.” Moreover, those who are coming over to Trump “aren’t necessarily superconservative. They don’t often think in ideological terms at all. But they do feel strongly that life in this country used to be better for people like themselves, and they want the old country back.”

It might be almost too obvious to note that the Trump supporters, who may be on the verge of destroying the Republican Party as we know (and speaking personally, detest) it, bear a striking resemblance to the National Front in France. Both are identified with the populist Right and have been incessantly denounced as fascist or Nazi-like by the media-political establishment. Both groups are shuffling the political cards by incorporating working-class programs into an anti-immigration parties that, as Frum remarks about the Trump’s followers “want their country back.” Finally, each party can claim about 40% of the electorate but may have problems capturing any more. The rest of their countries‘ voters stand with the Left or with a socially left-leaning globalist corporate establishment.

The accusations of “fascism” that are brought against both populist movements is the kind of boilerplate that one might expect from those in power who are trying to remove a pesky opposition. The charge of being „fascist“ has become so widespread among establishmentarians that it now means nothing more than that so and so is my opponent. As far as I know, neither Marine Le Pen nor Donald Trump has called for a corporate economy in which everything would be in the State and nothing outside of it. Comparisons drawn between Trump’s opposition to allowing Muslim migrants to enter the US and the refusal of Western countries to accept refugees from Nazism are totally misleading. Many of the migrants beating on our gates came from Turkey and other countries where they were already residing because they were trying to reach First World societies. (Let’s thank that ultimate antifascist blockhead Angela Merkel for sending out the invite.) There is also the fact that refugees from Nazism did not pose the danger of terrorism that is demonstrably present in the wandering Muslim droves.

ORDER IT NOW

That said, there is critical differences between the National Front and Trump‘s following, all of which work to the favor of the French insurgency. Unlike Trump, the National Front is a well-organized party with perodically updated platforms (the latest of which was framed and circulated in 2014). Again unlike Trump, Marine Le Pen speaks in whole sentences and is highly articulate in reponding to her critics. She does not shoot from the hip, like “the Donald” or Marine’s father Jean-Marie. Equally important, unlike Trump, the National Front could conceivably form a government in the multiparty system that exists in France. If the Front could draw into an alliance French splinter parties or peel off some members of Sarkozy‘s UMP (recently renamed Les Républicains), it would be in a position to head its own government. At this point it is hard to imagine Trump elevating his base of support much beyond its current level. His main achievement will not be the acquisition of power but wrecking what deserves to be torn down. If the result of Trump’s rude break-in at the Republican country club is the election of Hillary Clinton as president, I certainly wont‘t weep. I‘ll take solace in Bismarck’s inspired aphorism: “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.” (“Es gibt eine Vorsehung, die beschützt Idioten, Betrunkene, Kinder und die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika.”)

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement, Donald Trump 
Hide 178 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. tbraton says:

    “the amiable dolt who occupied the White House before Obama”

    Would that be George!!!, by any chance, Prof. Gottlieb? I think you are being much too kind in your description. Excellent piece. Truly “fair and balanced”—and not in the Fox News sense.

    “At this point it is hard to imagine Trump elevating his base of support much beyond its current level.”

    That might the only point where I might disagree with you. Just taking myself as an example (and I certainly don’t fit the stereotype of the typical Trump supporter since I possess three degrees after high school), I started out the year predicting Trump wouldn’t run, and, even after he announced, I was skeptical. But once he attacked McCain’s status as a “war hero,” I was all ears. I quickly changed my opinion about Trump. I believe others, once they start paying attention, will experience the same conversion. At least, I hope so. I find encouragement in the fact that his polling numbers have steadily increased as he got more exposure and the fact that TV ratings for the Republican debates have shattered previous records.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    “the amiable dolt who occupied the White House before Obama”

    But who knew, before we saw ¿Jeb? that George would not be the intellectual runt of the litter?
    , @RadicalCenter
    I see your point about not being a typical Trump supporter. Bu I'm beginning to think that the stereotype of the typical trump supporter is deliberately inaccurate. I'm no genius, but I earned a doctoral degree, used to (admittedly, a while ago) read Latin reasonably well, and speak a foreign language with functional fluency. Yet other than Rand Paul, Trump is the only candidate I might trust and might vote for as the GOP nominee rather than voting "third party" yet again in the general election.
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pgottfried/terror-and-anger/#comment-1275051
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. 5371 says:

    It seems very likely that the US will be in recession by election time, so it would be very rash to assume that Trump could not win as GOP candidate against Clinton. All the history of presidential elections tells us that. So anyone who wants to stop him from becoming president had better stop him from becoming the nominee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Vasilis says:

    We should not confuse Marine Le Pen with Donald Trump, they are totally different products of totally different political systems. In Europe fascism is something very specific, with a clear historical course over decades and it it distinguished mainly by its anti-parliamentarianism. The National Front in France is definitely the evolution of French fascism, even if you believe that Marine Le Pen has a sincere intention to evolve it into a democratic party of the right. This would not necessarily be impossible, it was done in Italy by Gianfanco Fini to Mussolini’s own party, though the end product did not prove very durable.

    In the United States on the other hand European style fascism never took hold. Donald Trump is no more a fascist than I am a dinosaur. In American politics “fascist” is just an insult you throw at someone when you run out of rational political arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [The National Front in France is definitely the evolution of French fascism]

    No, this is super-silly stuff. Poujade wasn't ever a fascist, and neither was his disciple Jean-Marie Le Pen, any more than George Wallace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. 5371 says:
    @Vasilis
    We should not confuse Marine Le Pen with Donald Trump, they are totally different products of totally different political systems. In Europe fascism is something very specific, with a clear historical course over decades and it it distinguished mainly by its anti-parliamentarianism. The National Front in France is definitely the evolution of French fascism, even if you believe that Marine Le Pen has a sincere intention to evolve it into a democratic party of the right. This would not necessarily be impossible, it was done in Italy by Gianfanco Fini to Mussolini's own party, though the end product did not prove very durable.

    In the United States on the other hand European style fascism never took hold. Donald Trump is no more a fascist than I am a dinosaur. In American politics "fascist" is just an insult you throw at someone when you run out of rational political arguments.

    [The National Front in France is definitely the evolution of French fascism]

    No, this is super-silly stuff. Poujade wasn’t ever a fascist, and neither was his disciple Jean-Marie Le Pen, any more than George Wallace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vasilis

    [The National Front in France is definitely the evolution of French fascism]

    No, this is super-silly stuff. Poujade wasn’t ever a fascist, and neither was his disciple Jean-Marie Le Pen, any more than George Wallace.
     

    Poujade and Jean-Marie Le Pen were clearly anti-parliamentarians. Furthermore, both embraced Petain's "Travail, Famille, Patrie" as opposed to the republican "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite". In France this is what fascism is all about, if they are not fascists, then no one in France is a fascist. I do not accept the former Soviet propaganda claim that fascism is a characteristic of advanced capitalism, I consider it to be a reactionary backtrack from elective government. As such it has never caught on in any country with a dominant population of English origin.

    George Wallace was not a fascist, he was a racist, which is a different thing. Again I do not accept Soviet WW2 propaganda that bundles it all together. One can be a racist without being a fascist or be a fascist without being a racist. One can also be both of course.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Good analysis. I increasingly think that the Republican Party needs to go the way of the 1850s Whig Party and if Trump’s candidacy accelerates the evolution of an ethno-nationalist white party in the U.S., then it will have served a purpose, even if Hillary Clinton (ugh!) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.

    I wonder in what context Otto von Bismarck made his statement about Providence protecting the United States. I was never aware that Germany’s Iron Chancellor had much interest in the New World.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I think Bismarck also remarked that the most important fact in 20th century international affairs would be that English was the US national language or words to that effect. As a member of the European aristocracy he would have been aware of factors beyond the economic and cultural also; for example the number of rich American heiresses married to the British aristocracy.
    , @in the middle
    Good point. I am to the opinion that the divide and conquer crowd will use this 'white party" statement to no avail. I do like Trump for the sole purpose that he wants to stop the rag heads from coming into the USA. I was in the Military and saw too many of them and they have not love for this country. Although I count my self as 'non white' even so, I do love this country enough to see it attacked from the lefties who 'out of love' want to bring any one who wish to come over into the USA no matter what. There are legal means to come and those means should be used to in an orderly way bring whom ever the US Government finds acceptable and who will have loyalty for this land.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Realist says:

    “(only 8 percent of his GOP supporters are college graduates)”

    That is meaningless. Most college graduates have useless degrees. Colleges are full of idiots, students and faculty. Our laws allow the rich elite to buy our government. Therefore, on the important issues, there is no difference in the two parties.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    True, Realist. It may turn well be that Trump's supporters have all the hard to get engineering degrees, while the other guys' supporters have the degrees in basket weaving and gender studies.
    , @Jim Christian
    I have no doubt 90% of Hillary's female voters have a degree. Stupid-as-shit degrees. Women's Studies, African Studies, Communications, Human Resources. Programs invented so low-IQ vaginas could have something to spend a lot of tuition on. No math, no science, nothing difficult. Perfect idiocy and indoctrination on the ways of feminism. At the end of the diploma mill, a sex-preference job. Cash and prizes for sex-discrimination and sexual harassment accusations, the training is all in place when she hits the working world.

    If anyone cares to show me wrong, I'm all eyes. THESE are Hillary's girls. She proclaims it at every whistle stop.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. I’m for Trump. I’ve an Ivy League Ph.D. and have professional experience in many of the areas where Trump’s policy positions are clearest. He is the only candidate espousing rational solutions to some of the country’s most serious problems. I don’t like his rhetorical style but someone needs to break the party structure that is destroying this country; a structure that rewards incumbents who ignore the righteous concerns of the country’s ciutizens while battening on the financial support of billionaires and foreign powers seeking aggrandizement at the expense of the common people. If one of the current stoopid party midgets ends up facing off against Hilary or another dimocrat come next November I’ll stay home or vote dimocrat for the first time in my life. I’d prefer that the dimocrats get full responsibility for the disaster that follows.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza, Mark Green
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    I’m for Trump. I’ve an Ivy League Ph.D.
     
    You must love to be a big fish in a tiny pond.
    , @Bill

    I’m for Trump. I’ve an Ivy League Ph.D.
     
    Ditto. And in a difficult subject. Trump is running to destroy the GOP. And I'd vote for that all day long.
    , @Minnesota Mary
    I agree with everything you said. My fear is that the Powers That Be (many of whom are Neocons) have the power to bring about an economic collapse should Trump win, and then he would get the blame.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Thank you for this excellent analysis. I will only highlight this quote from Frum.

    “The dividing line that used to be the most crucial of them all, class, has become a division within the parties, not between them.”

    So true. We never had a Labor Party but the working class had a working relationship with the Democrats before Bill Clinton kicked Labor out of the coalition in favor of corporate bucks. Since then the working class (the people) has not been represented in Washington. Trump is opposed to free trade, open borders and the ongoing privatization of everything. Simply put, he is opposed to the neo liberal agenda embraced by both parties that is rapidly destroying the livelihood of the American people.

    Trump has already done a great service to the American people. If he is nominated and debates Hillary his service will be magnified. Opposed by our ENTIRE political class, Trump is revealing the truth that the game is not red team vs blue team but instead a classic conflict between the working and ruling class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I mistakenly thought there'd be a revival of the best elements of America's Left, organized labor, and maybe the popularization of an explicit labor or social democrat party. I was dead wrong. I worked with folks in organized labor's bureaucracy some years back, and they seemed totally sclerotic. (BTW-I vote Libertarian, but I'm also in favor of honest partisan alternatives.)
    , @Bill
    I'd say that process started before Clinton. The big symbolic victory for the cultural marxist left over the labor left was the 1968 democratic convention and the sixties more generally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Svigor says:

    Recent Rasmussen poll had Trump and Hillary within a point.

    1. Ras has a history of over-estimating Republican support.
    2. Recent study showed face-to-face and telephone polls underestimating Trump’s support (because people are sheep and the media doesn’t approve of him).
    3. Trump’s support will increase going forward as others drop out, while Hillary is probably much closer to topping out.

    Study in 2 showed Trump got 9 points more support among college-educated respondents in online polls; college-educated are the biggest sheep of all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas Fuller

    Recent study showed face-to-face and telephone polls underestimating Trump’s support
     
    All the polls in advance of the 2015 General Election in Britain predicted a Labour win; Labour lost very badly in one of their worst-ever results. The inaccuracy of the polls was ascribed to the reluctance, in the current PC climate, of so-called 'shy Tories' to admit that they intended to vote for a (nominally) right-wing party. UKIP, whose supporters here are generally fans of Trump, gained 4m votes, an unprecedented share; though our first-past-the-post system denied them a proportionate representation in parliament.

    It will be interesting, from a European perspective, to see how the Donald fares. He is already providing great entertainment value. He's like a bull in a china shop. The horrified proprietors can do nothing but stand by, watching their meretricious stock getting trashed.

    Very good article, if I may say so, with nice flashes of humour, thanks!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Svigor says:

    Trump is known to be a deeply divisive figure, who in a two-way race with his likely Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, would lose the distaff vote by about seventeen percent.

    Trump is a great example of how Whiskey is always wrong. Trump’s far more “alpha” than any of the other candidates, but he’s 17 points behind Hillary. And oddly enough, the media hates Trump.

    Women are much more sheeplike than men, so they are much more influenced by the media and their illusion of consensus. Hell, if Whiskey was right that the media just follows what women want, and women just want “alphas,” then women would be supporting him in droves, and the media would be feeding them puff pieces about him. Instead we get the opposite, because reality is roughly 180 degrees from Whiskey’s “It was all dem white wymminz, Jews dindunuffins” narrative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    " And oddly enough, the media hates Trump"


    There you go., Svigor.....the "people" hate the media, they really detest it today.....people go crazy for Trump....because he hates the media too.....for all the right reasons.

    People "love" that the media hates trump...and that hes winning...they feel empowered by it.

    The more the media hates trump...the more the people love him.

    People love that trump says what he believes...that he is an" honest" candidate..

    .They love that the media hates him for being honest....because it shows the people what a big fraud the media is....and it is a big ,big fraud.

    The people don't like Big Brother media....they see in Trump, a leader that can give Big Brother media a big punch in the nose....because Big Brother media deserves a punch in the nose.
    So when" The Donald" gives the media a "pasting"....they go crazy....because they have wanted to do it for so long....and when he pops em in the kisser....they love it......

    Absolutely love it.

    He is going to Cream Hillary in the general election...just "cream" her.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Svigor says:

    “(only 8 percent of his GOP supporters are college graduates)”

    That is meaningless. Most college graduates have useless degrees. Colleges are full of idiots, students and faculty. Our laws allow the rich elite to buy our government. Therefore, on the important issues, there is no difference in the two parties.

    It’s even more idiotic in light of the fact that blacks are the Democrats’ most loyal constituency, routinely serving up roughly 90% of their votes to Democrat presidential candidates. Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, the lowest of any major American demographic group. They have the worst numbers for any major American group, generally speaking, for everything from economic achievement to violent crime to STDs.

    Nobody has a lock on the Stupid Vote like the Democrats do.

    but he’s 17 points behind Hillary.

    Should be “but he’s 17 points behind Hillary among women.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. I have a PhD. Trump is far from my ideal candidate. His brash speak-before-thinking style leaves much to be desired. And on policy I certainly don’t like his support of water boarding.

    But — Trump is the only candidate who is serious about enforcing immigration law. Trump is the only candidate who opposes the trade agreements that have hollowed out America’s manufacturing industry and given us a massive permanent trade deficit. He is the only Republican not eager to restart the Cold War with Russia. As for Hillary, the one who pushed Obama to help take out Qaddafi, thus making Libya safe for ISIS, and who like all Democrats is eager to give illegal aliens amnesty, and who is as hawkish towards Russia as any Republican, she is totally unacceptable.

    So I will hold my nose and vote for Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew Nichols
    For goodness sake - there's still Sanders - probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Thirdeye says:

    We’ve seen over twenty years of foreign policy dominated by economic neoliberalism and disastrous neoconservative regime change projects, under both Democratic and Republican presidents. “Hope and change” turned out to be same old… Now we’ve got every candidate but two, Sanders and Trump, marching in lockstep in the wrong direction on the issues most important to the well-being of America and the rest of the world, including reviving the Cold War against Russia. Sanders isn’t going to make it, so that leaves only one alternative. Trump is belligerent in style, which I dislike deeply. Hillary is belligerent in substance, which I dislike even more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Agree totally. I suppose we can agree to disagree on how steel framed buildings can collapse from small fires.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Professor Gottfried, I have been thinking that it would be a smart general election strategy (in terms of peeling off a few more Democratic votes) if the Donald were to put Jim Webb on his ticket. I’m sure Webb knows that the independent run he is threatening is doomed to failure, so surely he would be open to it. Your thoughts?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    The Trump phenom goes to expose the total sham that is American Conservatism.

    Now, I’m no fan of Trump even though I prefer him to everyone else by a margin of light yrs.

    It’s true enough that Trump is acting a bit loony at times, but he is tapping into something real. He’s stirring up something that has been either dormant or suppressed for so long.

    Now, the GOP establishment and mainstream Conservatives have right to be upset with Trump’s tactics and proposals, but surely they should recognize that Trump has given the ‘American Right’ a great opportunity for some real soul-searching.
    Even if they don’t endorse Trump, they can ask key questions such as:

    1. How come the Establishment favorites like Jeb are such duds?

    2. How come so many Conservatives are connecting with Trump like they’ve done with no one else for a long time?

    3. How come the media attack on Trump has had little effect on him?

    4. In what ways has the GOP failed that has led to the Trump phenom?

    5. etc.

    Instead, the GOP establishment and mainstream Conservative types are doubling down, swinging their batons, and giving us the same horseshit that no longer sells.
    If anything, the so-called ‘mainstream conservatives’ are not mainstream at all. ‘Mainstream’ implies something that represents the majority. Well, we are told that Jeb Bush is ‘mainstream’ whereas Trump is a fringe candidate, but Trump seems to be doing better with your average Conservative than Jeb is.
    It’s like the term ‘mainline’ Protestantism. It suggests the main bulk of Protestant believers, but in fact, ‘mainline’ means nothing today as their churches have totally dried up. There is no blood, soul, and passion in the movement. In contrast, Evangelicalism is still alive cuz the faith still remains.
    Now, Trump is no religious figure, but there is real passion among his supporters that simply doesn’t exist among supporters of the likes of Rubio, Fiorina, Jeb, and etc. Trump may be a swindler, but his fans and supporters are genuine conservatives and patriots. They really believe in America just like Evangelicals really believe in Jesus as the Son of God.
    In contrast, Mainline Protestants regard themselves as too sophisticated, educated, and aloof to literally believe in God and Jesus. They just value the abstract ‘essence’ of that stuff so that it can be used to serve secular causes… like ‘gay marriage’.

    Likewise, the so-called ‘mainstream conservatives’ of the Establishment no longer believe in core conservatism, patriotism, Americanism, and etc. They are ‘secular patriots’ than ‘spiritual patriots’. Their idea of America is an abstraction. It is not about American history, people, culture, and power. It is about America as some abstract proposition cooked up by Emma Lazarus Sulkowicz and the Neocons.
    Their reaction to red-blooded patriotism is like mainline protestant reaction to Evangelical faith in God as the real Lord than some abstract idea.

    Given that populist red-blooded conservatives have been rather unintelligent and un-educated, they’ve been easily manipulated by the elites. They were thrown some red meat on occasion at least in symbolism: pledge of alliance, bogus controversies about prayer in school, etc. Mostly, their passions were stoked only during election time only to win some votes for politicians who were really in the pocket of globalist elites.

    And over the yrs, US has become less white, less conservative, less spiritual, less moral, and etc. despite all the promises of GOP elites(even when GOP held the presidency and both houses). Also, populist conservatives were led to believe that if they support the rich folks, the rich folks would reciprocate and fight leftist Big Government and support American patriotism. But that was all bogus. American populist conservatives are waking up to the fact that the super-rich(whom they’d supported) are pushing the very agendas that are doing the most harm to the vast majority of middle class, lower middle class, and working class white Americans.

    But we don’t see any soul-searching from the likes of George Will. My beef with Will is not that he dislikes Trump. There are many good reasons not to like Trump, to distrust him, to even despise him.
    But at the very least, Trump has provided us with an opportunity to discuss serious matters about the future of American Conservatism. He has blown the cover that there is indeed a HUGE discrepancy between the Establishment and the duped conservative masses who are now fed up and sick to death of guys like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who schmooze with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

    If Trump is the destroyer of the GOP, it’s only because he lifted up the hood and exposed the shoddy machinery. GOP has been like a sleazy used car salesman for some time. It’s been trying to fool America, especially populist white voters, that the engine is still powerful and ready to win the race and serve American interests.
    But then, Trump comes along and opens up the hood, and it’s obvious that the so-called pistons are made up of noodles like Jeb, Rubio, Carly, Lindsey, and the rest. Trump does the Tucker thing in the Coppola movie, and the establishment just can’t handle it.
    Still, we have now seen the GOP under the hood, and we can’t buy it anymore unless it gets a real new engine. And this is what the likes of Will are bitching about. They don’t want a new engine. They wanted to sell us a souped-up version of the same bogus engine hidden under the shiny hood. And instead of blaming themselves for the crummy engine, the Establishment types are blaming Trump for having lifted up the hood to reveal the truth.
    Now, the Grease Lightning that Trump is selling could be a bogus junk car too. But we should credit Trump for exposing the GOP for what it is.

    In a way, the fate of GOP is what happens when something becomes overly institutionalized. In some ways, such development is understandable. After all, people with the stuff of greatness can be mavericks and visionaries. They can do great things but also bad things.
    So, instead of having men of powerful personalities and leadership qualities, the system prefers those who go long and get along. After a spell under such a system, both the GOP and Democratic Party have filled up with pushovers, fakers, phonies, and slicksters. They are hand-shakers than world-shakers; they are puppets who take orders from AIPAC, Soros, Koch Brothers, and Adelson.
    And over time, such a system only produces one colorless and bloodless second-rater after another because anyone with any true vision or personality is purged and exiled.
    So, Citizen Trump’s moment is truly remarkable in this sense.

    At any rate, the GOP may now be fatally broken like Tsar’s power during WWI.
    It’s gotten to the point where all the main talking points no longer hold any water or have any sway over us. It all sounds like empty rhetoric by professional hacks who just mouth the same cliches because they don’t know and can’t think of anything else.
    It’s like the scene in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO where the deserters just about had enough of the war and have become deaf to the rhetoric.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Outstanding.

    My only quibble is the idea that Trump acts a bit loony at times or that he might be despicable.

    One of the things I like about him is that he is willing to say what he thinks and if he departs by one inch from the media standard of flawless logic, temperate delivery, and consummate grasp of every fact known to man it doesn't phase him.

    The alternative is the false one we have seen for decades, that political candidates are ever at the top of their game. If they are caught out on some minor point they turn white and then it's tally ho for the media to run him into the ground. He doesn't play that game and is willing to respond with a very gratifying, and amusing, "So what?"
    , @Bill

    It’s true enough that Trump is acting a bit loony at times, but he is tapping into something real . . .

    How come the Establishment favorites like Jeb are such duds?
     
    I think these two things are intimately related. GOP candidates after Bush the Elder have all had something wrong with them. They all seem like they are being led around by their balls all the time.

    There is a management technique in which you promote people either beyond their competence or you promote people you have something on (secret alcoholics, embezzlers, pedophiles, morons, illegitimate children, whatever). This way, you always have control over them. This does give you control, but it also gives you "leaders" who are defective and generally despised by their underlings.

    Trump is obviously not one of these types. Jabe and Rubio obviously are. His style, his "acting a bit loony at times," his "I am not PC" is, I think, central to his appeal. By doing things which no errand boy could get away with, he is telling his followers that he is not an errand boy.

    I would much prefer someone like Buchanan. We know he isn't an errand boy because he does things like defending innocent people accused of being Nazi war criminals. The problem is that, as an audience, you have to actually know certain things in order to understand just how bold defending innocent people accused of being Nazi war criminals is. The American audience does not know these things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Vasilis says:
    @5371
    [The National Front in France is definitely the evolution of French fascism]

    No, this is super-silly stuff. Poujade wasn't ever a fascist, and neither was his disciple Jean-Marie Le Pen, any more than George Wallace.

    [The National Front in France is definitely the evolution of French fascism]

    No, this is super-silly stuff. Poujade wasn’t ever a fascist, and neither was his disciple Jean-Marie Le Pen, any more than George Wallace.

    Poujade and Jean-Marie Le Pen were clearly anti-parliamentarians. Furthermore, both embraced Petain’s “Travail, Famille, Patrie” as opposed to the republican “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”. In France this is what fascism is all about, if they are not fascists, then no one in France is a fascist. I do not accept the former Soviet propaganda claim that fascism is a characteristic of advanced capitalism, I consider it to be a reactionary backtrack from elective government. As such it has never caught on in any country with a dominant population of English origin.

    George Wallace was not a fascist, he was a racist, which is a different thing. Again I do not accept Soviet WW2 propaganda that bundles it all together. One can be a racist without being a fascist or be a fascist without being a racist. One can also be both of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    If everyone who sees problems in the functioning of any parliamentary system, even a unicameral one, is an anti-parliamentarian and hence fascist, most Anglo statesmen have been fascist as well.
    George Wallace had the same populist style as Poujade, and endorsed family values no less than him.
    , @Ace
    You have the strangest notion of what fascism is. "Work, family, and country" is an innocuous slogan that Mitch McConnell or Mr. Rogers would cheerfully embrace and by juxtaposing it to "Liberty, equality and fraternity" you do not make the case that it is somehow fascist. The latter slogan initially was beloved of men who raised political murder to an art form. Sloganology is a pure excuse for substantive analysis.

    Fascism is not reactionary. It's a doctrine of the total state that is separated from communism by a whisker. They both were radical political phenomena. National Socialism and Italian fascism did not arise as a reaction to communism but as a part of the same worldwide fascination with social, political, and economic transformation. Mussolini's core idea was “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    Socialists and communists had no use for democracy but you've provided zero evidence that Marine Le Pen has exhibited "anti-parliamentarianism." Give the woman a break. She knows that the E.u., globalism, immigration, multiculturalism, and being Merkel's stable boy are the cancers afflicting France. Whatever is the source of French madness, it isn't the National Assembly. And whatever her father espoused is irrelevant as he is decidedly out of the picture.

    You're being very reckless in the way you throw around such a loaded term.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. iffen says:

    wrecking what deserves to be torn down

    I’m with you when you are right Professor Gottfried.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Mick says:

    This article briefly touches on Trump’s liberal past. I was reading about Trump’s 1999-2000 involvement with the Reform Party and was surprised he called Pat Buchanan the usual anti-white slurs. Trump’s views were probably well in line with the MSM narrative for much of his life. My theory is that he has had a gradual racial awakening since Obama’s election. He switched to a Republican in 2009 right after Obama’s election. A couple years later in 2011, he engaged in some mild race baiting over Obama’s birth and flirted with a run for President. His increasing conviction is why he is running for real now and did not do so in 2012, though a weaker field without Obama and Romney is another big reason. I think Trump’s liberal past has been a good thing. If he had spent the 90s and 00s as a Republican, it is highly likely he’d be a neocon cuckservative. In any case, for Trump to have such a shift in his views during his 60s is impressive. Regardless of what happens next year, hopefully the bond Trump has formed with his supporters will encourage him to remain highly active in politics. The public may have saved him from social and economic ruin in June, and Trump is providing a vehicle for ordinary Americans to fight back against their tormentors in government and media for the first time in decades.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Trump is a phenom because he is perceived as the not-establishment guy. That’s why everything the establishment does against him makes him stronger.

    All my life, the GOP establishment has campaigned to the hard right and then governed to the squish-middle-left.

    And that is why conservatives despise the establishment. I don’t know anyone who is under any illusions about Trump. But conservatives hate the establishment bad enough to take the risk. How could it really be any worse than what fake conservative Paul Ryan just pulled off in the budget deal? And just as Obama spent the first six-plus years of his tenure blaming Bush, Ryan is now blaming Boehner.

    And people have trouble understanding why a non-pol like Trump has support? Really?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. It’s all well and good to bandy about the term Fascist, but what is one? Does Donald Trump fit the description?

    As practiced in Europe, a Fascist yearned for social renewal and this longing had an almost religious quality.

    A Fascist believes that society needs to be purged of its soft, decadent components and purified. The individual personality finds its completeness in merging with the Corporate/State in a transformative experience.

    Believes that consumer society doesn’t fulfill the population’s deepest spiritual needs, leaves them empty and counters this with a state managed Market that reins in selfish Corporate excesses by yoking Corporations to loftier State/Spiritual ends.

    Promises employment in government programs that will make both the individual and the Nation stronger.

    Is a Futurist but loves tradition. Worships change, power, dynamism but preserves family, male prerogatives, hierarchy, discipline.

    Is a nationalist and believes in a firm foreign policy.

    Often appeals to the class of unemployed ex-military veterans who can find no place in civilian life.

    There may be other traits, but these seem essential to any description of Fascism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. The difference between a fascist and a progressive is that the fascist makes up a fairy tale and locates it in the past, whereas the progressive makes up a fairy tale and locates it in the future. Fascism is a safer bet in this sense, because you can never go back in time and realize that you were lied to.

    It is just a more sophisticated version of the bait and switch.

    Progressives can tolerate everyone except fascists, and so all the enemies of the Progressives are fascists.

    Because liberals are in fact one of the most intolerant groups on the planet, it makes it necessary for them to lump together a number of enemies that have virtually nothing in common, in order to maintain appearances.

    This makes it hard, because fascism is a pretty narrow historical phenomenon, and neither the National Front or Trump are fascist in ANY meaningful sense (any more than Hillary Clinton is a Maoist). You can check out the Vox article where they spoke with 5 historical experts (not including Paul Gottfried) and all agreed Trump is no fascist in any meaningful sense of the term.

    Maybe the time has come for Progressives to get real and come out as the left-fascists that they are, that they only tolerate those who share their own views, and they can stop pretending that everyone and every group they hate is really fascist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [the fascist makes up a fairy tale and locates it in the past]

    You have confused the fascist with the progressive caricature of the reactionary.
    , @Ace
    Fascists (such as the National Socialists) and progressives are not marked by different views of the past or future. They are identical in that both believe that the views of the mass of citizens are irrelevant, if not harmful.

    Rather, it is they, the fascists and progs, who alone are smart enough and educated enough to understand the complexities of life and, godlike, to dispose of the lives of the unwashed. In short, the joined at the hip by hubris. The rest is just detail to be worked out by staff and cheered on by the sycophant press.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Paul Gottfried is spot on in this essay. However, the question is how to create an authentic nationalist party that is competitive in a national election. There are plenty of pissed off hard scrabble white people who are sick of being told how privileged they are when they can’t even afford to take their kids to the dentist. They are, in themselves, the single biggest group of potential voters in the entire electorate, given the pyramid principle. But that is not enough to win a national election, even in terms of votes, and you need allies in business and ideally some donors if you want to build the party.

    As far as the state of the right, you either have these Koch brother neoliberal tomfoolery policies (like privatizing social security and open borders) that no one who is not on Wall Street or paid by Wall Street wants. However, if you go over to alt-right land, all you find is white supremacy and Jew baiting. Granted, America is a majority white country, but most whites are not white nationalists, even by a long-shot. The only voting group in the GOP that is close to tribal are the Mormons (GOP has greater than 70% turn-out). If you are looking for the tribal vote, look at who turns out for Democratic candidates. I understand some people want to form a “white tribe” but most whites are not in the least interested in being in a tribe, and hostile to the very idea. It’s great if you want to move to Idaho and be some kind of extremist, but it is no recipe to win a national election.

    I think Le Pen is doing a decent job of putting together a credible political movement with a mass voting base, and if she stays in the 40′s, eventually the voters will put them in power. The Establishment can only whip up the masses with xenophobia so many times, before familiarity takes over and the average voter is not afraid to vote for the strange new political party (new at least since Marine Le Pen gave it a face lift).

    In contrast, given Karl Rove’s strategy, and the dominance of corporate donors, who seem to place the value of cheap labor over the value of a long-term viable political party, the GOP on the national level is looking like an endangered species. Its funny, but pundits like George Will don’t seem to get it. The neo-cons are pretty good at tactically changing sides, so they will have jobs backing corporate Dems, but most of Conservative Inc. will sink like the Titanic once the GOP is no longer competitive in national elections.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IA

    but most whites are not in the least interested in being in a tribe
     
    Not a question of being interested or not. In the coming conflict they will be forced to pick which side they are on. In fact, Frankenegro and Islam will make fence-sitting more and more uncomfortable for the Eloi. If they weren't so violent they could have dhimmified Europeans without them even noticing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. 5371 says:
    @Vasilis

    [The National Front in France is definitely the evolution of French fascism]

    No, this is super-silly stuff. Poujade wasn’t ever a fascist, and neither was his disciple Jean-Marie Le Pen, any more than George Wallace.
     

    Poujade and Jean-Marie Le Pen were clearly anti-parliamentarians. Furthermore, both embraced Petain's "Travail, Famille, Patrie" as opposed to the republican "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite". In France this is what fascism is all about, if they are not fascists, then no one in France is a fascist. I do not accept the former Soviet propaganda claim that fascism is a characteristic of advanced capitalism, I consider it to be a reactionary backtrack from elective government. As such it has never caught on in any country with a dominant population of English origin.

    George Wallace was not a fascist, he was a racist, which is a different thing. Again I do not accept Soviet WW2 propaganda that bundles it all together. One can be a racist without being a fascist or be a fascist without being a racist. One can also be both of course.

    If everyone who sees problems in the functioning of any parliamentary system, even a unicameral one, is an anti-parliamentarian and hence fascist, most Anglo statesmen have been fascist as well.
    George Wallace had the same populist style as Poujade, and endorsed family values no less than him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    http://prntly.com/blog/?p=3825

    This can’t be accurate.

    And I think some Negroes are supporting for Trump cuz they now fear immigration too.
    And they luvs a gangsta.

    As for Hispanics, I suppose some like a caudillo type. Jeb is too wussez.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Swede55
    These numbers were for Republican primary voters only. The question was, if you were voting in the Republican primary election, who would you vote for?
    , @in the middle
    I believe it is time to know that an American is a natural born citizen of the USA, regardless. some how, some people think that European descendants are the 'only' true Americans! all this 'negroes' and 'Hispanics' stuff only creates divisions and anger from the respective ethnicities. Why can we all be Americans? We must all belong to a nation indivisible or else we all suffer the consequences when our nation falls little by little. As the vehicle stickers I saw while ago, 'united we stand' divided we fall.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. 5371 says:
    @hello.tulip
    The difference between a fascist and a progressive is that the fascist makes up a fairy tale and locates it in the past, whereas the progressive makes up a fairy tale and locates it in the future. Fascism is a safer bet in this sense, because you can never go back in time and realize that you were lied to.

    It is just a more sophisticated version of the bait and switch.

    Progressives can tolerate everyone except fascists, and so all the enemies of the Progressives are fascists.

    Because liberals are in fact one of the most intolerant groups on the planet, it makes it necessary for them to lump together a number of enemies that have virtually nothing in common, in order to maintain appearances.

    This makes it hard, because fascism is a pretty narrow historical phenomenon, and neither the National Front or Trump are fascist in ANY meaningful sense (any more than Hillary Clinton is a Maoist). You can check out the Vox article where they spoke with 5 historical experts (not including Paul Gottfried) and all agreed Trump is no fascist in any meaningful sense of the term.

    Maybe the time has come for Progressives to get real and come out as the left-fascists that they are, that they only tolerate those who share their own views, and they can stop pretending that everyone and every group they hate is really fascist.

    [the fascist makes up a fairy tale and locates it in the past]

    You have confused the fascist with the progressive caricature of the reactionary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hello.tulip
    Perhaps, but the progressive caricature of the reactionary is simply the mirror image of the progressive, who seeks to "renew" society by taking us to a new Golden Age in the future and eliminating those enemies of "progress" in the current order.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Jus' Sayin'...
    I'm for Trump. I've an Ivy League Ph.D. and have professional experience in many of the areas where Trump's policy positions are clearest. He is the only candidate espousing rational solutions to some of the country's most serious problems. I don't like his rhetorical style but someone needs to break the party structure that is destroying this country; a structure that rewards incumbents who ignore the righteous concerns of the country's ciutizens while battening on the financial support of billionaires and foreign powers seeking aggrandizement at the expense of the common people. If one of the current stoopid party midgets ends up facing off against Hilary or another dimocrat come next November I'll stay home or vote dimocrat for the first time in my life. I'd prefer that the dimocrats get full responsibility for the disaster that follows.

    I’m for Trump. I’ve an Ivy League Ph.D.

    You must love to be a big fish in a tiny pond.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curle
    In the past forty years 'college graduates' have gone from 10 percent of the population to more than 30 percent. As Paul Fussell pointed out years ago, the expansion was mostly one of image, renaming old 'normal' schools as colleges and universities. With the advent of online open admission schools the term is near meaningless as a metric of talent. The only college graduate metric of any interest to me is that for the top 10% of graduates and even those folks have a higher than average interest in maintaining social appearances and can be expected to be anti-Trump in higher amounts. That a larger chunk of DeVry graduates like Marco, Ted or Jeb means nothing to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Avery says:

    Mr. GOTTFRIED is a despicable, anti-Christian Turkophile denialist.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/paul-gottfried/forms-of-mass-murder/

    { my implied objection was simply about characterizing the Armenian massacre in 1915 as “genocide.” }

    You can put “genocide” in quotes for eternity, you anti-Christian Islamophile bigot.
    Won’t change historical facts.
    You anti-Christian Islamophile, Turkophile filth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    The ‘invisible government’.

    No wonder Americans could be sold on ‘gay marriage’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Thanks for sharing, Priss. The woman in the video seemed very knowledgable. At one point in the video, she referred to Edward Bernays, the father of PR (formerly known as propaganda):

    Bernays, working for the administration of Woodrow Wilson during World War I with the Committee on Public Information, was influential in promoting the idea that America's war efforts were primarily aimed at "bringing democracy to all of Europe". Following the war, he was invited by Woodrow Wilson to attend the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

    Stunned by the degree to which the democracy slogan had swayed the public both at home and abroad, he wondered whether this propaganda model could be employed during peacetime. Due to negative implications surrounding the word propaganda because of its use by the Germans in World War I, he promoted the term "Public Relations". According to the BBC interview with Bernays's daughter Anne, Bernays felt that the public's democratic judgment was "not to be relied upon" and he feared that "they [the American public] could very easily vote for the wrong man or want the wrong thing, so that they had to be guided from above." This "guidance" was interpreted by Anne to mean that her father believed in a sort of "enlightened despotism" ideology.
     
    Now I know where the neocons (and the Rendon Group) got their ideas on how to sell the wars to remake the ME.
    , @Bill
    The irony of a nearly topless, very pretty, coquettish, twenty-something female sitting in front of a trendy backdrop saying the things she is saying is ironic.

    Is this some bizarre Millennial double carom shot kind of propaganda? Or is she so clueless that, as she sat down to produce this video, she thought to herself "I need to make sure I look hot and trendy, but I need to make it look like I'm effortlessly hot and trendy, because that's what's trendy?"

    Maybe she's a sex-positive traditionalist?

    I'm blown away. She's a fucking irony machine:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-infaSD7UQ

    Looks less pretty when she is not being careful about lighting, camera angle, and makeup, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    That’s an hilarious quote by Bismark although the protective “providence” to which he speaks is simply the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Ivan says:
    @Realist
    "(only 8 percent of his GOP supporters are college graduates)"

    That is meaningless. Most college graduates have useless degrees. Colleges are full of idiots, students and faculty. Our laws allow the rich elite to buy our government. Therefore, on the important issues, there is no difference in the two parties.

    True, Realist. It may turn well be that Trump’s supporters have all the hard to get engineering degrees, while the other guys’ supporters have the degrees in basket weaving and gender studies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    Quite true. Many liberals are not interested in STEM degrees.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Trump is belligerent? Against the cucks, traitors and scum who have been destroying this country for over half a century. I’d prefer a firing squad but if all I can get is belligerence I’ll take it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @chris
    brilliant comment to this article, or just in general !
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Swede55 says:
    @Priss Factor
    http://prntly.com/blog/?p=3825

    This can't be accurate.

    And I think some Negroes are supporting for Trump cuz they now fear immigration too.
    And they luvs a gangsta.

    As for Hispanics, I suppose some like a caudillo type. Jeb is too wussez.

    These numbers were for Republican primary voters only. The question was, if you were voting in the Republican primary election, who would you vote for?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Svigor
    Recent Rasmussen poll had Trump and Hillary within a point.

    1. Ras has a history of over-estimating Republican support.
    2. Recent study showed face-to-face and telephone polls underestimating Trump's support (because people are sheep and the media doesn't approve of him).
    3. Trump's support will increase going forward as others drop out, while Hillary is probably much closer to topping out.

    Study in 2 showed Trump got 9 points more support among college-educated respondents in online polls; college-educated are the biggest sheep of all.

    Recent study showed face-to-face and telephone polls underestimating Trump’s support

    All the polls in advance of the 2015 General Election in Britain predicted a Labour win; Labour lost very badly in one of their worst-ever results. The inaccuracy of the polls was ascribed to the reluctance, in the current PC climate, of so-called ‘shy Tories’ to admit that they intended to vote for a (nominally) right-wing party. UKIP, whose supporters here are generally fans of Trump, gained 4m votes, an unprecedented share; though our first-past-the-post system denied them a proportionate representation in parliament.

    It will be interesting, from a European perspective, to see how the Donald fares. He is already providing great entertainment value. He’s like a bull in a china shop. The horrified proprietors can do nothing but stand by, watching their meretricious stock getting trashed.

    Very good article, if I may say so, with nice flashes of humour, thanks!

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    No-one could possibly be too shy to admit that they plan to vote for a party as pathetically politically correct as the Tories, and no-one is. UKIP, a party in far less good odour with SJWs, performed much in line with what the polls were predicting, which in itself should be enough to explode the "shy Tories" theory. The failure of the pollsters, as research has confirmed, was due to incompetent sampling and cowardly herd-like behaviour.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. JackOH says:

    I like Trump’s combativeness, his belligerence, his upsetting the usual civic pieties. At least in my view, he’s addressing those “quietly desperate” Americans who pretty much know they’re one layoff or one downsizing away from massive income loss and its attendant problems. “Playing by the rules” will have not helped them a bit when they’re redundant.

    But–and I’ve mentioned this before–Hillary does seem to me the likely candidate who’s most acceptable to corporate America. (I can’t recall my source, but I know the argument was persuasive.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. alexander says:
    @Svigor

    Trump is known to be a deeply divisive figure, who in a two-way race with his likely Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, would lose the distaff vote by about seventeen percent.
     
    Trump is a great example of how Whiskey is always wrong. Trump's far more "alpha" than any of the other candidates, but he's 17 points behind Hillary. And oddly enough, the media hates Trump.

    Women are much more sheeplike than men, so they are much more influenced by the media and their illusion of consensus. Hell, if Whiskey was right that the media just follows what women want, and women just want "alphas," then women would be supporting him in droves, and the media would be feeding them puff pieces about him. Instead we get the opposite, because reality is roughly 180 degrees from Whiskey's "It was all dem white wymminz, Jews dindunuffins" narrative.

    ” And oddly enough, the media hates Trump”

    There you go., Svigor…..the “people” hate the media, they really detest it today…..people go crazy for Trump….because he hates the media too…..for all the right reasons.

    People “love” that the media hates trump…and that hes winning…they feel empowered by it.

    The more the media hates trump…the more the people love him.

    People love that trump says what he believes…that he is an” honest” candidate..

    .They love that the media hates him for being honest….because it shows the people what a big fraud the media is….and it is a big ,big fraud.

    The people don’t like Big Brother media….they see in Trump, a leader that can give Big Brother media a big punch in the nose….because Big Brother media deserves a punch in the nose.
    So when” The Donald” gives the media a “pasting”….they go crazy….because they have wanted to do it for so long….and when he pops em in the kisser….they love it……

    Absolutely love it.

    He is going to Cream Hillary in the general election…just “cream” her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I hope you are right, Hillary as pres would be a disaster. Any man who would cream Hillary deserves a medal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. jon says:

    Trump is known to be a deeply divisive figure, who in a two-way race with his likely Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, would lose the distaff vote by about seventeen percent.

    It’s not as dire as you suggest. A couple of the most recent polls:

    A Rasmussen poll conducted over December 22-23 has it 37% to 36%.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/clinton_vs_trump_still_a_dead_heat

    A CNN/ORC poll conducted over December 17-21 has it 49% to 47%.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/23/cnnpoll2.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Trump... would lose the distaff vote by about seventeen percent.
     
    Since the word "distaff" means "women," you are right to say that it's "not as dire as [Gottfried] suggests" because according to the poll you cited, the spread is only 12 percent, not 17:

    while women prefer Clinton by a similar 42% to 31% margin.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    some of the major factors in the rise of trump are as follows:

    1. white race guilt elected obama….but obama does not like white people….and through his vocal support of media-race-hype fiascoes such as trayvon/zimmerman and Ferguson-MO/Brown, he has rallied the anti-white troops and rubbed in the white race guilt propaganda….because these media-race-hypes fiascoes have been such obvious fiascoes, they have basically counteracted prior years of white race guilt propaganda…in other words, because obama and the media have failed in these media-race-hypes fiascoes (such as trayvon-zimmerman), the race relations in america have worsened, not got better. Obama was elected by whites to heal, but he has divided and has instead ginned up the race war…this has radicalized some whites, causing them to reject the burden of white guilt placed upon them by years of white race guilt propaganda from education and hollywood and the media…these newly radicalized whites have flocked to trump…

    2. immigration is changing the face of america, and a lot of us older white americans are angry about it. We remember a white america from the 1960s. And with age comes perspective. We now see the skeleton framework of this propaganda regime….we are starting to see the trees in the forest of the anti-white multiculturalist propaganda regime…we swim in a sea of propaganda, and as we age, this sea becomes more apparent to us.

    3. The economic social contract has been broken–the interest on your credit card is about the same…but now you get nothing on your savings…we now begin to sense the hand on our wallets….as trump said in his first campaign speech–when he announced–the market is too high and the rates are too low…the media has never talked about that…but I noticed it right away…

    Read More
    • Agree: Mark Green
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Rehmat says:

    LOL – if US-fifth column like Bill Kristol, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, etc. are “moderate politicians” – I bet if Stalin returns he would join them too.

    On January 29, 2015, a large number of protesters disturbed a US Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington DC, when three former US secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and George Shultz, all Israel-First Jews, were about to enlighten the committee members on global security issues, in Russia, Iran, Syria, terrorism, etc. The protest was lead by members of anti-war group CODEPINK that called for a citizen arrest of Henry Kissinger as a WAR CRIMINAL. Watch video below.

    John McCain later apologized to Henry Kissinger on behalf of his “uncivilized” fellow goyim.

    Sen. John McCain, one of the top anti-Muslim and pro-Israel US lawmakers, who was chairing the committee, called the protestors “lowlife scum” and said it was “the most disgraceful and despicable demonstration he had ever seen.” He even accused the protesters of threatening ‘God’s Chosen’ Henry Kissinger physically. The COPEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin (Jewish) denied McCain’s claim…..

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/01/31/john-mccain-defends-three-israel-first-criminals/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Green
    Hi Rehmat. I always enjoy your comments. But for the record, former Sec. of State, George Shultz, is not Jewish; though Albright and Kissinger are.

    PS- former Sec. of State, Henry Kissinger, is now a US-Israeli duel citizen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. 5371 says:
    @Thomas Fuller

    Recent study showed face-to-face and telephone polls underestimating Trump’s support
     
    All the polls in advance of the 2015 General Election in Britain predicted a Labour win; Labour lost very badly in one of their worst-ever results. The inaccuracy of the polls was ascribed to the reluctance, in the current PC climate, of so-called 'shy Tories' to admit that they intended to vote for a (nominally) right-wing party. UKIP, whose supporters here are generally fans of Trump, gained 4m votes, an unprecedented share; though our first-past-the-post system denied them a proportionate representation in parliament.

    It will be interesting, from a European perspective, to see how the Donald fares. He is already providing great entertainment value. He's like a bull in a china shop. The horrified proprietors can do nothing but stand by, watching their meretricious stock getting trashed.

    Very good article, if I may say so, with nice flashes of humour, thanks!

    No-one could possibly be too shy to admit that they plan to vote for a party as pathetically politically correct as the Tories, and no-one is. UKIP, a party in far less good odour with SJWs, performed much in line with what the polls were predicting, which in itself should be enough to explode the “shy Tories” theory. The failure of the pollsters, as research has confirmed, was due to incompetent sampling and cowardly herd-like behaviour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas Fuller
    You have a point, but perhaps you underestimate the suffocating climate of political correctness in the UK!

    After posting my comment yesterday I remembered that the election was also affected by the threat (or promise, depending on your politics) of the Labour party forming a coalition with the Scottish Nationalists, who are somewhat to the left of Pol Pot. No, scrub that, they make Trotsky look like Genghis Khan. Anyhow, if Labour had won, the SNP would have been the tail wagging the British dog. Given the bile spewed out of Scotland all over the English in the run-up to the referendum, this was not a pleasing prospect for most of those south of the border.

    As for the pollsters, those who are not corrupt, and plenty who are, couldn't find their feet in their own socks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @5371
    [the fascist makes up a fairy tale and locates it in the past]

    You have confused the fascist with the progressive caricature of the reactionary.

    Perhaps, but the progressive caricature of the reactionary is simply the mirror image of the progressive, who seeks to “renew” society by taking us to a new Golden Age in the future and eliminating those enemies of “progress” in the current order.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Thirdeye
    We've seen over twenty years of foreign policy dominated by economic neoliberalism and disastrous neoconservative regime change projects, under both Democratic and Republican presidents. "Hope and change" turned out to be same old... Now we've got every candidate but two, Sanders and Trump, marching in lockstep in the wrong direction on the issues most important to the well-being of America and the rest of the world, including reviving the Cold War against Russia. Sanders isn't going to make it, so that leaves only one alternative. Trump is belligerent in style, which I dislike deeply. Hillary is belligerent in substance, which I dislike even more.

    Agree totally. I suppose we can agree to disagree on how steel framed buildings can collapse from small fires.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Diversity Heretic
    Good analysis. I increasingly think that the Republican Party needs to go the way of the 1850s Whig Party and if Trump's candidacy accelerates the evolution of an ethno-nationalist white party in the U.S., then it will have served a purpose, even if Hillary Clinton (ugh!) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.

    I wonder in what context Otto von Bismarck made his statement about Providence protecting the United States. I was never aware that Germany's Iron Chancellor had much interest in the New World.

    I think Bismarck also remarked that the most important fact in 20th century international affairs would be that English was the US national language or words to that effect. As a member of the European aristocracy he would have been aware of factors beyond the economic and cultural also; for example the number of rich American heiresses married to the British aristocracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Thanks, Wizard. The Iron Chancellor seems to have had insight on a lot of topics. I read a biography of him about 20 years ago, but perhaps I should see what the latest scholarship is. He's one of my "heroes" of history--he got the united Germany that he wanted and then quit (no attempt to take over Austria-Hungary and I've read that he wasn't enthusiastic about annexxing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871). Sure wish he could have been in charge in 1914--I think he might have avoided World War I, or at least limited it to a Germany-Austro-Hungarian defensive campaign against Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. JackOH says:
    @WorkingClass
    Thank you for this excellent analysis. I will only highlight this quote from Frum.

    “The dividing line that used to be the most crucial of them all, class, has become a division within the parties, not between them.”
     
    So true. We never had a Labor Party but the working class had a working relationship with the Democrats before Bill Clinton kicked Labor out of the coalition in favor of corporate bucks. Since then the working class (the people) has not been represented in Washington. Trump is opposed to free trade, open borders and the ongoing privatization of everything. Simply put, he is opposed to the neo liberal agenda embraced by both parties that is rapidly destroying the livelihood of the American people.

    Trump has already done a great service to the American people. If he is nominated and debates Hillary his service will be magnified. Opposed by our ENTIRE political class, Trump is revealing the truth that the game is not red team vs blue team but instead a classic conflict between the working and ruling class.

    After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I mistakenly thought there’d be a revival of the best elements of America’s Left, organized labor, and maybe the popularization of an explicit labor or social democrat party. I was dead wrong. I worked with folks in organized labor’s bureaucracy some years back, and they seemed totally sclerotic. (BTW-I vote Libertarian, but I’m also in favor of honest partisan alternatives.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Thank you for your response.

    I was born in 1944. Right at the beginning of the Cold War. When it ended (turns out it never actually ended) I foolishly expected a "peace dividend". I was a union man through the 70's and 80's when there were still manufacturing jobs. It would be helpful to repeal Taft/Hartely and enforce anti-trust laws but a return to American style unionism is not a good idea. The country, as it stands today, sorely needs a Labor Party. But I hold out no hope for that country. At this point only a second republic complete with a new constitution would free us from Imperial Washington.

    I am a Jeffersonian. I am an admirer and former supporter of Ron Paul. But I am not a Libertarian. The taint of Objectivism makes it a lost cause at least as it relates to electoral politics. Neither am I a Socialist although I admire the life and work of Eugene Debs. I am a populist, loyal only to my class. I have no colors to defend. I value liberty, justice, peace and prosperity and will work with anyone who can advance those causes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Svigor says:

    You must love to be a big fish in a tiny pond.

    There goes the “pro working class” pose, I guess.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @alexander
    " And oddly enough, the media hates Trump"


    There you go., Svigor.....the "people" hate the media, they really detest it today.....people go crazy for Trump....because he hates the media too.....for all the right reasons.

    People "love" that the media hates trump...and that hes winning...they feel empowered by it.

    The more the media hates trump...the more the people love him.

    People love that trump says what he believes...that he is an" honest" candidate..

    .They love that the media hates him for being honest....because it shows the people what a big fraud the media is....and it is a big ,big fraud.

    The people don't like Big Brother media....they see in Trump, a leader that can give Big Brother media a big punch in the nose....because Big Brother media deserves a punch in the nose.
    So when" The Donald" gives the media a "pasting"....they go crazy....because they have wanted to do it for so long....and when he pops em in the kisser....they love it......

    Absolutely love it.

    He is going to Cream Hillary in the general election...just "cream" her.

    I hope you are right, Hillary as pres would be a disaster. Any man who would cream Hillary deserves a medal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Wizard of Oz
    I think Bismarck also remarked that the most important fact in 20th century international affairs would be that English was the US national language or words to that effect. As a member of the European aristocracy he would have been aware of factors beyond the economic and cultural also; for example the number of rich American heiresses married to the British aristocracy.

    Thanks, Wizard. The Iron Chancellor seems to have had insight on a lot of topics. I read a biography of him about 20 years ago, but perhaps I should see what the latest scholarship is. He’s one of my “heroes” of history–he got the united Germany that he wanted and then quit (no attempt to take over Austria-Hungary and I’ve read that he wasn’t enthusiastic about annexxing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871). Sure wish he could have been in charge in 1914–I think he might have avoided World War I, or at least limited it to a Germany-Austro-Hungarian defensive campaign against Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    This is well worth reading and covers the Iron Duke's downfall due to little Willie.

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/209889.Dreadnought

    Also shows that Russia was always the target of Germany's aggression. France was to be taken care of quickly to eliminate a likely second front. If WWII was a continuation of WWI then Russia then as now was in the way of global domination. Wilhelm was tired of being little Willie to the British Royals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. geokat62 says:
    @jon

    Trump is known to be a deeply divisive figure, who in a two-way race with his likely Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, would lose the distaff vote by about seventeen percent.
     
    It's not as dire as you suggest. A couple of the most recent polls:

    A Rasmussen poll conducted over December 22-23 has it 37% to 36%.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/clinton_vs_trump_still_a_dead_heat

    A CNN/ORC poll conducted over December 17-21 has it 49% to 47%.
    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/23/cnnpoll2.pdf

    Trump… would lose the distaff vote by about seventeen percent.

    Since the word “distaff” means “women,” you are right to say that it’s “not as dire as [Gottfried] suggests” because according to the poll you cited, the spread is only 12 percent, not 17:

    while women prefer Clinton by a similar 42% to 31% margin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Correction: make that 11%.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. TG says:

    A pretty good piece.

    I do point out that it is not just ‘uneducated’ Americans that are getting screwed by excessive immigration and ‘free’ trade. Many highly-educated American engineers are being displaced by dirt-cheap Indian nationals in H1B visas (who do not have to service sky-high loan debts) – we also like The Donald. Because nobody else is standing up for us.

    Your comment about Trump not having institutional depth behind him is correct, but the American system is not France. Congress has increasingly made itself irrelevant. A president Trump could make sweeping changes all by himself. For example, Obama is refusing to enforce the laws against illegal immigration. President Trump could simply enforce them. He could declare a national emergency and have the army build a wall on the southern border. He could tighten visa standards, declare certain countries guilty of currency manipulation and slap tariffs on their imports, etc. These multi-thousand page bills that have been passed in the last few years give the executive astonishing leeway to decide how or if to apply them. The elites are currently celebrating the fact that Obama can give them pretty much anything they want by executive order – they may rue the day they allowed the imperial presidency to get so powerful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. I have learned a great deal from reading the responses to my commentary and find that I’m in agreement with much of what I have read. What I disagree with profoundly as someone who has spent considerable time and energy researching fascism and who has a book on the subject coming out in mid-January, is Mr. Vasilis’s effort to link Marine Le Pen to European fascism. Except for the populist, patriotic strains in her rhetoric, I can find no common ground between Marine and interwar fascism. The National Front does not advocate a one party state (unlike its opposition which in effect has already created one), has never called for abolishing a parliamentary government, and does not advocate the kind of corporate state that was characteristic of Latin fascist programs, in France as well as in Italy and Spain. The continuity that Mr. Vasilis is claiming to see is not there, save as a convenient fiction generated and perpetuated by the French and international leftist media. I’m not even sure that the now frequently encountered term “extreme rightist party” used to describe the Front in the WSJ and NYT has any relation to reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vasilis
    Professor Gottfried,

    Based on your research, do you consider the National Front as it was founded and as it was led in the past by Jean-Marie Le Pen to have been associated with European fascism at that time? I refer to the period before the 2002 French Presidential elections, when Marine Le Pen was not a prominent figure in the party.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. geokat62 says:
    @Priss Factor
    The 'invisible government'.

    No wonder Americans could be sold on 'gay marriage'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--05vCr7T8

    Thanks for sharing, Priss. The woman in the video seemed very knowledgable. At one point in the video, she referred to Edward Bernays, the father of PR (formerly known as propaganda):

    Bernays, working for the administration of Woodrow Wilson during World War I with the Committee on Public Information, was influential in promoting the idea that America’s war efforts were primarily aimed at “bringing democracy to all of Europe”. Following the war, he was invited by Woodrow Wilson to attend the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

    Stunned by the degree to which the democracy slogan had swayed the public both at home and abroad, he wondered whether this propaganda model could be employed during peacetime. Due to negative implications surrounding the word propaganda because of its use by the Germans in World War I, he promoted the term “Public Relations”. According to the BBC interview with Bernays’s daughter Anne, Bernays felt that the public’s democratic judgment was “not to be relied upon” and he feared that “they [the American public] could very easily vote for the wrong man or want the wrong thing, so that they had to be guided from above.” This “guidance” was interpreted by Anne to mean that her father believed in a sort of “enlightened despotism” ideology.

    Now I know where the neocons (and the Rendon Group) got their ideas on how to sell the wars to remake the ME.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    At one point in the video, she referred to Edward Bernays, the father of PR
     
    Does that make public relations the double grandnephew of Sigmund Freud?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. geokat62 says:
    @geokat62

    Trump... would lose the distaff vote by about seventeen percent.
     
    Since the word "distaff" means "women," you are right to say that it's "not as dire as [Gottfried] suggests" because according to the poll you cited, the spread is only 12 percent, not 17:

    while women prefer Clinton by a similar 42% to 31% margin.
     

    Correction: make that 11%.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Sherman says:

    Last summer Trump boasted that he was going to talk tough to the Chinese about their trade policies.

    He then attacked Mexicans.

    Now he’s attacking Muslims.

    By my rough calculation he’s promised a confrontation with roughly 3 billion people.

    (And I’m not even counting the billions of women around the world who take offense at his comments about female biology).

    This isn’t exactly a promising way for a president to start office.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BTampa
    It's time to rid ourselves of the notion that the foreigner's view of the US President is in any way meaningful - or that their likes and dislikes should be considered by us when choosing.

    The truth is that those outside the US like or dislike an American President primarily based on one thing: their belief that he is willing to subordinate US interests in favor of the interests of their country.

    That's really what it boils down to. So in a very real sense, the less "the world" likes our President, the better he probably is... for us.
    , @5371
    What's this strange new love for Muslims, Sherm? Don't trust Trump's converted-to-Judaism daughter to keep him on the straight and narrow? Insist on a candidate wholly owned by Netanyahu?
    , @Art
    "By my rough calculation he’s promised a confrontation with roughly 3 billion people. "

    Hey Sherm --- that Trump is a piker - you Jew go for all 7,000,000,000 of us. -- Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. hbm says:

    President Hillary, huh?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. BTampa says:

    It’s not really worth carrying on about whether Trump is a fascist or not. Such attacks are meaningless and should be treated as such.

    What IS worth talking about is splitting the Republican party. I say if the eGOP wants to leave – let’s push them out the door and shut it when they’re out. Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll join the Democrat Party where they’d feel more at home on the big issues of the day. Wouldn’t it be great to see them do for Dems what they’ve done for Reps?

    The key here is, we need to take over the GOP and get rid of the eGOP. Let’s keep the name and make them choose between starting from scratch… or joining the Dems.

    Trump – or Cruz – or Trump/Cruz… is the way to start this process.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. BTampa says:
    @Sherman
    Last summer Trump boasted that he was going to talk tough to the Chinese about their trade policies.

    He then attacked Mexicans.

    Now he's attacking Muslims.

    By my rough calculation he's promised a confrontation with roughly 3 billion people.

    (And I'm not even counting the billions of women around the world who take offense at his comments about female biology).

    This isn't exactly a promising way for a president to start office.

    It’s time to rid ourselves of the notion that the foreigner’s view of the US President is in any way meaningful – or that their likes and dislikes should be considered by us when choosing.

    The truth is that those outside the US like or dislike an American President primarily based on one thing: their belief that he is willing to subordinate US interests in favor of the interests of their country.

    That’s really what it boils down to. So in a very real sense, the less “the world” likes our President, the better he probably is… for us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. pyrrhus says:

    Sure, the LePen’s in France, who have zero influence on the French government or economy, have accomplished much more than Trump, who is currently in a dead heat with Hillary in the polls and has changed the entire dialogue in the US…..What are you smoking’ Bro?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. Biff says:

    If the result of Trump’s rude break-in at the Republican country club is the election of Hillary Clinton as president, I certainly wont‘t weep

    I will weep. Hillary is a mass murderer, and most likely the most dangerous human on the planet. Placing her finger next to the button is suicidal.

    Read More
    • Agree: tbraton
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. @tbraton
    "the amiable dolt who occupied the White House before Obama"

    Would that be George!!!, by any chance, Prof. Gottlieb? I think you are being much too kind in your description. Excellent piece. Truly "fair and balanced"---and not in the Fox News sense.

    "At this point it is hard to imagine Trump elevating his base of support much beyond its current level."

    That might the only point where I might disagree with you. Just taking myself as an example (and I certainly don't fit the stereotype of the typical Trump supporter since I possess three degrees after high school), I started out the year predicting Trump wouldn't run, and, even after he announced, I was skeptical. But once he attacked McCain's status as a "war hero," I was all ears. I quickly changed my opinion about Trump. I believe others, once they start paying attention, will experience the same conversion. At least, I hope so. I find encouragement in the fact that his polling numbers have steadily increased as he got more exposure and the fact that TV ratings for the Republican debates have shattered previous records.

    “the amiable dolt who occupied the White House before Obama”

    But who knew, before we saw ¿Jeb? that George would not be the intellectual runt of the litter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "But who knew, before we saw ¿Jeb? that George would not be the intellectual runt of the litter?"

    I fell for the same Bush family bullshit. I even voted for the guy three times for governor (and thought he did a decent job up to the Terri Schiavo fiasco) and didn't realize what a dolt he was until he ran for President. People disparage the whole process of campaigning and televised debates, but sometimes they give you a good feel for the essence of the candidates running for office. Not perfect, but sure better than the alternatives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Ace says:
    @Vasilis

    [The National Front in France is definitely the evolution of French fascism]

    No, this is super-silly stuff. Poujade wasn’t ever a fascist, and neither was his disciple Jean-Marie Le Pen, any more than George Wallace.
     

    Poujade and Jean-Marie Le Pen were clearly anti-parliamentarians. Furthermore, both embraced Petain's "Travail, Famille, Patrie" as opposed to the republican "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite". In France this is what fascism is all about, if they are not fascists, then no one in France is a fascist. I do not accept the former Soviet propaganda claim that fascism is a characteristic of advanced capitalism, I consider it to be a reactionary backtrack from elective government. As such it has never caught on in any country with a dominant population of English origin.

    George Wallace was not a fascist, he was a racist, which is a different thing. Again I do not accept Soviet WW2 propaganda that bundles it all together. One can be a racist without being a fascist or be a fascist without being a racist. One can also be both of course.

    You have the strangest notion of what fascism is. “Work, family, and country” is an innocuous slogan that Mitch McConnell or Mr. Rogers would cheerfully embrace and by juxtaposing it to “Liberty, equality and fraternity” you do not make the case that it is somehow fascist. The latter slogan initially was beloved of men who raised political murder to an art form. Sloganology is a pure excuse for substantive analysis.

    Fascism is not reactionary. It’s a doctrine of the total state that is separated from communism by a whisker. They both were radical political phenomena. National Socialism and Italian fascism did not arise as a reaction to communism but as a part of the same worldwide fascination with social, political, and economic transformation. Mussolini’s core idea was “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    Socialists and communists had no use for democracy but you’ve provided zero evidence that Marine Le Pen has exhibited “anti-parliamentarianism.” Give the woman a break. She knows that the E.u., globalism, immigration, multiculturalism, and being Merkel’s stable boy are the cancers afflicting France. Whatever is the source of French madness, it isn’t the National Assembly. And whatever her father espoused is irrelevant as he is decidedly out of the picture.

    You’re being very reckless in the way you throw around such a loaded term.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    You're right and I'd just add that Jean-Marie Le Pen is not now and never was a fascist. He's always been a republican in favour of rule of law and parliamentary democracy.
    , @Vasilis
    Ace, American and European perspectives on fascism differ vastly, mainly because much of Europe has gone through fascism at some point, while the US has not. I suspect that our main difference is just that I have lived in Europe for over 3 decades. In the United States liberty, equality, brotherhood, work, family and country are six great things that we all can cheer for. In France "Travail, Famille, Patrie” was the slogan of the Petain government that collaborated with with the German occupation during WW2 and it was presented as an alternative to the republican “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, which the Free French and De Gaulle fought for. In France it is not lets have all six, it is either/or. I do understand that this is not widely known or understood in the United States, but if you do not take it into account you cannot understand what is happening in France.

    Fascism in mid war Europe was greatly assisted by opposition to communism, but the anti-parliamentarian roots of fascism predate the Bolshevik revolution. I consider exactly this anti-parliamentarian stand as the basic characteristic of fascism, the rest is in my opinion either ornamental or circumstantial of that period. To put it in another way, communism was a great step forward from democracy that led to a deep fall down a sheer cliff, while fascism was a step back from democracy that made sense for some people only as long as communism was a clear and present threat. Both can still make great talking points though, especially if you do not have to actually apply them and answer to the public for their results.

    As for Marine Le Pen, I reserve judgement. Her party has fascist origins, but she may have seen the futility of her father's position and may be sincerely seeking to transform it into a parliamentarian right wing party. Her intentions remain to be seen. You correctly include her positions on the EU and Europe as fundamental, she did not win this victory on the issue of immigration alone. Her main issue at this time is if France will be an independent country or not, which makes her position very strong with the French public.

    In any case though, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump, he is the totally different product of a totally different political system and that was the main point of my initial post.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Mussolini’s core idea was “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
     
    Oswald Mosely, the most (hell, the only) important Fascist in the English-speaking world, said at the end of his life that he'd always been a man of the left. Facism seems rather centrist* to me, but the Anglosphere is pretty reactionary all around, so naturally he'd feel like a lefty.

    *and centrism, increasingly fascist!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Svigor says:

    Last summer Trump boasted that he was going to talk tough to the Chinese about their trade policies.

    He then attacked Mexicans.

    Now he’s attacking Muslims.

    By my rough calculation he’s promised a confrontation with roughly 3 billion people.

    (And I’m not even counting the billions of women around the world who take offense at his comments about female biology).

    This isn’t exactly a promising way for a president to start office.

    TL;DR version: borders (for white people) are “confrontational”; when darkies with borders encounter whites with borders, whites will suffer. Because ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. “Trump as late as 2008 was a Hillary Clinton supporter and until recently, fit in easily with GOP establishment donors.”

    True indeed. True, and disturbing. And what is also true is that within the past year none other than Bill Clinton himself encouraged Trump to run as a candidate. Nothing the Clintons do is without calculation, so I smell a rat. Did Trump have a Damascus Road encounter? Or is he in there basically to split the Republican Party, running interference for HRC in consideration for God-knows-what? In either case, the result remains the same, as suggested at the end of Prof. Gottfried’s essay. Given that dismal scenario, we can only hope that the words of the “Iron Chancellor” remain prophetic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. An article bashing Trump, warning us of the media and GOP establishment bashing Trump !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Art says:

    Trump is right about Muslim immigration. Maybe we should figure out this Muslim thing before we move ahead on immigration.

    Muslims have their own way of thinking, their own culture – that culture is antithetical to Christian Western culture. Christian Western culture is open to freedom, it is optimistic, and it welcomes change.

    In Christian culture, we look to ourselves for a better tomorrow – not to God. This is not true of the Muslim culture. The byword of Muslim culture is “God willing” – where as a Christian says “I’m willing.”

    Perhaps to a fault, Christian culture has evolved to extend freedom to everyone. Clearly this is not true of Muslim culture. Their treatment of women is inhuman. In the Christian West, the nuclear family, father mother and children, is the unit of human stability and progress. In Muslim culture the clan arranges marriages between relatives. Sorry but that is old world.

    Fundamentally, the Muslim culture does not like other cultures. It does not mix well or integrate with other cultures – it is not open to other peoples ways – it does not want to evolve.

    Most unfortunately for Muslims and Christian America, the Jew have deviously and devilishly in-snared us into killing each other – pitting Muslim against Muslim – with us destroying Muslim countries.

    There is righteous bad blood between we Americans and Muslims. By far the Muslims have been hurt the most – it is ungodly what has happened..

    Is it not time for a grand life saving exchange – we militarily leave their lands and they stay within their land and culture, trading goods with the world – evolving their culture in their own way?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Biff

    Christian culture has evolved to extend freedom to everyone.
     
    Bwahhh. Yea, that's a good one. Keep the jokes coming.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Paul Gottfried, what a sissy you are.Who the hell cares about France or Germany? You need a “mommy” like Marine Pen who can “speak whole sentences” as opposed to Trump “who shoots from the hip”? If Trump gets elected may he continue to skewer pusillanimous faggots such as yourself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. DES says:

    I’m not so sure that Trump’s support has hit a ceiling. I suspect that owing to the media’s demonizing of him, a lot of people are reluctant to admit publicly that they could support him in a contest against Hillary. In any case, I would rather see Hillary as president than someone like Jeb! Bush or Marco Rubio, whose policies, particularly in the foreign area, would be essentially the same as hers. If we’re going to make a mess of things, let it be done by a Democrat! I say this as a long-time registered Republican and holder of two Ivy League degrees. (Note to Stephen R. Diamond: The pond may be bigger than you think.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "I’m not so sure that Trump’s support has hit a ceiling. I suspect that owing to the media’s demonizing of him, a lot of people are reluctant to admit publicly that they could support him in a contest against Hillary."

    My gut tells me the same. I started off the year betting Trump wouldn't even run and thinking he was a joke. Even when he announced he was running, I felt the same way. Then he started talking, I listened, and I changed my mind. Compared to the others in the field in both parties, a vote for Trump is a no-brainer for me at this point. I read a columnist recently invoking the "Bradley effect," which described the experience of the seemingly popular black mayor of LA who lost twice running for California despite last minute polls showing him winning. Some observers concluded that people lied to pollsters about how they were going to vote for fear of being thought "racists" for voting against the black candidate. That's my feeling about what is happening now. I think the polls are underestimating Trump's support across the country.
    , @Ace
    That's right. The American political system since Reagan has been one giant routine like those Chinese swordsmen in the theater who pretend that they're in total darkness and continually miss each other by inches. Bush '43 batted for the Republican team and ratcheted up the spending on a needless new social program and wanted to play kissy face with the Saudis. He was Dr. Doom on "terrorism" but wanted to snuggle with the guys who were financing it all over the world. Ryan is the latest "Republican" to send us in the direction of fiscal oblivion.

    The last eight years under Obama have been educational for a lot of whites and the rampage of hundreds of otherwise unidentified "youths" at that mall yesterday -- and the pathetic, mewling politicians who were scared to do anything about it -- can serve as the crown jewel of the nation's stupidity in electing this nonentity.

    Trump is injecting a boatload of honesty into the system just now and his erstwhile "competition" are as clueless as ever about the realities of where we are.

    It really doesn't matter what happens to the Republicans. If people are so stupid as to be persuaded that Trump is a "divisive figure" and thus to be avoided, well then let them enjoy what a "centrist" like Hillary can dish up. It really looks like it's pointless to try to reason with people. Over 100 million people lost their lives because of totalitarian communism but voters whose legacy was the freest, sanest, most rational governments known to man, are as eager as ever to hand power to the far left. And even now there is massive denial on the nature of plain-vanilla Islam.

    As Franklin said, "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. 5371 says:
    @Sherman
    Last summer Trump boasted that he was going to talk tough to the Chinese about their trade policies.

    He then attacked Mexicans.

    Now he's attacking Muslims.

    By my rough calculation he's promised a confrontation with roughly 3 billion people.

    (And I'm not even counting the billions of women around the world who take offense at his comments about female biology).

    This isn't exactly a promising way for a president to start office.

    What’s this strange new love for Muslims, Sherm? Don’t trust Trump’s converted-to-Judaism daughter to keep him on the straight and narrow? Insist on a candidate wholly owned by Netanyahu?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Biff says:
    @Art
    Trump is right about Muslim immigration. Maybe we should figure out this Muslim thing before we move ahead on immigration.

    Muslims have their own way of thinking, their own culture – that culture is antithetical to Christian Western culture. Christian Western culture is open to freedom, it is optimistic, and it welcomes change.

    In Christian culture, we look to ourselves for a better tomorrow – not to God. This is not true of the Muslim culture. The byword of Muslim culture is “God willing” - where as a Christian says “I'm willing.”

    Perhaps to a fault, Christian culture has evolved to extend freedom to everyone. Clearly this is not true of Muslim culture. Their treatment of women is inhuman. In the Christian West, the nuclear family, father mother and children, is the unit of human stability and progress. In Muslim culture the clan arranges marriages between relatives. Sorry but that is old world.

    Fundamentally, the Muslim culture does not like other cultures. It does not mix well or integrate with other cultures – it is not open to other peoples ways – it does not want to evolve.

    Most unfortunately for Muslims and Christian America, the Jew have deviously and devilishly in-snared us into killing each other – pitting Muslim against Muslim – with us destroying Muslim countries.

    There is righteous bad blood between we Americans and Muslims. By far the Muslims have been hurt the most – it is ungodly what has happened..

    Is it not time for a grand life saving exchange - we militarily leave their lands and they stay within their land and culture, trading goods with the world – evolving their culture in their own way?

    Christian culture has evolved to extend freedom to everyone.

    Bwahhh. Yea, that’s a good one. Keep the jokes coming.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. tbraton says:
    @Bill Jones
    “the amiable dolt who occupied the White House before Obama”

    But who knew, before we saw ¿Jeb? that George would not be the intellectual runt of the litter?

    “But who knew, before we saw ¿Jeb? that George would not be the intellectual runt of the litter?”

    I fell for the same Bush family bullshit. I even voted for the guy three times for governor (and thought he did a decent job up to the Terri Schiavo fiasco) and didn’t realize what a dolt he was until he ran for President. People disparage the whole process of campaigning and televised debates, but sometimes they give you a good feel for the essence of the candidates running for office. Not perfect, but sure better than the alternatives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    It's a commonplace that the politicians live in a bubble totally disconnected to the real world.
    The Republican primary encapsulates this to an astonishing degree, I've never quite seen its like.

    The main point of agreement is that there must be many more wars and many more brown people killed.

    The main point of disagreement is who will kill the most

    Quite astonishing.
    , @Jim Christian
    Look who Bush ran against. Both of them. Michael Stanley Dukakis, Al Gore, the pinch-faced carbon hustler, John (Why the long face?) Kerry, in that order.

    Who do you want to have a beer with? Kerry or "W"? Al Gore or "W"? Old man Bush or Dukakis? In the end, we decided we'd rather have a beer with Bill Clinton. Twice. Which ones are more interesting, more authentic? Who of them has better stories to tell?

    THAT is how we pick a President, in the end. What, you wanna have a tea with Hillary or two fingers of Blue Label, a round of golf and tales of endless pussy-grabs told by the Donald as only HE could? Over prime red meat? Served by beautiful women?

    Any man that votes for Hillary is a god-damned castrated feminist, not even a man. There. I said it. She couldn't even satisfy her own husband. She's worse than all of our ex-wives combined. And you would VOTE for that to be your President? Really? Shame on you. May as well date Lorena Bobbit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Art says:
    @Sherman
    Last summer Trump boasted that he was going to talk tough to the Chinese about their trade policies.

    He then attacked Mexicans.

    Now he's attacking Muslims.

    By my rough calculation he's promised a confrontation with roughly 3 billion people.

    (And I'm not even counting the billions of women around the world who take offense at his comments about female biology).

    This isn't exactly a promising way for a president to start office.

    “By my rough calculation he’s promised a confrontation with roughly 3 billion people. “

    Hey Sherm — that Trump is a piker – you Jew go for all 7,000,000,000 of us. — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sherman
    Hi Little Art,

    Amazing you could do all that math. You must have learned it at Harvard.

    Sherm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. tbraton says:
    @DES
    I'm not so sure that Trump's support has hit a ceiling. I suspect that owing to the media's demonizing of him, a lot of people are reluctant to admit publicly that they could support him in a contest against Hillary. In any case, I would rather see Hillary as president than someone like Jeb! Bush or Marco Rubio, whose policies, particularly in the foreign area, would be essentially the same as hers. If we're going to make a mess of things, let it be done by a Democrat! I say this as a long-time registered Republican and holder of two Ivy League degrees. (Note to Stephen R. Diamond: The pond may be bigger than you think.)

    “I’m not so sure that Trump’s support has hit a ceiling. I suspect that owing to the media’s demonizing of him, a lot of people are reluctant to admit publicly that they could support him in a contest against Hillary.”

    My gut tells me the same. I started off the year betting Trump wouldn’t even run and thinking he was a joke. Even when he announced he was running, I felt the same way. Then he started talking, I listened, and I changed my mind. Compared to the others in the field in both parties, a vote for Trump is a no-brainer for me at this point. I read a columnist recently invoking the “Bradley effect,” which described the experience of the seemingly popular black mayor of LA who lost twice running for California despite last minute polls showing him winning. Some observers concluded that people lied to pollsters about how they were going to vote for fear of being thought “racists” for voting against the black candidate. That’s my feeling about what is happening now. I think the polls are underestimating Trump’s support across the country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Realist
    "(only 8 percent of his GOP supporters are college graduates)"

    That is meaningless. Most college graduates have useless degrees. Colleges are full of idiots, students and faculty. Our laws allow the rich elite to buy our government. Therefore, on the important issues, there is no difference in the two parties.

    I have no doubt 90% of Hillary’s female voters have a degree. Stupid-as-shit degrees. Women’s Studies, African Studies, Communications, Human Resources. Programs invented so low-IQ vaginas could have something to spend a lot of tuition on. No math, no science, nothing difficult. Perfect idiocy and indoctrination on the ways of feminism. At the end of the diploma mill, a sex-preference job. Cash and prizes for sex-discrimination and sexual harassment accusations, the training is all in place when she hits the working world.

    If anyone cares to show me wrong, I’m all eyes. THESE are Hillary’s girls. She proclaims it at every whistle stop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    I agree, but there are plenty of males getting worthless degrees too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Ace says:
    @DES
    I'm not so sure that Trump's support has hit a ceiling. I suspect that owing to the media's demonizing of him, a lot of people are reluctant to admit publicly that they could support him in a contest against Hillary. In any case, I would rather see Hillary as president than someone like Jeb! Bush or Marco Rubio, whose policies, particularly in the foreign area, would be essentially the same as hers. If we're going to make a mess of things, let it be done by a Democrat! I say this as a long-time registered Republican and holder of two Ivy League degrees. (Note to Stephen R. Diamond: The pond may be bigger than you think.)

    That’s right. The American political system since Reagan has been one giant routine like those Chinese swordsmen in the theater who pretend that they’re in total darkness and continually miss each other by inches. Bush ’43 batted for the Republican team and ratcheted up the spending on a needless new social program and wanted to play kissy face with the Saudis. He was Dr. Doom on “terrorism” but wanted to snuggle with the guys who were financing it all over the world. Ryan is the latest “Republican” to send us in the direction of fiscal oblivion.

    The last eight years under Obama have been educational for a lot of whites and the rampage of hundreds of otherwise unidentified “youths” at that mall yesterday — and the pathetic, mewling politicians who were scared to do anything about it — can serve as the crown jewel of the nation’s stupidity in electing this nonentity.

    Trump is injecting a boatload of honesty into the system just now and his erstwhile “competition” are as clueless as ever about the realities of where we are.

    It really doesn’t matter what happens to the Republicans. If people are so stupid as to be persuaded that Trump is a “divisive figure” and thus to be avoided, well then let them enjoy what a “centrist” like Hillary can dish up. It really looks like it’s pointless to try to reason with people. Over 100 million people lost their lives because of totalitarian communism but voters whose legacy was the freest, sanest, most rational governments known to man, are as eager as ever to hand power to the far left. And even now there is massive denial on the nature of plain-vanilla Islam.

    As Franklin said, “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @tbraton
    "But who knew, before we saw ¿Jeb? that George would not be the intellectual runt of the litter?"

    I fell for the same Bush family bullshit. I even voted for the guy three times for governor (and thought he did a decent job up to the Terri Schiavo fiasco) and didn't realize what a dolt he was until he ran for President. People disparage the whole process of campaigning and televised debates, but sometimes they give you a good feel for the essence of the candidates running for office. Not perfect, but sure better than the alternatives.

    It’s a commonplace that the politicians live in a bubble totally disconnected to the real world.
    The Republican primary encapsulates this to an astonishing degree, I’ve never quite seen its like.

    The main point of agreement is that there must be many more wars and many more brown people killed.

    The main point of disagreement is who will kill the most

    Quite astonishing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "The main point of agreement is that there must be many more wars and many more brown people killed.
    The main point of disagreement is who will kill the most
    Quite astonishing."

    I feel the same way. I thought the highlight of the last debate was Rand Paul's retort to Chris Christie's comment that he would establish (an illegal) "no fly zone" in Syria and shoot down any Russian plane that entered it. Paul immediately retorted that, "if you're looking for someone who is going to start WWIII, then you've found your candidate." A perfect response to a completely unhinged statement by one of the "establishment" candidates. That and Gov. John Kasich's boast that he would like "to punch Russia in the nose" to show tough he could be. What are these jerks thinking? Do they really think the American public is so stupid that they want to hear reckless, dangerous talk like that? If that's the case, then we've "come a long way, baby" from Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" of slightly more than a hundred years ago. The only candidates who stood out for their cautious and non-belligerent positions in the field of foreign policy at the last debate, imo, were Rand Paul and Donald Trump.
    , @Bill
    The part of the debate I found most disturbing was Hugh Hewitt haranguing Black Surgeon Man because Hewitt felt BSM would be too reticent about murdering children:

    http://www.carbonated.tv/news/hugh-hewitt-ben-carson-kill-innocent-children-question-cnn-gop-debate
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Curle says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    I’m for Trump. I’ve an Ivy League Ph.D.
     
    You must love to be a big fish in a tiny pond.

    In the past forty years ‘college graduates’ have gone from 10 percent of the population to more than 30 percent. As Paul Fussell pointed out years ago, the expansion was mostly one of image, renaming old ‘normal’ schools as colleges and universities. With the advent of online open admission schools the term is near meaningless as a metric of talent. The only college graduate metric of any interest to me is that for the top 10% of graduates and even those folks have a higher than average interest in maintaining social appearances and can be expected to be anti-Trump in higher amounts. That a larger chunk of DeVry graduates like Marco, Ted or Jeb means nothing to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Sherman says:
    @Art
    "By my rough calculation he’s promised a confrontation with roughly 3 billion people. "

    Hey Sherm --- that Trump is a piker - you Jew go for all 7,000,000,000 of us. -- Art

    Hi Little Art,

    Amazing you could do all that math. You must have learned it at Harvard.

    Sherm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "Amazing you could do all that math. You must have learned it at Harvard. "

    Hi Sherm,

    Ya man - Harvard --- saw it on a black board while I was cleaning the floor. Counted the zeros on my fingers - used them all!

    Impressive Ha!

    Art

    p.s. How's the Palestinians beach today?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Ace says:
    @Priss Factor
    The Trump phenom goes to expose the total sham that is American Conservatism.

    Now, I'm no fan of Trump even though I prefer him to everyone else by a margin of light yrs.

    It's true enough that Trump is acting a bit loony at times, but he is tapping into something real. He's stirring up something that has been either dormant or suppressed for so long.

    Now, the GOP establishment and mainstream Conservatives have right to be upset with Trump's tactics and proposals, but surely they should recognize that Trump has given the 'American Right' a great opportunity for some real soul-searching.
    Even if they don't endorse Trump, they can ask key questions such as:

    1. How come the Establishment favorites like Jeb are such duds?

    2. How come so many Conservatives are connecting with Trump like they've done with no one else for a long time?

    3. How come the media attack on Trump has had little effect on him?

    4. In what ways has the GOP failed that has led to the Trump phenom?

    5. etc.

    Instead, the GOP establishment and mainstream Conservative types are doubling down, swinging their batons, and giving us the same horseshit that no longer sells.
    If anything, the so-called 'mainstream conservatives' are not mainstream at all. 'Mainstream' implies something that represents the majority. Well, we are told that Jeb Bush is 'mainstream' whereas Trump is a fringe candidate, but Trump seems to be doing better with your average Conservative than Jeb is.
    It's like the term 'mainline' Protestantism. It suggests the main bulk of Protestant believers, but in fact, 'mainline' means nothing today as their churches have totally dried up. There is no blood, soul, and passion in the movement. In contrast, Evangelicalism is still alive cuz the faith still remains.
    Now, Trump is no religious figure, but there is real passion among his supporters that simply doesn't exist among supporters of the likes of Rubio, Fiorina, Jeb, and etc. Trump may be a swindler, but his fans and supporters are genuine conservatives and patriots. They really believe in America just like Evangelicals really believe in Jesus as the Son of God.
    In contrast, Mainline Protestants regard themselves as too sophisticated, educated, and aloof to literally believe in God and Jesus. They just value the abstract 'essence' of that stuff so that it can be used to serve secular causes... like 'gay marriage'.

    Likewise, the so-called 'mainstream conservatives' of the Establishment no longer believe in core conservatism, patriotism, Americanism, and etc. They are 'secular patriots' than 'spiritual patriots'. Their idea of America is an abstraction. It is not about American history, people, culture, and power. It is about America as some abstract proposition cooked up by Emma Lazarus Sulkowicz and the Neocons.
    Their reaction to red-blooded patriotism is like mainline protestant reaction to Evangelical faith in God as the real Lord than some abstract idea.

    Given that populist red-blooded conservatives have been rather unintelligent and un-educated, they've been easily manipulated by the elites. They were thrown some red meat on occasion at least in symbolism: pledge of alliance, bogus controversies about prayer in school, etc. Mostly, their passions were stoked only during election time only to win some votes for politicians who were really in the pocket of globalist elites.

    And over the yrs, US has become less white, less conservative, less spiritual, less moral, and etc. despite all the promises of GOP elites(even when GOP held the presidency and both houses). Also, populist conservatives were led to believe that if they support the rich folks, the rich folks would reciprocate and fight leftist Big Government and support American patriotism. But that was all bogus. American populist conservatives are waking up to the fact that the super-rich(whom they'd supported) are pushing the very agendas that are doing the most harm to the vast majority of middle class, lower middle class, and working class white Americans.

    But we don't see any soul-searching from the likes of George Will. My beef with Will is not that he dislikes Trump. There are many good reasons not to like Trump, to distrust him, to even despise him.
    But at the very least, Trump has provided us with an opportunity to discuss serious matters about the future of American Conservatism. He has blown the cover that there is indeed a HUGE discrepancy between the Establishment and the duped conservative masses who are now fed up and sick to death of guys like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who schmooze with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

    If Trump is the destroyer of the GOP, it's only because he lifted up the hood and exposed the shoddy machinery. GOP has been like a sleazy used car salesman for some time. It's been trying to fool America, especially populist white voters, that the engine is still powerful and ready to win the race and serve American interests.
    But then, Trump comes along and opens up the hood, and it's obvious that the so-called pistons are made up of noodles like Jeb, Rubio, Carly, Lindsey, and the rest. Trump does the Tucker thing in the Coppola movie, and the establishment just can't handle it.
    Still, we have now seen the GOP under the hood, and we can't buy it anymore unless it gets a real new engine. And this is what the likes of Will are bitching about. They don't want a new engine. They wanted to sell us a souped-up version of the same bogus engine hidden under the shiny hood. And instead of blaming themselves for the crummy engine, the Establishment types are blaming Trump for having lifted up the hood to reveal the truth.
    Now, the Grease Lightning that Trump is selling could be a bogus junk car too. But we should credit Trump for exposing the GOP for what it is.

    In a way, the fate of GOP is what happens when something becomes overly institutionalized. In some ways, such development is understandable. After all, people with the stuff of greatness can be mavericks and visionaries. They can do great things but also bad things.
    So, instead of having men of powerful personalities and leadership qualities, the system prefers those who go long and get along. After a spell under such a system, both the GOP and Democratic Party have filled up with pushovers, fakers, phonies, and slicksters. They are hand-shakers than world-shakers; they are puppets who take orders from AIPAC, Soros, Koch Brothers, and Adelson.
    And over time, such a system only produces one colorless and bloodless second-rater after another because anyone with any true vision or personality is purged and exiled.
    So, Citizen Trump's moment is truly remarkable in this sense.

    At any rate, the GOP may now be fatally broken like Tsar's power during WWI.
    It's gotten to the point where all the main talking points no longer hold any water or have any sway over us. It all sounds like empty rhetoric by professional hacks who just mouth the same cliches because they don't know and can't think of anything else.
    It's like the scene in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO where the deserters just about had enough of the war and have become deaf to the rhetoric.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QkJjWIHFSA

    Outstanding.

    My only quibble is the idea that Trump acts a bit loony at times or that he might be despicable.

    One of the things I like about him is that he is willing to say what he thinks and if he departs by one inch from the media standard of flawless logic, temperate delivery, and consummate grasp of every fact known to man it doesn’t phase him.

    The alternative is the false one we have seen for decades, that political candidates are ever at the top of their game. If they are caught out on some minor point they turn white and then it’s tally ho for the media to run him into the ground. He doesn’t play that game and is willing to respond with a very gratifying, and amusing, “So what?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @JackOH
    After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I mistakenly thought there'd be a revival of the best elements of America's Left, organized labor, and maybe the popularization of an explicit labor or social democrat party. I was dead wrong. I worked with folks in organized labor's bureaucracy some years back, and they seemed totally sclerotic. (BTW-I vote Libertarian, but I'm also in favor of honest partisan alternatives.)

    Thank you for your response.

    I was born in 1944. Right at the beginning of the Cold War. When it ended (turns out it never actually ended) I foolishly expected a “peace dividend”. I was a union man through the 70′s and 80′s when there were still manufacturing jobs. It would be helpful to repeal Taft/Hartely and enforce anti-trust laws but a return to American style unionism is not a good idea. The country, as it stands today, sorely needs a Labor Party. But I hold out no hope for that country. At this point only a second republic complete with a new constitution would free us from Imperial Washington.

    I am a Jeffersonian. I am an admirer and former supporter of Ron Paul. But I am not a Libertarian. The taint of Objectivism makes it a lost cause at least as it relates to electoral politics. Neither am I a Socialist although I admire the life and work of Eugene Debs. I am a populist, loyal only to my class. I have no colors to defend. I value liberty, justice, peace and prosperity and will work with anyone who can advance those causes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I value liberty, justice, peace and prosperity and will work with anyone who can advance those causes.

    Great values, too bad you are pretty much by yourself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Mark Green says: • Website
    @Rehmat
    LOL - if US-fifth column like Bill Kristol, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, etc. are "moderate politicians" - I bet if Stalin returns he would join them too.

    On January 29, 2015, a large number of protesters disturbed a US Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington DC, when three former US secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and George Shultz, all Israel-First Jews, were about to enlighten the committee members on global security issues, in Russia, Iran, Syria, terrorism, etc. The protest was lead by members of anti-war group CODEPINK that called for a citizen arrest of Henry Kissinger as a WAR CRIMINAL. Watch video below.

    John McCain later apologized to Henry Kissinger on behalf of his “uncivilized” fellow goyim.

    Sen. John McCain, one of the top anti-Muslim and pro-Israel US lawmakers, who was chairing the committee, called the protestors “lowlife scum” and said it was “the most disgraceful and despicable demonstration he had ever seen.” He even accused the protesters of threatening ‘God’s Chosen’ Henry Kissinger physically. The COPEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin (Jewish) denied McCain’s claim.....

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/01/31/john-mccain-defends-three-israel-first-criminals/

    Hi Rehmat. I always enjoy your comments. But for the record, former Sec. of State, George Shultz, is not Jewish; though Albright and Kissinger are.

    PS- former Sec. of State, Henry Kissinger, is now a US-Israeli duel citizen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    But for the record, former Sec. of State, George Shultz, is not Jewish...
     
    Even though he wasn't Jewish, he is considered the architect of the special relationship, this according to Thomas Dine, former head of AIPAC. Here's how grateful the Israelis were:

    Just how total Shultz had become in his passionate embrace of Israel was demonstrated a few months later. While in Israel in mid-October 1987, Shultz inaugurated the George Shultz Doctoral Fellowships at Tel Aviv University. He personally contributed $10,000 to the program, an extraordinary gesture by a secretary of state claiming to be a mediator in the Arab-Israel conflict.

    http://www.wrmea.org/1998-april/middle-east-history-it-happened-in-april.html
     
    , @FLgeezer
    duel-citizen? Decidedly. Henry-the-K desires to duel with any citizen of any country who isn't a Likudnik. Or rather he would have American youngsters do the dueling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. tbraton says:
    @Bill Jones
    It's a commonplace that the politicians live in a bubble totally disconnected to the real world.
    The Republican primary encapsulates this to an astonishing degree, I've never quite seen its like.

    The main point of agreement is that there must be many more wars and many more brown people killed.

    The main point of disagreement is who will kill the most

    Quite astonishing.

    “The main point of agreement is that there must be many more wars and many more brown people killed.
    The main point of disagreement is who will kill the most
    Quite astonishing.”

    I feel the same way. I thought the highlight of the last debate was Rand Paul’s retort to Chris Christie’s comment that he would establish (an illegal) “no fly zone” in Syria and shoot down any Russian plane that entered it. Paul immediately retorted that, “if you’re looking for someone who is going to start WWIII, then you’ve found your candidate.” A perfect response to a completely unhinged statement by one of the “establishment” candidates. That and Gov. John Kasich’s boast that he would like “to punch Russia in the nose” to show tough he could be. What are these jerks thinking? Do they really think the American public is so stupid that they want to hear reckless, dangerous talk like that? If that’s the case, then we’ve “come a long way, baby” from Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick” of slightly more than a hundred years ago. The only candidates who stood out for their cautious and non-belligerent positions in the field of foreign policy at the last debate, imo, were Rand Paul and Donald Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Ace says:
    @hello.tulip
    The difference between a fascist and a progressive is that the fascist makes up a fairy tale and locates it in the past, whereas the progressive makes up a fairy tale and locates it in the future. Fascism is a safer bet in this sense, because you can never go back in time and realize that you were lied to.

    It is just a more sophisticated version of the bait and switch.

    Progressives can tolerate everyone except fascists, and so all the enemies of the Progressives are fascists.

    Because liberals are in fact one of the most intolerant groups on the planet, it makes it necessary for them to lump together a number of enemies that have virtually nothing in common, in order to maintain appearances.

    This makes it hard, because fascism is a pretty narrow historical phenomenon, and neither the National Front or Trump are fascist in ANY meaningful sense (any more than Hillary Clinton is a Maoist). You can check out the Vox article where they spoke with 5 historical experts (not including Paul Gottfried) and all agreed Trump is no fascist in any meaningful sense of the term.

    Maybe the time has come for Progressives to get real and come out as the left-fascists that they are, that they only tolerate those who share their own views, and they can stop pretending that everyone and every group they hate is really fascist.

    Fascists (such as the National Socialists) and progressives are not marked by different views of the past or future. They are identical in that both believe that the views of the mass of citizens are irrelevant, if not harmful.

    Rather, it is they, the fascists and progs, who alone are smart enough and educated enough to understand the complexities of life and, godlike, to dispose of the lives of the unwashed. In short, the joined at the hip by hubris. The rest is just detail to be worked out by staff and cheered on by the sycophant press.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Bill says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    I'm for Trump. I've an Ivy League Ph.D. and have professional experience in many of the areas where Trump's policy positions are clearest. He is the only candidate espousing rational solutions to some of the country's most serious problems. I don't like his rhetorical style but someone needs to break the party structure that is destroying this country; a structure that rewards incumbents who ignore the righteous concerns of the country's ciutizens while battening on the financial support of billionaires and foreign powers seeking aggrandizement at the expense of the common people. If one of the current stoopid party midgets ends up facing off against Hilary or another dimocrat come next November I'll stay home or vote dimocrat for the first time in my life. I'd prefer that the dimocrats get full responsibility for the disaster that follows.

    I’m for Trump. I’ve an Ivy League Ph.D.

    Ditto. And in a difficult subject. Trump is running to destroy the GOP. And I’d vote for that all day long.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Leftist conservative
    same here--JD, BS and BA...
    what I like about trump is that he mixes left and right in his philosophy...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Bill says:
    @WorkingClass
    Thank you for this excellent analysis. I will only highlight this quote from Frum.

    “The dividing line that used to be the most crucial of them all, class, has become a division within the parties, not between them.”
     
    So true. We never had a Labor Party but the working class had a working relationship with the Democrats before Bill Clinton kicked Labor out of the coalition in favor of corporate bucks. Since then the working class (the people) has not been represented in Washington. Trump is opposed to free trade, open borders and the ongoing privatization of everything. Simply put, he is opposed to the neo liberal agenda embraced by both parties that is rapidly destroying the livelihood of the American people.

    Trump has already done a great service to the American people. If he is nominated and debates Hillary his service will be magnified. Opposed by our ENTIRE political class, Trump is revealing the truth that the game is not red team vs blue team but instead a classic conflict between the working and ruling class.

    I’d say that process started before Clinton. The big symbolic victory for the cultural marxist left over the labor left was the 1968 democratic convention and the sixties more generally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass

    I’d say that process started before Clinton. The big symbolic victory for the cultural marxist left over the labor left was the 1968 democratic convention and the sixties more generally.
     
    Interesting you juxtapose cultural Marxist left with labor left. I will never accept any claim that the social justice warriors represent the left. But I agree with your take on the '68 convention. In terms of process you might say it culminated in the Clinton Administration. Its difficult to pinpoint beginnings. They say it all started with a big bang.

    I was among the soldiers from Fort Devens marching in the Saint Patrick's Day parade in Boston in 1968. Instead of dress greens we marched in fatigues with our weapons at shoulder arms. They marched us through Roxbury, a black ghetto, as a show of force for the locals. You may recall the concern about riots in those days. Many of us stuck dandy lions in the mussels of our weapons to indicate our solidarity with the locals and our opposition to the war. Our officers on that day looked the other way. It wasn't just the hippies and McGovern who opposed that disastrous war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Bill says:
    @Priss Factor
    The Trump phenom goes to expose the total sham that is American Conservatism.

    Now, I'm no fan of Trump even though I prefer him to everyone else by a margin of light yrs.

    It's true enough that Trump is acting a bit loony at times, but he is tapping into something real. He's stirring up something that has been either dormant or suppressed for so long.

    Now, the GOP establishment and mainstream Conservatives have right to be upset with Trump's tactics and proposals, but surely they should recognize that Trump has given the 'American Right' a great opportunity for some real soul-searching.
    Even if they don't endorse Trump, they can ask key questions such as:

    1. How come the Establishment favorites like Jeb are such duds?

    2. How come so many Conservatives are connecting with Trump like they've done with no one else for a long time?

    3. How come the media attack on Trump has had little effect on him?

    4. In what ways has the GOP failed that has led to the Trump phenom?

    5. etc.

    Instead, the GOP establishment and mainstream Conservative types are doubling down, swinging their batons, and giving us the same horseshit that no longer sells.
    If anything, the so-called 'mainstream conservatives' are not mainstream at all. 'Mainstream' implies something that represents the majority. Well, we are told that Jeb Bush is 'mainstream' whereas Trump is a fringe candidate, but Trump seems to be doing better with your average Conservative than Jeb is.
    It's like the term 'mainline' Protestantism. It suggests the main bulk of Protestant believers, but in fact, 'mainline' means nothing today as their churches have totally dried up. There is no blood, soul, and passion in the movement. In contrast, Evangelicalism is still alive cuz the faith still remains.
    Now, Trump is no religious figure, but there is real passion among his supporters that simply doesn't exist among supporters of the likes of Rubio, Fiorina, Jeb, and etc. Trump may be a swindler, but his fans and supporters are genuine conservatives and patriots. They really believe in America just like Evangelicals really believe in Jesus as the Son of God.
    In contrast, Mainline Protestants regard themselves as too sophisticated, educated, and aloof to literally believe in God and Jesus. They just value the abstract 'essence' of that stuff so that it can be used to serve secular causes... like 'gay marriage'.

    Likewise, the so-called 'mainstream conservatives' of the Establishment no longer believe in core conservatism, patriotism, Americanism, and etc. They are 'secular patriots' than 'spiritual patriots'. Their idea of America is an abstraction. It is not about American history, people, culture, and power. It is about America as some abstract proposition cooked up by Emma Lazarus Sulkowicz and the Neocons.
    Their reaction to red-blooded patriotism is like mainline protestant reaction to Evangelical faith in God as the real Lord than some abstract idea.

    Given that populist red-blooded conservatives have been rather unintelligent and un-educated, they've been easily manipulated by the elites. They were thrown some red meat on occasion at least in symbolism: pledge of alliance, bogus controversies about prayer in school, etc. Mostly, their passions were stoked only during election time only to win some votes for politicians who were really in the pocket of globalist elites.

    And over the yrs, US has become less white, less conservative, less spiritual, less moral, and etc. despite all the promises of GOP elites(even when GOP held the presidency and both houses). Also, populist conservatives were led to believe that if they support the rich folks, the rich folks would reciprocate and fight leftist Big Government and support American patriotism. But that was all bogus. American populist conservatives are waking up to the fact that the super-rich(whom they'd supported) are pushing the very agendas that are doing the most harm to the vast majority of middle class, lower middle class, and working class white Americans.

    But we don't see any soul-searching from the likes of George Will. My beef with Will is not that he dislikes Trump. There are many good reasons not to like Trump, to distrust him, to even despise him.
    But at the very least, Trump has provided us with an opportunity to discuss serious matters about the future of American Conservatism. He has blown the cover that there is indeed a HUGE discrepancy between the Establishment and the duped conservative masses who are now fed up and sick to death of guys like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who schmooze with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

    If Trump is the destroyer of the GOP, it's only because he lifted up the hood and exposed the shoddy machinery. GOP has been like a sleazy used car salesman for some time. It's been trying to fool America, especially populist white voters, that the engine is still powerful and ready to win the race and serve American interests.
    But then, Trump comes along and opens up the hood, and it's obvious that the so-called pistons are made up of noodles like Jeb, Rubio, Carly, Lindsey, and the rest. Trump does the Tucker thing in the Coppola movie, and the establishment just can't handle it.
    Still, we have now seen the GOP under the hood, and we can't buy it anymore unless it gets a real new engine. And this is what the likes of Will are bitching about. They don't want a new engine. They wanted to sell us a souped-up version of the same bogus engine hidden under the shiny hood. And instead of blaming themselves for the crummy engine, the Establishment types are blaming Trump for having lifted up the hood to reveal the truth.
    Now, the Grease Lightning that Trump is selling could be a bogus junk car too. But we should credit Trump for exposing the GOP for what it is.

    In a way, the fate of GOP is what happens when something becomes overly institutionalized. In some ways, such development is understandable. After all, people with the stuff of greatness can be mavericks and visionaries. They can do great things but also bad things.
    So, instead of having men of powerful personalities and leadership qualities, the system prefers those who go long and get along. After a spell under such a system, both the GOP and Democratic Party have filled up with pushovers, fakers, phonies, and slicksters. They are hand-shakers than world-shakers; they are puppets who take orders from AIPAC, Soros, Koch Brothers, and Adelson.
    And over time, such a system only produces one colorless and bloodless second-rater after another because anyone with any true vision or personality is purged and exiled.
    So, Citizen Trump's moment is truly remarkable in this sense.

    At any rate, the GOP may now be fatally broken like Tsar's power during WWI.
    It's gotten to the point where all the main talking points no longer hold any water or have any sway over us. It all sounds like empty rhetoric by professional hacks who just mouth the same cliches because they don't know and can't think of anything else.
    It's like the scene in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO where the deserters just about had enough of the war and have become deaf to the rhetoric.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QkJjWIHFSA

    It’s true enough that Trump is acting a bit loony at times, but he is tapping into something real . . .

    How come the Establishment favorites like Jeb are such duds?

    I think these two things are intimately related. GOP candidates after Bush the Elder have all had something wrong with them. They all seem like they are being led around by their balls all the time.

    There is a management technique in which you promote people either beyond their competence or you promote people you have something on (secret alcoholics, embezzlers, pedophiles, morons, illegitimate children, whatever). This way, you always have control over them. This does give you control, but it also gives you “leaders” who are defective and generally despised by their underlings.

    Trump is obviously not one of these types. Jabe and Rubio obviously are. His style, his “acting a bit loony at times,” his “I am not PC” is, I think, central to his appeal. By doing things which no errand boy could get away with, he is telling his followers that he is not an errand boy.

    I would much prefer someone like Buchanan. We know he isn’t an errand boy because he does things like defending innocent people accused of being Nazi war criminals. The problem is that, as an audience, you have to actually know certain things in order to understand just how bold defending innocent people accused of being Nazi war criminals is. The American audience does not know these things.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mark Green
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Svigor says:

    True indeed. True, and disturbing. And what is also true is that within the past year none other than Bill Clinton himself encouraged Trump to run as a candidate. Nothing the Clintons do is without calculation, so I smell a rat. Did Trump have a Damascus Road encounter? Or is he in there basically to split the Republican Party, running interference for HRC in consideration for God-knows-what? In either case, the result remains the same, as suggested at the end of Prof. Gottfried’s essay. Given that dismal scenario, we can only hope that the words of the “Iron Chancellor” remain prophetic.

    Trump has single-handedly re-written the 2016 presidential election narrative. With “Americans don’t want open borders” as the headline. He has the media and the oligarch crapping their pants. He has shown very clearly what a populist can do. This is going on America’s Permanent Record. If this is the Democrat’s plan, sign me up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. Svigor says:

    Fascists (such as the National Socialists) and progressives are not marked by different views of the past or future. They are identical in that both believe that the views of the mass of citizens are irrelevant, if not harmful.

    Rather, it is they, the fascists and progs, who alone are smart enough and educated enough to understand the complexities of life and, godlike, to dispose of the lives of the unwashed. In short, the joined at the hip by hubris. The rest is just detail to be worked out by staff and cheered on by the sycophant press.

    One might say something similar about a framer of a constitution. Count me in. Some things are too important to subject to popular vote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. Art says:
    @Sherman
    Hi Little Art,

    Amazing you could do all that math. You must have learned it at Harvard.

    Sherm

    “Amazing you could do all that math. You must have learned it at Harvard. “

    Hi Sherm,

    Ya man – Harvard — saw it on a black board while I was cleaning the floor. Counted the zeros on my fingers – used them all!

    Impressive Ha!

    Art

    p.s. How’s the Palestinians beach today?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Bill says:
    @Priss Factor
    The 'invisible government'.

    No wonder Americans could be sold on 'gay marriage'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--05vCr7T8

    The irony of a nearly topless, very pretty, coquettish, twenty-something female sitting in front of a trendy backdrop saying the things she is saying is ironic.

    Is this some bizarre Millennial double carom shot kind of propaganda? Or is she so clueless that, as she sat down to produce this video, she thought to herself “I need to make sure I look hot and trendy, but I need to make it look like I’m effortlessly hot and trendy, because that’s what’s trendy?”

    Maybe she’s a sex-positive traditionalist?

    I’m blown away. She’s a fucking irony machine:

    Looks less pretty when she is not being careful about lighting, camera angle, and makeup, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    She's young and naive but one of the few millennials with any critical sense.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/Careyelizabeth824/videos
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Bill says:
    @Bill Jones
    It's a commonplace that the politicians live in a bubble totally disconnected to the real world.
    The Republican primary encapsulates this to an astonishing degree, I've never quite seen its like.

    The main point of agreement is that there must be many more wars and many more brown people killed.

    The main point of disagreement is who will kill the most

    Quite astonishing.

    The part of the debate I found most disturbing was Hugh Hewitt haranguing Black Surgeon Man because Hewitt felt BSM would be too reticent about murdering children:

    http://www.carbonated.tv/news/hugh-hewitt-ben-carson-kill-innocent-children-question-cnn-gop-debate

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Sherman says:

    Hi Little Art,

    “p.s. How’s the Palestinians beach today?”

    Not only are you good at math you’re also good at grammar!

    :)

    Sherm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website
    @Bill

    I’m for Trump. I’ve an Ivy League Ph.D.
     
    Ditto. And in a difficult subject. Trump is running to destroy the GOP. And I'd vote for that all day long.

    same here–JD, BS and BA…
    what I like about trump is that he mixes left and right in his philosophy…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Ace
    You have the strangest notion of what fascism is. "Work, family, and country" is an innocuous slogan that Mitch McConnell or Mr. Rogers would cheerfully embrace and by juxtaposing it to "Liberty, equality and fraternity" you do not make the case that it is somehow fascist. The latter slogan initially was beloved of men who raised political murder to an art form. Sloganology is a pure excuse for substantive analysis.

    Fascism is not reactionary. It's a doctrine of the total state that is separated from communism by a whisker. They both were radical political phenomena. National Socialism and Italian fascism did not arise as a reaction to communism but as a part of the same worldwide fascination with social, political, and economic transformation. Mussolini's core idea was “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    Socialists and communists had no use for democracy but you've provided zero evidence that Marine Le Pen has exhibited "anti-parliamentarianism." Give the woman a break. She knows that the E.u., globalism, immigration, multiculturalism, and being Merkel's stable boy are the cancers afflicting France. Whatever is the source of French madness, it isn't the National Assembly. And whatever her father espoused is irrelevant as he is decidedly out of the picture.

    You're being very reckless in the way you throw around such a loaded term.

    You’re right and I’d just add that Jean-Marie Le Pen is not now and never was a fascist. He’s always been a republican in favour of rule of law and parliamentary democracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. geokat62 says:
    @Mark Green
    Hi Rehmat. I always enjoy your comments. But for the record, former Sec. of State, George Shultz, is not Jewish; though Albright and Kissinger are.

    PS- former Sec. of State, Henry Kissinger, is now a US-Israeli duel citizen.

    But for the record, former Sec. of State, George Shultz, is not Jewish…

    Even though he wasn’t Jewish, he is considered the architect of the special relationship, this according to Thomas Dine, former head of AIPAC. Here’s how grateful the Israelis were:

    Just how total Shultz had become in his passionate embrace of Israel was demonstrated a few months later. While in Israel in mid-October 1987, Shultz inaugurated the George Shultz Doctoral Fellowships at Tel Aviv University. He personally contributed $10,000 to the program, an extraordinary gesture by a secretary of state claiming to be a mediator in the Arab-Israel conflict.

    http://www.wrmea.org/1998-april/middle-east-history-it-happened-in-april.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Jus' Sayin'...
    I'm for Trump. I've an Ivy League Ph.D. and have professional experience in many of the areas where Trump's policy positions are clearest. He is the only candidate espousing rational solutions to some of the country's most serious problems. I don't like his rhetorical style but someone needs to break the party structure that is destroying this country; a structure that rewards incumbents who ignore the righteous concerns of the country's ciutizens while battening on the financial support of billionaires and foreign powers seeking aggrandizement at the expense of the common people. If one of the current stoopid party midgets ends up facing off against Hilary or another dimocrat come next November I'll stay home or vote dimocrat for the first time in my life. I'd prefer that the dimocrats get full responsibility for the disaster that follows.

    I agree with everything you said. My fear is that the Powers That Be (many of whom are Neocons) have the power to bring about an economic collapse should Trump win, and then he would get the blame.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Unz Reader
    I have a PhD. Trump is far from my ideal candidate. His brash speak-before-thinking style leaves much to be desired. And on policy I certainly don't like his support of water boarding.

    But -- Trump is the only candidate who is serious about enforcing immigration law. Trump is the only candidate who opposes the trade agreements that have hollowed out America's manufacturing industry and given us a massive permanent trade deficit. He is the only Republican not eager to restart the Cold War with Russia. As for Hillary, the one who pushed Obama to help take out Qaddafi, thus making Libya safe for ISIS, and who like all Democrats is eager to give illegal aliens amnesty, and who is as hawkish towards Russia as any Republican, she is totally unacceptable.

    So I will hold my nose and vote for Trump.

    For goodness sake – there’s still Sanders – probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Samuel L. Jackson (Oh, how I wish a White man had shot up San Bernardino) loves Sanders, but knows he cannot win. Sam votes Democrat no matter WHAT.

    Well, Andrew, According to Sam, you'll have to settle for a chubby White cow (Hillary) and her sidekick Huma Weiner, wife of Anthony Weiner the pervert except now she services Hillary .

    Enjoy the decline, Gentlemen.

    , @Anonymous

    For goodness sake – there’s still Sanders – probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.
     
    Sanders is for supporting the Syrian rebel jihadists. Bizarre, as the Assad government is secular and allows women to walk around in jeans and uncovered heads. All of the rebel groups insist on Sharia law as the starting point with greater or lesser Islamist insanity. Trump is the only candidate with a sane position on Syria. And Trump and Sanders are the only sane two on Russia.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Then that's a sad commentary on "the rest of the planet."
    , @Reg Cæsar

    For goodness sake – there’s still Sanders – probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.
     
    What does that say about the rest of the planet?

    Is there anything "normal" about the crowds at his rallies? They don't "look like America", let alone the rest of the world.
    , @Unz Reader
    Bernie Sanders is as eager to give amnesty to illegal aliens as any other Democrat. That makes him a nonstarter in my book. I do give him credit for being an honest socialist, unbought by the usual buyers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @tbraton
    "But who knew, before we saw ¿Jeb? that George would not be the intellectual runt of the litter?"

    I fell for the same Bush family bullshit. I even voted for the guy three times for governor (and thought he did a decent job up to the Terri Schiavo fiasco) and didn't realize what a dolt he was until he ran for President. People disparage the whole process of campaigning and televised debates, but sometimes they give you a good feel for the essence of the candidates running for office. Not perfect, but sure better than the alternatives.

    Look who Bush ran against. Both of them. Michael Stanley Dukakis, Al Gore, the pinch-faced carbon hustler, John (Why the long face?) Kerry, in that order.

    Who do you want to have a beer with? Kerry or “W”? Al Gore or “W”? Old man Bush or Dukakis? In the end, we decided we’d rather have a beer with Bill Clinton. Twice. Which ones are more interesting, more authentic? Who of them has better stories to tell?

    THAT is how we pick a President, in the end. What, you wanna have a tea with Hillary or two fingers of Blue Label, a round of golf and tales of endless pussy-grabs told by the Donald as only HE could? Over prime red meat? Served by beautiful women?

    Any man that votes for Hillary is a god-damned castrated feminist, not even a man. There. I said it. She couldn’t even satisfy her own husband. She’s worse than all of our ex-wives combined. And you would VOTE for that to be your President? Really? Shame on you. May as well date Lorena Bobbit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I said nothing in my message about voting for Hillary Clinton. I have no idea how you came up with that preposterous idea.

    BTW you left out the second man GHW Bush faced, Bill Clinton. I voted for GHW twice, in 88 and 92, and his son W once, in 2000. The Iraq War was the deal breaker for me.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    …two fingers of Blue Label, a round of golf and tales of endless pussy-grabs told by the Donald as only HE could?
     
    And those grabs were consensual, too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Andrew Nichols
    For goodness sake - there's still Sanders - probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.

    Samuel L. Jackson (Oh, how I wish a White man had shot up San Bernardino) loves Sanders, but knows he cannot win. Sam votes Democrat no matter WHAT.

    Well, Andrew, According to Sam, you’ll have to settle for a chubby White cow (Hillary) and her sidekick Huma Weiner, wife of Anthony Weiner the pervert except now she services Hillary .

    Enjoy the decline, Gentlemen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    Samuel L. Jackson is a nasty black racist asshole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. tbraton says:
    @Jim Christian
    Look who Bush ran against. Both of them. Michael Stanley Dukakis, Al Gore, the pinch-faced carbon hustler, John (Why the long face?) Kerry, in that order.

    Who do you want to have a beer with? Kerry or "W"? Al Gore or "W"? Old man Bush or Dukakis? In the end, we decided we'd rather have a beer with Bill Clinton. Twice. Which ones are more interesting, more authentic? Who of them has better stories to tell?

    THAT is how we pick a President, in the end. What, you wanna have a tea with Hillary or two fingers of Blue Label, a round of golf and tales of endless pussy-grabs told by the Donald as only HE could? Over prime red meat? Served by beautiful women?

    Any man that votes for Hillary is a god-damned castrated feminist, not even a man. There. I said it. She couldn't even satisfy her own husband. She's worse than all of our ex-wives combined. And you would VOTE for that to be your President? Really? Shame on you. May as well date Lorena Bobbit.

    I said nothing in my message about voting for Hillary Clinton. I have no idea how you came up with that preposterous idea.

    BTW you left out the second man GHW Bush faced, Bill Clinton. I voted for GHW twice, in 88 and 92, and his son W once, in 2000. The Iraq War was the deal breaker for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    You didn't print the ballot you're casting in November, no, I'll give you that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Vasilis says:
    @Ace
    You have the strangest notion of what fascism is. "Work, family, and country" is an innocuous slogan that Mitch McConnell or Mr. Rogers would cheerfully embrace and by juxtaposing it to "Liberty, equality and fraternity" you do not make the case that it is somehow fascist. The latter slogan initially was beloved of men who raised political murder to an art form. Sloganology is a pure excuse for substantive analysis.

    Fascism is not reactionary. It's a doctrine of the total state that is separated from communism by a whisker. They both were radical political phenomena. National Socialism and Italian fascism did not arise as a reaction to communism but as a part of the same worldwide fascination with social, political, and economic transformation. Mussolini's core idea was “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    Socialists and communists had no use for democracy but you've provided zero evidence that Marine Le Pen has exhibited "anti-parliamentarianism." Give the woman a break. She knows that the E.u., globalism, immigration, multiculturalism, and being Merkel's stable boy are the cancers afflicting France. Whatever is the source of French madness, it isn't the National Assembly. And whatever her father espoused is irrelevant as he is decidedly out of the picture.

    You're being very reckless in the way you throw around such a loaded term.

    Ace, American and European perspectives on fascism differ vastly, mainly because much of Europe has gone through fascism at some point, while the US has not. I suspect that our main difference is just that I have lived in Europe for over 3 decades. In the United States liberty, equality, brotherhood, work, family and country are six great things that we all can cheer for. In France “Travail, Famille, Patrie” was the slogan of the Petain government that collaborated with with the German occupation during WW2 and it was presented as an alternative to the republican “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, which the Free French and De Gaulle fought for. In France it is not lets have all six, it is either/or. I do understand that this is not widely known or understood in the United States, but if you do not take it into account you cannot understand what is happening in France.

    Fascism in mid war Europe was greatly assisted by opposition to communism, but the anti-parliamentarian roots of fascism predate the Bolshevik revolution. I consider exactly this anti-parliamentarian stand as the basic characteristic of fascism, the rest is in my opinion either ornamental or circumstantial of that period. To put it in another way, communism was a great step forward from democracy that led to a deep fall down a sheer cliff, while fascism was a step back from democracy that made sense for some people only as long as communism was a clear and present threat. Both can still make great talking points though, especially if you do not have to actually apply them and answer to the public for their results.

    As for Marine Le Pen, I reserve judgement. Her party has fascist origins, but she may have seen the futility of her father’s position and may be sincerely seeking to transform it into a parliamentarian right wing party. Her intentions remain to be seen. You correctly include her positions on the EU and Europe as fundamental, she did not win this victory on the issue of immigration alone. Her main issue at this time is if France will be an independent country or not, which makes her position very strong with the French public.

    In any case though, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump, he is the totally different product of a totally different political system and that was the main point of my initial post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    In France “Travail, Famille, Patrie” was the slogan of the Petain government that collaborated with with the German occupation during WW2 and it was presented as an alternative to the republican “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, which the Free French and De Gaulle fought for. In France it is not lets have all six, it is either/or.

    This is an inaccurate claim, in my view. France is one of those countries in which people are used to thinking of the nation and the current constitutional order as two different things: France is France and the Republic is the Republic. The current Republic is the 5th but France is the same France its always been. People can be in favour of the Republic, to swear an oath to it and believe in “liberté, egalité & fraternité” but also be staunch defenders of deeper French values that pre-date all that and will survive as regimes come and go. The French State of the Vichy regime was incompatible with republicanism but "work, family and homeland" are not.

    By the way, if there's any of the current political parties in France that's tainted by the Vichy Regime it's not the FN but rather the Socialists. Just do an image search using "mitterrand francisque" and you'll see former President Mitterrand getting his medal awarded to him by Petain himself.
    , @Rich
    I think, perhaps, you should read a little more about Fascism and its origins and also about the origins of the National Front. Your definition of "fascist" is more in tune with the shouts of college students in the 1960's, than its actual meaning. I'm sure you have good intentions, you just happen to be wrong.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    ...Donald Trump, he is the totally different product of a totally different political system
     
    Actually, he's not a product of our political system, but our economic system. He's a less intellectual counterpart of Vaclav Havel or Mario Vargas Llosa, who also made their careers in other fields before dabbling in electoral politics.

    I'd add Ronald Reagan as well, but he had close to thirty years in politics (including his labor union presidencies) before running for president in 1976.
    , @Ace
    @Vasilis,

    Thank you.

    I'll not claim great insight into European politics which I think have much more of an affinity with authoritarianism. Not for nothing is "dirigisme" a French word. The great movie "The Sorrow and the Pity" (everything I know is from the movies!) indicated that before WWII Europeans believed that "democracy" had failed and that the choice was only between fascism and communism. Hardly a baseless belief with the streets of Russian and Europe veritably awash with thugs, private armies, and secret police organizations. The Weimar Republic was the veritable poster child for ineffective government.

    I defer to your personal experience of European politics but to me the distinction between "Travail, Famille, Patrie” and “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” is meaningless. If people lined up behind Petain or De Gaulle surely it had to be for some more substantive reason, with these slogans merely functioning as rallying flags.

    As I commented elsewhere here today, fascism was seen as a third way and fear of communism was a major reason why fascists flourished as they did. There weren't a lot of good options and, anyway, the street thugs that served either movement discouraged, shall we say, multiparty experiment. (Just as AntiFa thugs today serve as the unofficial enforcement arm of the German government and other European governments.) Again, I don't see that there's anything to the idea that certain parties stepped forward from democracy or stepped back from it. Authoritarianism was in vogue and, alas, the E.U. shows that it is still very much alive today.

    I am not much for "rootsism," a la the FN's supposed "fascist origins." All the more so because of the leftist tactic of trying to tar the patriotic parties with the neo-Nazi or fascist label. I'll get excited about such (putative) origins when the left has a conniption fit over the Maoist history of European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso; and Merkel's past as a communist functionary and child of a pastor father clearly in the service of the Stasi; and the past membership in an underground Commie terrorist groups Revolutionärer Kampf and Putzgruppe of Joschka Fischer, former German Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister; among other examples of people who have wallowed in all the pathologies of socialism and communism.

    One last point on Marine Le Pen. As is customary with the left, every effort is made to locate her and the FN on the right but someone else has stated that the party's platform is indistinguishable from any garden variety socialist party. That only makes sense if one notes how firmly committed most Europeans are to the welfare state. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think John Derbyshire proposed that the left-right distinction is essentially history and that the real division is between nationalists and nativists on one side and globalists and diversity idiots on the other. Not quite his words but you get the point. :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. FLgeezer says:
    @Mark Green
    Hi Rehmat. I always enjoy your comments. But for the record, former Sec. of State, George Shultz, is not Jewish; though Albright and Kissinger are.

    PS- former Sec. of State, Henry Kissinger, is now a US-Israeli duel citizen.

    duel-citizen? Decidedly. Henry-the-K desires to duel with any citizen of any country who isn’t a Likudnik. Or rather he would have American youngsters do the dueling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Jason Liu says:

    Sometimes, nationalist parties need to lose the first few rounds as it gathers wider support for its cause.

    You may ditch Trump at the last second for strategic voting, but keep the fires of nationalism burning by supporting nascent nationalist ideologues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    No. There is no time to lose. Trump must win and all nonmuslims countries must expel Muslims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Realist says:
    @Jim Christian
    I have no doubt 90% of Hillary's female voters have a degree. Stupid-as-shit degrees. Women's Studies, African Studies, Communications, Human Resources. Programs invented so low-IQ vaginas could have something to spend a lot of tuition on. No math, no science, nothing difficult. Perfect idiocy and indoctrination on the ways of feminism. At the end of the diploma mill, a sex-preference job. Cash and prizes for sex-discrimination and sexual harassment accusations, the training is all in place when she hits the working world.

    If anyone cares to show me wrong, I'm all eyes. THESE are Hillary's girls. She proclaims it at every whistle stop.

    I agree, but there are plenty of males getting worthless degrees too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. I’m starting to think Donald Trump will go down in history as the man who broke the old media, as the man who ended the era of media tyranny. People may write histories of this time that start with the Watergate hearings and end with the Trump presidential run. They might call might call this period the “years of spin” or something. It began with the media strutting around telling everyone who’d listen that they took down Nixon and will end with Trump doing what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. Realist says:
    @Ivan
    True, Realist. It may turn well be that Trump's supporters have all the hard to get engineering degrees, while the other guys' supporters have the degrees in basket weaving and gender studies.

    Quite true. Many liberals are not interested in STEM degrees.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I love Trump. He’ll be the first political candidate that I’ll be thrilled to vote for. If he wins the Presidency I will cry with joy for three days straight. If he loses I’ll also cry for three days straight and go on a drinking binge and make random unhinged comments to strangers about how they’d better enjoy the coming clusterfuck they voted for.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    We must support nationalism against globalism for the sake of decent internationalism.

    Globalism means domination by American financial and military power. It also means deracinated values centered around homosexuality and trans-gender agenda.
    Also, it should be noted that the globalist media controlled by Jews never pressure Israel to surrender its own nationalism. No, globalism only applies to gentile nations. Only gentile nations must open up their borders and erase their own historical, racial, and cultural heritage.

    Btw, nationalists are NOT opposed to international cooperation or world trade.
    Rather, they support border controls, preservation of national identity, and sovereignty.
    What they oppose is not trading or exchanging ideas with other nations. What they oppose is becoming the puppet of the US and EU that are controlled by Jewish oligarchs.
    Also, not all nations are equally influential under globalism. As globalism is dominated by the US, all nations must follow the dictates of Washington and New York. If US says YOU MUST HAVE GAY MARRIAGE, you must force the people of your nation to accept it.
    In truth, nationalism is totally compatible with international trade and cooperation. A nation does NOT need globalism to trade with the world or to cooperate with the world.

    Now, look at Israel, It has tight borders. It has tight immigration laws. But it trades with the world. It is part of the international community. It proves a nation can be nationalist and be a world player.
    Globalism is more than internationalism. It means that nations must surrender their national sovereignty and cultural identity for global pop culture fashions and dictates that come from the US state department. For culture, It means favoring Hollywood and Japanese cartoons over your own history, culture, and identity.
    Also, globalists are hardly ‘inclusive’. They are only selectively ‘inclusive’ on the basis of conditions laid down by the US. They act like they wanna trade with the whole world, but when a nation like Russia or Iran refuses to go along with the Zionist-homosexual Washington agenda, the US-dominated globalism pulls strings to shut the economies of such nations from the rest of the world. Globalism doesn’t treat all nations equally. Israel has 300 illegal nukes, but it is showered with 4 billion in aid every year. Iran hasn’t invaded any nation and hasn’t a single nuke. And it has developed only civilian nuclear power under international inspection. But Jewish-controlled US forced sanctions on it. So much for equal treatment.

    To be part of the globalist economic system, your nation MUST surrender its sovereignty to US demands as devised by Jews and homosexuals.
    Nationalists are not opposed to travel, trade, and exchange of ideas. They are for those things PLUS strong borders, pride of heritage, and sense of national community.
    Nationalists are the best internationalists since they believe that every nation has a right to exist and protect its integrity and sovereignty. And on those grounds, all the nations in the world can mutually respect one another and can get along.

    In contrast, globalists controlled by Jewish oligarchs demand that the sovereignty of every nation be weakened and destroyed so that American power can dictate values and policy in every nation… except Israel of course. Israel is allowed to be both nationalist and internationalist. Globalists don’t pressure Israel to open its borders or to accept diverse immigration.

    Another thing. Nationalists believe that there are things of value(priceless value) beyond economics. Globalists judge the value of everything according to money, growth, GNP, and etc. According to globalism, a nation is better off if it surrenders sovereignty in exchange for more ‘free trade’ since it may increase profits for the big business class. But using this logic, a prostitute who sells her body is better off than a honest woman who refuses to sell hers because the prostitute is richer. Globalists put money before pride and honor, nationalists favor pride and honor over money.
    As for culture and values, globalism offers Pop Culture(of the degenerate American kind with the likes of Miley Cyrus, gangsta rap, and endless porn) and Political Correctness that forces people to accept ‘gay marriage’ and call Bruce Jenner a ‘woman’.

    What the world really needs is nationalism and internationalism. When every nation feel secure and safe via nationalism, it is more willing and more able to get along with other nations.
    If anything, nationalism serves internationalism.
    In contrast, globalism and ‘diversity’-mongering creates more division and distrust all across the world, and then, there are more problems.

    Separation is better for unity. When nations remain separate and secure from one another, they respect one another more and trust one another more. They can do trade and travel.
    It’s like individuals in a community get along if they have their own private spaces. When each person has his/her own space and privacy, he/she is more likely to trust others than if everyone has to share the same space all the time.

    During the Great Leap Forward in China, Mao’s commune system sought to make everyone do everything together almost 24/7. For instance, while Chinese people worked together in the fields, they usually ate meals with their own families. But during the Great Leap, everyone in the community was made to eat together, and this just got on everyone’s nerves and made people trust each other less.

    Nationalism means political privacy for each nation. When every nation has its own privacy respected, it will get along with other nations in the public space of international trade and cooperation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Simply superb. Many nationalists, like me, support INCREASING international trade with everyone, INCREASED tourism for people from compatible nations, and INCREASED student exchange programs and cultural interaction between nations. The diametric opposite of isolationism. And certainly far better than war or forced mixture of incompatible cultures.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Andrew Nichols
    For goodness sake - there's still Sanders - probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.

    For goodness sake – there’s still Sanders – probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.

    Sanders is for supporting the Syrian rebel jihadists. Bizarre, as the Assad government is secular and allows women to walk around in jeans and uncovered heads. All of the rebel groups insist on Sharia law as the starting point with greater or lesser Islamist insanity. Trump is the only candidate with a sane position on Syria. And Trump and Sanders are the only sane two on Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Seraphim says:

    Is it just a coincidence that some very prominent “establishmentarians as George Will and Bill Kristol (paid for mostly by Rupert Murdoch)” want to create a new Republican Party that would reflect the “moderate” views of past are Jews, married into “Jewish”, in all cases “ardent pro-Israel”? I think not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. @Diversity Heretic
    Thanks, Wizard. The Iron Chancellor seems to have had insight on a lot of topics. I read a biography of him about 20 years ago, but perhaps I should see what the latest scholarship is. He's one of my "heroes" of history--he got the united Germany that he wanted and then quit (no attempt to take over Austria-Hungary and I've read that he wasn't enthusiastic about annexxing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871). Sure wish he could have been in charge in 1914--I think he might have avoided World War I, or at least limited it to a Germany-Austro-Hungarian defensive campaign against Russia.

    This is well worth reading and covers the Iron Duke’s downfall due to little Willie.

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/209889.Dreadnought

    Also shows that Russia was always the target of Germany’s aggression. France was to be taken care of quickly to eliminate a likely second front. If WWII was a continuation of WWI then Russia then as now was in the way of global domination. Wilhelm was tired of being little Willie to the British Royals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Vasilis
    Ace, American and European perspectives on fascism differ vastly, mainly because much of Europe has gone through fascism at some point, while the US has not. I suspect that our main difference is just that I have lived in Europe for over 3 decades. In the United States liberty, equality, brotherhood, work, family and country are six great things that we all can cheer for. In France "Travail, Famille, Patrie” was the slogan of the Petain government that collaborated with with the German occupation during WW2 and it was presented as an alternative to the republican “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, which the Free French and De Gaulle fought for. In France it is not lets have all six, it is either/or. I do understand that this is not widely known or understood in the United States, but if you do not take it into account you cannot understand what is happening in France.

    Fascism in mid war Europe was greatly assisted by opposition to communism, but the anti-parliamentarian roots of fascism predate the Bolshevik revolution. I consider exactly this anti-parliamentarian stand as the basic characteristic of fascism, the rest is in my opinion either ornamental or circumstantial of that period. To put it in another way, communism was a great step forward from democracy that led to a deep fall down a sheer cliff, while fascism was a step back from democracy that made sense for some people only as long as communism was a clear and present threat. Both can still make great talking points though, especially if you do not have to actually apply them and answer to the public for their results.

    As for Marine Le Pen, I reserve judgement. Her party has fascist origins, but she may have seen the futility of her father's position and may be sincerely seeking to transform it into a parliamentarian right wing party. Her intentions remain to be seen. You correctly include her positions on the EU and Europe as fundamental, she did not win this victory on the issue of immigration alone. Her main issue at this time is if France will be an independent country or not, which makes her position very strong with the French public.

    In any case though, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump, he is the totally different product of a totally different political system and that was the main point of my initial post.

    In France “Travail, Famille, Patrie” was the slogan of the Petain government that collaborated with with the German occupation during WW2 and it was presented as an alternative to the republican “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, which the Free French and De Gaulle fought for. In France it is not lets have all six, it is either/or.

    This is an inaccurate claim, in my view. France is one of those countries in which people are used to thinking of the nation and the current constitutional order as two different things: France is France and the Republic is the Republic. The current Republic is the 5th but France is the same France its always been. People can be in favour of the Republic, to swear an oath to it and believe in “liberté, egalité & fraternité” but also be staunch defenders of deeper French values that pre-date all that and will survive as regimes come and go. The French State of the Vichy regime was incompatible with republicanism but “work, family and homeland” are not.

    By the way, if there’s any of the current political parties in France that’s tainted by the Vichy Regime it’s not the FN but rather the Socialists. Just do an image search using “mitterrand francisque” and you’ll see former President Mitterrand getting his medal awarded to him by Petain himself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Rich says:
    @Vasilis
    Ace, American and European perspectives on fascism differ vastly, mainly because much of Europe has gone through fascism at some point, while the US has not. I suspect that our main difference is just that I have lived in Europe for over 3 decades. In the United States liberty, equality, brotherhood, work, family and country are six great things that we all can cheer for. In France "Travail, Famille, Patrie” was the slogan of the Petain government that collaborated with with the German occupation during WW2 and it was presented as an alternative to the republican “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, which the Free French and De Gaulle fought for. In France it is not lets have all six, it is either/or. I do understand that this is not widely known or understood in the United States, but if you do not take it into account you cannot understand what is happening in France.

    Fascism in mid war Europe was greatly assisted by opposition to communism, but the anti-parliamentarian roots of fascism predate the Bolshevik revolution. I consider exactly this anti-parliamentarian stand as the basic characteristic of fascism, the rest is in my opinion either ornamental or circumstantial of that period. To put it in another way, communism was a great step forward from democracy that led to a deep fall down a sheer cliff, while fascism was a step back from democracy that made sense for some people only as long as communism was a clear and present threat. Both can still make great talking points though, especially if you do not have to actually apply them and answer to the public for their results.

    As for Marine Le Pen, I reserve judgement. Her party has fascist origins, but she may have seen the futility of her father's position and may be sincerely seeking to transform it into a parliamentarian right wing party. Her intentions remain to be seen. You correctly include her positions on the EU and Europe as fundamental, she did not win this victory on the issue of immigration alone. Her main issue at this time is if France will be an independent country or not, which makes her position very strong with the French public.

    In any case though, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump, he is the totally different product of a totally different political system and that was the main point of my initial post.

    I think, perhaps, you should read a little more about Fascism and its origins and also about the origins of the National Front. Your definition of “fascist” is more in tune with the shouts of college students in the 1960′s, than its actual meaning. I’m sure you have good intentions, you just happen to be wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Realist says:
    @Jim Christian
    Samuel L. Jackson (Oh, how I wish a White man had shot up San Bernardino) loves Sanders, but knows he cannot win. Sam votes Democrat no matter WHAT.

    Well, Andrew, According to Sam, you'll have to settle for a chubby White cow (Hillary) and her sidekick Huma Weiner, wife of Anthony Weiner the pervert except now she services Hillary .

    Enjoy the decline, Gentlemen.

    Samuel L. Jackson is a nasty black racist asshole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Damn! Realist, you're sugarcoating again. Tell us what you REALLY think.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Samuel L. Jackson is a nasty black racist asshole.
     
    Oh, my goodness,
    Oh, my soul,
    Ain't never seen a nigga wid a white asshole!


    -- from the movie "Watermelon Man"

    Alright, let's stop. This is well beneath the standard expected in Prof Gottfried's class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @tbraton
    "the amiable dolt who occupied the White House before Obama"

    Would that be George!!!, by any chance, Prof. Gottlieb? I think you are being much too kind in your description. Excellent piece. Truly "fair and balanced"---and not in the Fox News sense.

    "At this point it is hard to imagine Trump elevating his base of support much beyond its current level."

    That might the only point where I might disagree with you. Just taking myself as an example (and I certainly don't fit the stereotype of the typical Trump supporter since I possess three degrees after high school), I started out the year predicting Trump wouldn't run, and, even after he announced, I was skeptical. But once he attacked McCain's status as a "war hero," I was all ears. I quickly changed my opinion about Trump. I believe others, once they start paying attention, will experience the same conversion. At least, I hope so. I find encouragement in the fact that his polling numbers have steadily increased as he got more exposure and the fact that TV ratings for the Republican debates have shattered previous records.

    I see your point about not being a typical Trump supporter. Bu I’m beginning to think that the stereotype of the typical trump supporter is deliberately inaccurate. I’m no genius, but I earned a doctoral degree, used to (admittedly, a while ago) read Latin reasonably well, and speak a foreign language with functional fluency. Yet other than Rand Paul, Trump is the only candidate I might trust and might vote for as the GOP nominee rather than voting “third party” yet again in the general election.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "I see your point about not being a typical Trump supporter. But I’m beginning to think that the stereotype of the typical trump supporter is deliberately inaccurate."

    I totally agree. It's no secret that the MSM, for the overwhelming part, are no friend of Trump. So I would not put it past them that they are deliberately misrepresenting the profile of the "typical Trump voter" in order to make it socially unacceptable to say you're a Trump voter and, thus, sway the polling. I think the MSM are as flummoxed by Trump's rise in the polls as are his "mainstream" Republican opponents and will do anything in their power to torpedo the Trump campaign and promote (and shield) the reprehensible Hillary Clinton. These day, in my opinion, the MSM are simply a propaganda arm of the "establishment"---which is bipartisan, btw.

    "Yet other than Rand Paul, Trump is the only candidate I might trust and might vote for as the GOP nominee rather than voting “third party” yet again in the general election."

    I started off the year as a Rand Paul supporter but lost enthusiasm, especially after Trump came along during the summer. As I have pointed out numerous times, Paul and Trump were the only sane voices at the Las Vegas debate. I thought Paul was terrific. Too bad he wasn't speaking out like that from the first debate. The difference is that it was going to be a long shot for Paul anyway, and I doubt whether he had a serious chance at securing the nomination, whereas Trump looks like he might be the nominee. Plus, with Trump, you get the possibility that something might be done with immigration, legal and illegal. After all, the U.S. has a population of 330 million, the third highest in the world after China and India. We should be able to produce all the workers we need from our existing population without bringing in any foreign workers, especially Muslim shepherds from Syria who don't speak a word of English.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Diversity Heretic
    Good analysis. I increasingly think that the Republican Party needs to go the way of the 1850s Whig Party and if Trump's candidacy accelerates the evolution of an ethno-nationalist white party in the U.S., then it will have served a purpose, even if Hillary Clinton (ugh!) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.

    I wonder in what context Otto von Bismarck made his statement about Providence protecting the United States. I was never aware that Germany's Iron Chancellor had much interest in the New World.

    Good point. I am to the opinion that the divide and conquer crowd will use this ‘white party” statement to no avail. I do like Trump for the sole purpose that he wants to stop the rag heads from coming into the USA. I was in the Military and saw too many of them and they have not love for this country. Although I count my self as ‘non white’ even so, I do love this country enough to see it attacked from the lefties who ‘out of love’ want to bring any one who wish to come over into the USA no matter what. There are legal means to come and those means should be used to in an orderly way bring whom ever the US Government finds acceptable and who will have loyalty for this land.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Priss Factor
    http://prntly.com/blog/?p=3825

    This can't be accurate.

    And I think some Negroes are supporting for Trump cuz they now fear immigration too.
    And they luvs a gangsta.

    As for Hispanics, I suppose some like a caudillo type. Jeb is too wussez.

    I believe it is time to know that an American is a natural born citizen of the USA, regardless. some how, some people think that European descendants are the ‘only’ true Americans! all this ‘negroes’ and ‘Hispanics’ stuff only creates divisions and anger from the respective ethnicities. Why can we all be Americans? We must all belong to a nation indivisible or else we all suffer the consequences when our nation falls little by little. As the vehicle stickers I saw while ago, ‘united we stand’ divided we fall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Bill
    The irony of a nearly topless, very pretty, coquettish, twenty-something female sitting in front of a trendy backdrop saying the things she is saying is ironic.

    Is this some bizarre Millennial double carom shot kind of propaganda? Or is she so clueless that, as she sat down to produce this video, she thought to herself "I need to make sure I look hot and trendy, but I need to make it look like I'm effortlessly hot and trendy, because that's what's trendy?"

    Maybe she's a sex-positive traditionalist?

    I'm blown away. She's a fucking irony machine:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-infaSD7UQ

    Looks less pretty when she is not being careful about lighting, camera angle, and makeup, though.

    She’s young and naive but one of the few millennials with any critical sense.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/Careyelizabeth824/videos

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Jason Liu
    Sometimes, nationalist parties need to lose the first few rounds as it gathers wider support for its cause.

    You may ditch Trump at the last second for strategic voting, but keep the fires of nationalism burning by supporting nascent nationalist ideologues.

    No. There is no time to lose. Trump must win and all nonmuslims countries must expel Muslims.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Andrew Nichols
    For goodness sake - there's still Sanders - probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.

    Then that’s a sad commentary on “the rest of the planet.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Realist
    Samuel L. Jackson is a nasty black racist asshole.

    Damn! Realist, you’re sugarcoating again. Tell us what you REALLY think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Priss Factor
    We must support nationalism against globalism for the sake of decent internationalism.

    Globalism means domination by American financial and military power. It also means deracinated values centered around homosexuality and trans-gender agenda.
    Also, it should be noted that the globalist media controlled by Jews never pressure Israel to surrender its own nationalism. No, globalism only applies to gentile nations. Only gentile nations must open up their borders and erase their own historical, racial, and cultural heritage.

    Btw, nationalists are NOT opposed to international cooperation or world trade.
    Rather, they support border controls, preservation of national identity, and sovereignty.
    What they oppose is not trading or exchanging ideas with other nations. What they oppose is becoming the puppet of the US and EU that are controlled by Jewish oligarchs.
    Also, not all nations are equally influential under globalism. As globalism is dominated by the US, all nations must follow the dictates of Washington and New York. If US says YOU MUST HAVE GAY MARRIAGE, you must force the people of your nation to accept it.
    In truth, nationalism is totally compatible with international trade and cooperation. A nation does NOT need globalism to trade with the world or to cooperate with the world.

    Now, look at Israel, It has tight borders. It has tight immigration laws. But it trades with the world. It is part of the international community. It proves a nation can be nationalist and be a world player.
    Globalism is more than internationalism. It means that nations must surrender their national sovereignty and cultural identity for global pop culture fashions and dictates that come from the US state department. For culture, It means favoring Hollywood and Japanese cartoons over your own history, culture, and identity.
    Also, globalists are hardly 'inclusive'. They are only selectively 'inclusive' on the basis of conditions laid down by the US. They act like they wanna trade with the whole world, but when a nation like Russia or Iran refuses to go along with the Zionist-homosexual Washington agenda, the US-dominated globalism pulls strings to shut the economies of such nations from the rest of the world. Globalism doesn't treat all nations equally. Israel has 300 illegal nukes, but it is showered with 4 billion in aid every year. Iran hasn't invaded any nation and hasn't a single nuke. And it has developed only civilian nuclear power under international inspection. But Jewish-controlled US forced sanctions on it. So much for equal treatment.

    To be part of the globalist economic system, your nation MUST surrender its sovereignty to US demands as devised by Jews and homosexuals.
    Nationalists are not opposed to travel, trade, and exchange of ideas. They are for those things PLUS strong borders, pride of heritage, and sense of national community.
    Nationalists are the best internationalists since they believe that every nation has a right to exist and protect its integrity and sovereignty. And on those grounds, all the nations in the world can mutually respect one another and can get along.

    In contrast, globalists controlled by Jewish oligarchs demand that the sovereignty of every nation be weakened and destroyed so that American power can dictate values and policy in every nation... except Israel of course. Israel is allowed to be both nationalist and internationalist. Globalists don't pressure Israel to open its borders or to accept diverse immigration.

    Another thing. Nationalists believe that there are things of value(priceless value) beyond economics. Globalists judge the value of everything according to money, growth, GNP, and etc. According to globalism, a nation is better off if it surrenders sovereignty in exchange for more 'free trade' since it may increase profits for the big business class. But using this logic, a prostitute who sells her body is better off than a honest woman who refuses to sell hers because the prostitute is richer. Globalists put money before pride and honor, nationalists favor pride and honor over money.
    As for culture and values, globalism offers Pop Culture(of the degenerate American kind with the likes of Miley Cyrus, gangsta rap, and endless porn) and Political Correctness that forces people to accept 'gay marriage' and call Bruce Jenner a 'woman'.

    What the world really needs is nationalism and internationalism. When every nation feel secure and safe via nationalism, it is more willing and more able to get along with other nations.
    If anything, nationalism serves internationalism.
    In contrast, globalism and 'diversity'-mongering creates more division and distrust all across the world, and then, there are more problems.

    Separation is better for unity. When nations remain separate and secure from one another, they respect one another more and trust one another more. They can do trade and travel.
    It's like individuals in a community get along if they have their own private spaces. When each person has his/her own space and privacy, he/she is more likely to trust others than if everyone has to share the same space all the time.

    During the Great Leap Forward in China, Mao's commune system sought to make everyone do everything together almost 24/7. For instance, while Chinese people worked together in the fields, they usually ate meals with their own families. But during the Great Leap, everyone in the community was made to eat together, and this just got on everyone's nerves and made people trust each other less.

    Nationalism means political privacy for each nation. When every nation has its own privacy respected, it will get along with other nations in the public space of international trade and cooperation.

    https://youtu.be/ZB7HYhUpDz8?t=57m16s

    Simply superb. Many nationalists, like me, support INCREASING international trade with everyone, INCREASED tourism for people from compatible nations, and INCREASED student exchange programs and cultural interaction between nations. The diametric opposite of isolationism. And certainly far better than war or forced mixture of incompatible cultures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    Many nationalists, like me, support INCREASING international trade with everyone, INCREASED tourism for people from compatible nations, and INCREASED student exchange programs and cultural interaction between nations. The diametric opposite of isolationism.
     
    America's forefathers were isolationist only when it came to governments - they said do not get evolved in foreign intrigue – in foreign wars.

    Private Americans were always great traders and travelers.

    Today we are breaking all the rules and we are being isolated by the rest of the world.

    Building the neocon Jew Empire is killing us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @5371
    No-one could possibly be too shy to admit that they plan to vote for a party as pathetically politically correct as the Tories, and no-one is. UKIP, a party in far less good odour with SJWs, performed much in line with what the polls were predicting, which in itself should be enough to explode the "shy Tories" theory. The failure of the pollsters, as research has confirmed, was due to incompetent sampling and cowardly herd-like behaviour.

    You have a point, but perhaps you underestimate the suffocating climate of political correctness in the UK!

    After posting my comment yesterday I remembered that the election was also affected by the threat (or promise, depending on your politics) of the Labour party forming a coalition with the Scottish Nationalists, who are somewhat to the left of Pol Pot. No, scrub that, they make Trotsky look like Genghis Khan. Anyhow, if Labour had won, the SNP would have been the tail wagging the British dog. Given the bile spewed out of Scotland all over the English in the run-up to the referendum, this was not a pleasing prospect for most of those south of the border.

    As for the pollsters, those who are not corrupt, and plenty who are, couldn’t find their feet in their own socks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Jim Christian
    Look who Bush ran against. Both of them. Michael Stanley Dukakis, Al Gore, the pinch-faced carbon hustler, John (Why the long face?) Kerry, in that order.

    Who do you want to have a beer with? Kerry or "W"? Al Gore or "W"? Old man Bush or Dukakis? In the end, we decided we'd rather have a beer with Bill Clinton. Twice. Which ones are more interesting, more authentic? Who of them has better stories to tell?

    THAT is how we pick a President, in the end. What, you wanna have a tea with Hillary or two fingers of Blue Label, a round of golf and tales of endless pussy-grabs told by the Donald as only HE could? Over prime red meat? Served by beautiful women?

    Any man that votes for Hillary is a god-damned castrated feminist, not even a man. There. I said it. She couldn't even satisfy her own husband. She's worse than all of our ex-wives combined. And you would VOTE for that to be your President? Really? Shame on you. May as well date Lorena Bobbit.

    …two fingers of Blue Label, a round of golf and tales of endless pussy-grabs told by the Donald as only HE could?

    And those grabs were consensual, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Donald is a hose monster between wives. His were consensual, I don't believe many of Clinton's were and they had cases stacked and then buried all the way back to Oxford. Depending on how they define these things, Clinton, if they chose, could be in big trouble some day. Look at Cosby's situation. For a year now, a roomful of women they showed last year or so, 25 or 30 of them, 27 maybe. A bunch of aging, failed shrews that banged Crosby as far back as thirty years ago. Some smoked pot, some did lines of coke, always with wine, sometimes pills. They made the deal with the devil, or they liked partying with the guy.

    All these years later, feminists have re-written the rules in the past year, they've gotten statutes of limitation re-written. Also, the laws that define rape have been completely re-assessed . If the poor, childish, weal-ass women partied with "the rapist", if they were on pot, coke, pills, booze, if they were impaired in ANY way when the act of sex was indulged, they are/were unable to "give consent" and therefore, were raped. The deal Cosby is hammered with now is an extended 12 year SOL as opposed to the old one in Pa., 10 years. They have been very busy re-defining rape since the first Cosby allegations came out. They should call these recent iterations Crosby Filings, or some such.

    All this to nail an old man that banged women in exchange for readings and auditions. Not terribly different from the Professors that trade sex for an A. Or a President trading blow jobs for hiring privilege. Or, or, or, we all know a million examples. Pick a man of prominence, he's vulnerable. And all it needs to be is He Said/She Said.

    Actually, the rape law is now "She said, we don't care what he says". This Crosby thing is going to define life for careful men and stupid women from here on out. And serves to show that women are childish, weak and stupid. These laws prove it. They serve to define women and protect them as such. Weak, childish and stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Ace
    You have the strangest notion of what fascism is. "Work, family, and country" is an innocuous slogan that Mitch McConnell or Mr. Rogers would cheerfully embrace and by juxtaposing it to "Liberty, equality and fraternity" you do not make the case that it is somehow fascist. The latter slogan initially was beloved of men who raised political murder to an art form. Sloganology is a pure excuse for substantive analysis.

    Fascism is not reactionary. It's a doctrine of the total state that is separated from communism by a whisker. They both were radical political phenomena. National Socialism and Italian fascism did not arise as a reaction to communism but as a part of the same worldwide fascination with social, political, and economic transformation. Mussolini's core idea was “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    Socialists and communists had no use for democracy but you've provided zero evidence that Marine Le Pen has exhibited "anti-parliamentarianism." Give the woman a break. She knows that the E.u., globalism, immigration, multiculturalism, and being Merkel's stable boy are the cancers afflicting France. Whatever is the source of French madness, it isn't the National Assembly. And whatever her father espoused is irrelevant as he is decidedly out of the picture.

    You're being very reckless in the way you throw around such a loaded term.

    Mussolini’s core idea was “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    Oswald Mosely, the most (hell, the only) important Fascist in the English-speaking world, said at the end of his life that he’d always been a man of the left. Facism seems rather centrist* to me, but the Anglosphere is pretty reactionary all around, so naturally he’d feel like a lefty.

    *and centrism, increasingly fascist!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    A. James Gregor, a pretty credible academic scholar of Italian Fascism, argues that the experience of WWI decisively turned many onetime Italian Communists away from internationalism and class struggle. Why? Because they saw the obvious upsurge in patriotism among workers upon the outbreak of the War, and no internationalist fellow-feeling. They concluded that Marx's class didn't exist, but national solidarity was a powerful, invigorating force.

    My personal feeling is it may be profitable to examine the exact nature of America's government. I've long believed actual governance is reserved to the "Council of 25,000", referring to Washington's corporate lobbies, while Congress is permitted interstitial influence, such as pandering to identity hustlers, and the President is allowed his un-Constitutional war-making powers. My point, I think, is I could be dead wrong. But if some sort of American "Patriots' Front" cropped up that promised to dissolve Congress, would it actually dissolve a substantive, representative assembly? Do we have a sort of "shadow Fascism" that quietly governs as a corporate entity, but will clamp down on anyone who talks in terms of a common, shared American nationality because that would potentially cut into profits?
    , @Ace
    The Wikipedia entry for Mussolini indicates that fascism was seen as a "third way" in that it was both revolutionary and traditionalist. Perhaps that is what strikes you centrist about Mosley.

    However, fascism can hardly be said to make representative government one of its key tenets. It's authoritarian nature locates it on the left in my view. If one advocates coercive methods, one's particular goals are irrelevant to the analysis. If I use those methods to advance the class struggle or the advancement of traditional Italian culture, I am still a leftist.

    I see the Anglosphere is hopelessly enmired in the sappiest and most destructive fantasies of the left. I would be ecstatic if there were anything remotely reactionary in it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Realist
    Samuel L. Jackson is a nasty black racist asshole.

    Samuel L. Jackson is a nasty black racist asshole.

    Oh, my goodness,
    Oh, my soul,
    Ain’t never seen a nigga wid a white asshole!

    – from the movie “Watermelon Man”

    Alright, let’s stop. This is well beneath the standard expected in Prof Gottfried’s class.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Vasilis
    Ace, American and European perspectives on fascism differ vastly, mainly because much of Europe has gone through fascism at some point, while the US has not. I suspect that our main difference is just that I have lived in Europe for over 3 decades. In the United States liberty, equality, brotherhood, work, family and country are six great things that we all can cheer for. In France "Travail, Famille, Patrie” was the slogan of the Petain government that collaborated with with the German occupation during WW2 and it was presented as an alternative to the republican “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, which the Free French and De Gaulle fought for. In France it is not lets have all six, it is either/or. I do understand that this is not widely known or understood in the United States, but if you do not take it into account you cannot understand what is happening in France.

    Fascism in mid war Europe was greatly assisted by opposition to communism, but the anti-parliamentarian roots of fascism predate the Bolshevik revolution. I consider exactly this anti-parliamentarian stand as the basic characteristic of fascism, the rest is in my opinion either ornamental or circumstantial of that period. To put it in another way, communism was a great step forward from democracy that led to a deep fall down a sheer cliff, while fascism was a step back from democracy that made sense for some people only as long as communism was a clear and present threat. Both can still make great talking points though, especially if you do not have to actually apply them and answer to the public for their results.

    As for Marine Le Pen, I reserve judgement. Her party has fascist origins, but she may have seen the futility of her father's position and may be sincerely seeking to transform it into a parliamentarian right wing party. Her intentions remain to be seen. You correctly include her positions on the EU and Europe as fundamental, she did not win this victory on the issue of immigration alone. Her main issue at this time is if France will be an independent country or not, which makes her position very strong with the French public.

    In any case though, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump, he is the totally different product of a totally different political system and that was the main point of my initial post.

    …Donald Trump, he is the totally different product of a totally different political system

    Actually, he’s not a product of our political system, but our economic system. He’s a less intellectual counterpart of Vaclav Havel or Mario Vargas Llosa, who also made their careers in other fields before dabbling in electoral politics.

    I’d add Ronald Reagan as well, but he had close to thirty years in politics (including his labor union presidencies) before running for president in 1976.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Andrew Nichols
    For goodness sake - there's still Sanders - probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.

    For goodness sake – there’s still Sanders – probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.

    What does that say about the rest of the planet?

    Is there anything “normal” about the crowds at his rallies? They don’t “look like America”, let alone the rest of the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @geokat62
    Thanks for sharing, Priss. The woman in the video seemed very knowledgable. At one point in the video, she referred to Edward Bernays, the father of PR (formerly known as propaganda):

    Bernays, working for the administration of Woodrow Wilson during World War I with the Committee on Public Information, was influential in promoting the idea that America's war efforts were primarily aimed at "bringing democracy to all of Europe". Following the war, he was invited by Woodrow Wilson to attend the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

    Stunned by the degree to which the democracy slogan had swayed the public both at home and abroad, he wondered whether this propaganda model could be employed during peacetime. Due to negative implications surrounding the word propaganda because of its use by the Germans in World War I, he promoted the term "Public Relations". According to the BBC interview with Bernays's daughter Anne, Bernays felt that the public's democratic judgment was "not to be relied upon" and he feared that "they [the American public] could very easily vote for the wrong man or want the wrong thing, so that they had to be guided from above." This "guidance" was interpreted by Anne to mean that her father believed in a sort of "enlightened despotism" ideology.
     
    Now I know where the neocons (and the Rendon Group) got their ideas on how to sell the wars to remake the ME.

    At one point in the video, she referred to Edward Bernays, the father of PR

    Does that make public relations the double grandnephew of Sigmund Freud?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. tbraton says:
    @RadicalCenter
    I see your point about not being a typical Trump supporter. Bu I'm beginning to think that the stereotype of the typical trump supporter is deliberately inaccurate. I'm no genius, but I earned a doctoral degree, used to (admittedly, a while ago) read Latin reasonably well, and speak a foreign language with functional fluency. Yet other than Rand Paul, Trump is the only candidate I might trust and might vote for as the GOP nominee rather than voting "third party" yet again in the general election.

    “I see your point about not being a typical Trump supporter. But I’m beginning to think that the stereotype of the typical trump supporter is deliberately inaccurate.”

    I totally agree. It’s no secret that the MSM, for the overwhelming part, are no friend of Trump. So I would not put it past them that they are deliberately misrepresenting the profile of the “typical Trump voter” in order to make it socially unacceptable to say you’re a Trump voter and, thus, sway the polling. I think the MSM are as flummoxed by Trump’s rise in the polls as are his “mainstream” Republican opponents and will do anything in their power to torpedo the Trump campaign and promote (and shield) the reprehensible Hillary Clinton. These day, in my opinion, the MSM are simply a propaganda arm of the “establishment”—which is bipartisan, btw.

    “Yet other than Rand Paul, Trump is the only candidate I might trust and might vote for as the GOP nominee rather than voting “third party” yet again in the general election.”

    I started off the year as a Rand Paul supporter but lost enthusiasm, especially after Trump came along during the summer. As I have pointed out numerous times, Paul and Trump were the only sane voices at the Las Vegas debate. I thought Paul was terrific. Too bad he wasn’t speaking out like that from the first debate. The difference is that it was going to be a long shot for Paul anyway, and I doubt whether he had a serious chance at securing the nomination, whereas Trump looks like he might be the nominee. Plus, with Trump, you get the possibility that something might be done with immigration, legal and illegal. After all, the U.S. has a population of 330 million, the third highest in the world after China and India. We should be able to produce all the workers we need from our existing population without bringing in any foreign workers, especially Muslim shepherds from Syria who don’t speak a word of English.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    After I posted the prior response, I finished reading a piece in the Claremont Review entitled "The Reason I'm Anti-Anti-Trump" by William Voegeli which makes this point about the propaganda aspect of our MSM:

    " Adding insult to injury, we are governed by idealists who think we’re idiots for not appreciating the bang-up job they’re doing. The New York Times website recently, briefly, informed readers that President Obama had indicated to reporters “that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.” The paper quickly decided that all the news that’s fit to print did not include this revelation about the president’s detachment, keeping it out of print editions and removing it from the website. Presumably, if more people turned off cable news in favor of reading the Times they would share the president’s sanguine assessment of the situation."

    Earlier in the piece, Mr. Voegeli made these observations about how his immigration stance explains the appeal of Donald Trump:

    "More than any other issue, immigration propels the Trump insurrection. The animus plays out on two levels. As a matter of policy, there is no obvious, compelling reason why controlling the border and resolving the legal status of people already here in violation of our laws must be addressed in a package deal. Why can’t the government prove that it has the commitment and capacity to enforce immigration laws first? Once a functioning immigration system was in place, we could then consider the status of people here illegally without fear that any “path to citizenship” would encourage new waves of illegal immigration.

    As a matter of politics, Trump voters are angry that no matter how often or how emphatically the package-deal approach to immigration is rejected, it never seems to be defeated. What part of “No” do the politicians, journalists, and activists who set the national agenda not understand? This bi-partisan phenomenon is, as Ross Douthat has argued, a big reason Donald Trump enjoys the latitude to run, in effect, as a third-party candidate within the GOP. House majority leader Eric Cantor lost a Republican primary election in 2014 to a challenger with little money or name-recognition, who made an enforcement-first approach to immigration the center of his campaign. Powerful Republicans, however, chose to interpret even this startling repudiation as a reason to postpone but not abandon the pursuit of the package deal. “America should be a destination for hard-working immigrants from all over the world,” according to a press release from “top national Republican donors” issued in February 2015.

    Our government may choose to do many things, such as giving poor children Head Starts, but the much smaller list of things any government must do includes defending the nation’s borders and sovereignty, protecting its citizens, and intimidating its enemies. That 21st-century American government seems neither particularly good at these tasks, nor particularly abashed by its failures, bolsters the Trump campaign’s central message, as distilled by the Atlantic’s David Frum: “We are governed by idiots.”

    This assessment may be objectively false, but if it were preposterous—or if the government worked zealously to render it preposterous—the Trump campaign would be the irrelevant sideshow every analyst predicted when the 2016 race began. The problem, in any case, is not so much that we are governed by idiots as that we are governed by idealists, who proudly follow the Kennedy brothers’ exhortation to disdain seeing things as they are in favor of dreaming dreams that never were. Because no such dream would incorporate a nightmare like ISIS, idealists have preferred to dwell on more congenial matters." http://claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-reason-im-anti-anti-trump/

    The piece also includes this line which caught my fancy: "A few hours later the president, in his national address, identified their motivation as ISIL—the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant—known to most of the world as ISIS." I have noted this peculiar quirk of the Obama Administration a number of times, the switch from the accepted "ISIS" to the creation of the new term "ISIL," and sought explanation, but nobody has offered a reason for this change.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. tbraton says:
    @tbraton
    "I see your point about not being a typical Trump supporter. But I’m beginning to think that the stereotype of the typical trump supporter is deliberately inaccurate."

    I totally agree. It's no secret that the MSM, for the overwhelming part, are no friend of Trump. So I would not put it past them that they are deliberately misrepresenting the profile of the "typical Trump voter" in order to make it socially unacceptable to say you're a Trump voter and, thus, sway the polling. I think the MSM are as flummoxed by Trump's rise in the polls as are his "mainstream" Republican opponents and will do anything in their power to torpedo the Trump campaign and promote (and shield) the reprehensible Hillary Clinton. These day, in my opinion, the MSM are simply a propaganda arm of the "establishment"---which is bipartisan, btw.

    "Yet other than Rand Paul, Trump is the only candidate I might trust and might vote for as the GOP nominee rather than voting “third party” yet again in the general election."

    I started off the year as a Rand Paul supporter but lost enthusiasm, especially after Trump came along during the summer. As I have pointed out numerous times, Paul and Trump were the only sane voices at the Las Vegas debate. I thought Paul was terrific. Too bad he wasn't speaking out like that from the first debate. The difference is that it was going to be a long shot for Paul anyway, and I doubt whether he had a serious chance at securing the nomination, whereas Trump looks like he might be the nominee. Plus, with Trump, you get the possibility that something might be done with immigration, legal and illegal. After all, the U.S. has a population of 330 million, the third highest in the world after China and India. We should be able to produce all the workers we need from our existing population without bringing in any foreign workers, especially Muslim shepherds from Syria who don't speak a word of English.

    After I posted the prior response, I finished reading a piece in the Claremont Review entitled “The Reason I’m Anti-Anti-Trump” by William Voegeli which makes this point about the propaganda aspect of our MSM:

    ” Adding insult to injury, we are governed by idealists who think we’re idiots for not appreciating the bang-up job they’re doing. The New York Times website recently, briefly, informed readers that President Obama had indicated to reporters “that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.” The paper quickly decided that all the news that’s fit to print did not include this revelation about the president’s detachment, keeping it out of print editions and removing it from the website. Presumably, if more people turned off cable news in favor of reading the Times they would share the president’s sanguine assessment of the situation.”

    Earlier in the piece, Mr. Voegeli made these observations about how his immigration stance explains the appeal of Donald Trump:

    “More than any other issue, immigration propels the Trump insurrection. The animus plays out on two levels. As a matter of policy, there is no obvious, compelling reason why controlling the border and resolving the legal status of people already here in violation of our laws must be addressed in a package deal. Why can’t the government prove that it has the commitment and capacity to enforce immigration laws first? Once a functioning immigration system was in place, we could then consider the status of people here illegally without fear that any “path to citizenship” would encourage new waves of illegal immigration.

    As a matter of politics, Trump voters are angry that no matter how often or how emphatically the package-deal approach to immigration is rejected, it never seems to be defeated. What part of “No” do the politicians, journalists, and activists who set the national agenda not understand? This bi-partisan phenomenon is, as Ross Douthat has argued, a big reason Donald Trump enjoys the latitude to run, in effect, as a third-party candidate within the GOP. House majority leader Eric Cantor lost a Republican primary election in 2014 to a challenger with little money or name-recognition, who made an enforcement-first approach to immigration the center of his campaign. Powerful Republicans, however, chose to interpret even this startling repudiation as a reason to postpone but not abandon the pursuit of the package deal. “America should be a destination for hard-working immigrants from all over the world,” according to a press release from “top national Republican donors” issued in February 2015.

    Our government may choose to do many things, such as giving poor children Head Starts, but the much smaller list of things any government must do includes defending the nation’s borders and sovereignty, protecting its citizens, and intimidating its enemies. That 21st-century American government seems neither particularly good at these tasks, nor particularly abashed by its failures, bolsters the Trump campaign’s central message, as distilled by the Atlantic’s David Frum: “We are governed by idiots.”

    This assessment may be objectively false, but if it were preposterous—or if the government worked zealously to render it preposterous—the Trump campaign would be the irrelevant sideshow every analyst predicted when the 2016 race began. The problem, in any case, is not so much that we are governed by idiots as that we are governed by idealists, who proudly follow the Kennedy brothers’ exhortation to disdain seeing things as they are in favor of dreaming dreams that never were. Because no such dream would incorporate a nightmare like ISIS, idealists have preferred to dwell on more congenial matters.” http://claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-reason-im-anti-anti-trump/

    The piece also includes this line which caught my fancy: “A few hours later the president, in his national address, identified their motivation as ISIL—the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant—known to most of the world as ISIS.” I have noted this peculiar quirk of the Obama Administration a number of times, the switch from the accepted “ISIS” to the creation of the new term “ISIL,” and sought explanation, but nobody has offered a reason for this change.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... the switch from the accepted “ISIS” to the creation of the new term “ISIL,” and sought explanation...
     
    Here's just one explanation a quick search yielded:

    Why would Obama prefer ISIL? An “army” of that territorial magnitude takes the focus off the two countries that many believe define Obama’s continued failure in the Middle East. Most likely, he would rather eliminate the connection between the chaos in Iraq with his inaction in Syria. Better that the upheaval in a country to which we committed so much blood and treasure remain the fault of George W. Bush. The president has already been tarred with having failed to secure a Status of Forces deal with Prime Minister al-Maliki, which would have allowed a contingent of American troops to stay in Iraq.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Peek-POV/2014/06/23/Obamas-Use-ISIL-Not-ISIS-Tells-Another-Story
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Reg Cæsar

    …two fingers of Blue Label, a round of golf and tales of endless pussy-grabs told by the Donald as only HE could?
     
    And those grabs were consensual, too.

    Donald is a hose monster between wives. His were consensual, I don’t believe many of Clinton’s were and they had cases stacked and then buried all the way back to Oxford. Depending on how they define these things, Clinton, if they chose, could be in big trouble some day. Look at Cosby’s situation. For a year now, a roomful of women they showed last year or so, 25 or 30 of them, 27 maybe. A bunch of aging, failed shrews that banged Crosby as far back as thirty years ago. Some smoked pot, some did lines of coke, always with wine, sometimes pills. They made the deal with the devil, or they liked partying with the guy.

    All these years later, feminists have re-written the rules in the past year, they’ve gotten statutes of limitation re-written. Also, the laws that define rape have been completely re-assessed . If the poor, childish, weal-ass women partied with “the rapist”, if they were on pot, coke, pills, booze, if they were impaired in ANY way when the act of sex was indulged, they are/were unable to “give consent” and therefore, were raped. The deal Cosby is hammered with now is an extended 12 year SOL as opposed to the old one in Pa., 10 years. They have been very busy re-defining rape since the first Cosby allegations came out. They should call these recent iterations Crosby Filings, or some such.

    All this to nail an old man that banged women in exchange for readings and auditions. Not terribly different from the Professors that trade sex for an A. Or a President trading blow jobs for hiring privilege. Or, or, or, we all know a million examples. Pick a man of prominence, he’s vulnerable. And all it needs to be is He Said/She Said.

    Actually, the rape law is now “She said, we don’t care what he says”. This Crosby thing is going to define life for careful men and stupid women from here on out. And serves to show that women are childish, weak and stupid. These laws prove it. They serve to define women and protect them as such. Weak, childish and stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Renoman says:

    It’s very simple, the public hate the government and the media. So does trump.
    He’s going to win.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  131. iffen says:
    @WorkingClass
    Thank you for your response.

    I was born in 1944. Right at the beginning of the Cold War. When it ended (turns out it never actually ended) I foolishly expected a "peace dividend". I was a union man through the 70's and 80's when there were still manufacturing jobs. It would be helpful to repeal Taft/Hartely and enforce anti-trust laws but a return to American style unionism is not a good idea. The country, as it stands today, sorely needs a Labor Party. But I hold out no hope for that country. At this point only a second republic complete with a new constitution would free us from Imperial Washington.

    I am a Jeffersonian. I am an admirer and former supporter of Ron Paul. But I am not a Libertarian. The taint of Objectivism makes it a lost cause at least as it relates to electoral politics. Neither am I a Socialist although I admire the life and work of Eugene Debs. I am a populist, loyal only to my class. I have no colors to defend. I value liberty, justice, peace and prosperity and will work with anyone who can advance those causes.

    I value liberty, justice, peace and prosperity and will work with anyone who can advance those causes.

    Great values, too bad you are pretty much by yourself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Hi iffen,

    Your 'remark on Workingclass's ...Great values..".liberty , justice, peace and prosperity."....

    must make you a true, dyed in the wool "Neoconservative"...who ,no doubt, espouses

    " repression, injustice, war and insolvency"as the essential characteristics of a healthy society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. WC, you’ve touched on how things will be in the U.S. going forward. You are already in the balkanized mindset, as am I and millions like us. We have our interest, everyone else is our enemy. I see no other way to consider it. Women vs. Men, Dindu vs. Whites, Hispanics hanging in there and Islam on the move right here in the U.S. right now. Most of it was set up Post-Obama. I got a rather thoughtful reply from someone a few days back that theorized that in the U.S., we’ll have several parties, three or four regions, nuclear-weapons-capable, balkanized, divided, and completely separatist one from the other, sort of like Brazil today. Sort of like here in the United States, except we pretend still that we’re a melting pot.

    Thinking forward on my own, I see an Hispanic region, a region for the African Dindu population, and an Islamic region. I suspect like the Russians and Americans rushing to secure rocket talent in Germany immediately following WW2, the Hispanic, Islamic and Dindu populations will do what they must to secure the talents of the remaining High IQ Whites and Asians because SOMEONE has to keep the lights on and water flowing, toilets flushing, all the things of civilization running. Certainly the Dindus of Islam and African American heritage will need White talent for their technology. The Hispanics will learn, they are capable. I myself will migrate to the Hispanic region to share my technical talents. They share my values. And that is the thing. Those in America standing when the Federal Government has faded away (we all will one day ignore those inside the Beltway, for they have their separate interest, also) will self-segregate, as we do now. Look at the suburbs Whites create on their own in order to get away from violent urban Dindu. It’s happening today. Obama tries to subvert it with Section 8, but one day the middle finger will go up.

    One hopes there will be no fight for supremacy because when the Constitutional Republic, the Central, Federal Government is ignored and rendered irrelevant by each population (as it is now anyway), each remaining region will be nuclear-armed. And a Mutual Destruction protocol will be developed and things will go on, albeit uneasily. Brave new world and we’re well on the way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. geokat62 says:
    @tbraton
    After I posted the prior response, I finished reading a piece in the Claremont Review entitled "The Reason I'm Anti-Anti-Trump" by William Voegeli which makes this point about the propaganda aspect of our MSM:

    " Adding insult to injury, we are governed by idealists who think we’re idiots for not appreciating the bang-up job they’re doing. The New York Times website recently, briefly, informed readers that President Obama had indicated to reporters “that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.” The paper quickly decided that all the news that’s fit to print did not include this revelation about the president’s detachment, keeping it out of print editions and removing it from the website. Presumably, if more people turned off cable news in favor of reading the Times they would share the president’s sanguine assessment of the situation."

    Earlier in the piece, Mr. Voegeli made these observations about how his immigration stance explains the appeal of Donald Trump:

    "More than any other issue, immigration propels the Trump insurrection. The animus plays out on two levels. As a matter of policy, there is no obvious, compelling reason why controlling the border and resolving the legal status of people already here in violation of our laws must be addressed in a package deal. Why can’t the government prove that it has the commitment and capacity to enforce immigration laws first? Once a functioning immigration system was in place, we could then consider the status of people here illegally without fear that any “path to citizenship” would encourage new waves of illegal immigration.

    As a matter of politics, Trump voters are angry that no matter how often or how emphatically the package-deal approach to immigration is rejected, it never seems to be defeated. What part of “No” do the politicians, journalists, and activists who set the national agenda not understand? This bi-partisan phenomenon is, as Ross Douthat has argued, a big reason Donald Trump enjoys the latitude to run, in effect, as a third-party candidate within the GOP. House majority leader Eric Cantor lost a Republican primary election in 2014 to a challenger with little money or name-recognition, who made an enforcement-first approach to immigration the center of his campaign. Powerful Republicans, however, chose to interpret even this startling repudiation as a reason to postpone but not abandon the pursuit of the package deal. “America should be a destination for hard-working immigrants from all over the world,” according to a press release from “top national Republican donors” issued in February 2015.

    Our government may choose to do many things, such as giving poor children Head Starts, but the much smaller list of things any government must do includes defending the nation’s borders and sovereignty, protecting its citizens, and intimidating its enemies. That 21st-century American government seems neither particularly good at these tasks, nor particularly abashed by its failures, bolsters the Trump campaign’s central message, as distilled by the Atlantic’s David Frum: “We are governed by idiots.”

    This assessment may be objectively false, but if it were preposterous—or if the government worked zealously to render it preposterous—the Trump campaign would be the irrelevant sideshow every analyst predicted when the 2016 race began. The problem, in any case, is not so much that we are governed by idiots as that we are governed by idealists, who proudly follow the Kennedy brothers’ exhortation to disdain seeing things as they are in favor of dreaming dreams that never were. Because no such dream would incorporate a nightmare like ISIS, idealists have preferred to dwell on more congenial matters." http://claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-reason-im-anti-anti-trump/

    The piece also includes this line which caught my fancy: "A few hours later the president, in his national address, identified their motivation as ISIL—the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant—known to most of the world as ISIS." I have noted this peculiar quirk of the Obama Administration a number of times, the switch from the accepted "ISIS" to the creation of the new term "ISIL," and sought explanation, but nobody has offered a reason for this change.

    … the switch from the accepted “ISIS” to the creation of the new term “ISIL,” and sought explanation…

    Here’s just one explanation a quick search yielded:

    Why would Obama prefer ISIL? An “army” of that territorial magnitude takes the focus off the two countries that many believe define Obama’s continued failure in the Middle East. Most likely, he would rather eliminate the connection between the chaos in Iraq with his inaction in Syria. Better that the upheaval in a country to which we committed so much blood and treasure remain the fault of George W. Bush. The president has already been tarred with having failed to secure a Status of Forces deal with Prime Minister al-Maliki, which would have allowed a contingent of American troops to stay in Iraq.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Peek-POV/2014/06/23/Obamas-Use-ISIL-Not-ISIS-Tells-Another-Story

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Thanks for the link, geokat62. It offers an explanation but not a terribly convincing one in my estimation. I don't think most Americans could tell you what ISIS stands for, much less ISIL. Most Americans couldn't pick out Iraq or Syria on a map. To toss out a term like "Levant" would constitute information overload. If the offered explanation is true, it tells you more about the muddled state of mind of the Obama people than anything else. That article from more than a year ago is also misleading in that it leaves out much of what we have learned in the last year and a half about America's role in fomenting the "civil war" in Syria and creating ISIS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. tbraton says:
    @geokat62

    ... the switch from the accepted “ISIS” to the creation of the new term “ISIL,” and sought explanation...
     
    Here's just one explanation a quick search yielded:

    Why would Obama prefer ISIL? An “army” of that territorial magnitude takes the focus off the two countries that many believe define Obama’s continued failure in the Middle East. Most likely, he would rather eliminate the connection between the chaos in Iraq with his inaction in Syria. Better that the upheaval in a country to which we committed so much blood and treasure remain the fault of George W. Bush. The president has already been tarred with having failed to secure a Status of Forces deal with Prime Minister al-Maliki, which would have allowed a contingent of American troops to stay in Iraq.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Peek-POV/2014/06/23/Obamas-Use-ISIL-Not-ISIS-Tells-Another-Story
     

    Thanks for the link, geokat62. It offers an explanation but not a terribly convincing one in my estimation. I don’t think most Americans could tell you what ISIS stands for, much less ISIL. Most Americans couldn’t pick out Iraq or Syria on a map. To toss out a term like “Levant” would constitute information overload. If the offered explanation is true, it tells you more about the muddled state of mind of the Obama people than anything else. That article from more than a year ago is also misleading in that it leaves out much of what we have learned in the last year and a half about America’s role in fomenting the “civil war” in Syria and creating ISIS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {I don’t think most Americans could tell you what ISIS stands for, much less ISIL. Most Americans couldn’t pick out Iraq or Syria on a map}

    Most Americans could not tell you much about their own country or their government. But they can tell you all the stats you'll ever not need about sports-thugs, great "artists" like Miley Cyrus, Snooki, etc.

    It has been a long and deliberate process of dumbing down of Americans.
    Starting when they are very little.
    That is how a relatively small number of evil people are able to use the wealth provided by 120 million American taxpayers to spread death and destruction all over the world - and very few Americans are aware or care.

    Just provide the cattle with lots of hay, provide shelter and warmth in the winter- and they will happily keep producing milk and steaks for the cowboys that manage the herd.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Art says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Simply superb. Many nationalists, like me, support INCREASING international trade with everyone, INCREASED tourism for people from compatible nations, and INCREASED student exchange programs and cultural interaction between nations. The diametric opposite of isolationism. And certainly far better than war or forced mixture of incompatible cultures.

    Many nationalists, like me, support INCREASING international trade with everyone, INCREASED tourism for people from compatible nations, and INCREASED student exchange programs and cultural interaction between nations. The diametric opposite of isolationism.

    America’s forefathers were isolationist only when it came to governments – they said do not get evolved in foreign intrigue – in foreign wars.

    Private Americans were always great traders and travelers.

    Today we are breaking all the rules and we are being isolated by the rest of the world.

    Building the neocon Jew Empire is killing us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Avery says:
    @tbraton
    Thanks for the link, geokat62. It offers an explanation but not a terribly convincing one in my estimation. I don't think most Americans could tell you what ISIS stands for, much less ISIL. Most Americans couldn't pick out Iraq or Syria on a map. To toss out a term like "Levant" would constitute information overload. If the offered explanation is true, it tells you more about the muddled state of mind of the Obama people than anything else. That article from more than a year ago is also misleading in that it leaves out much of what we have learned in the last year and a half about America's role in fomenting the "civil war" in Syria and creating ISIS.

    {I don’t think most Americans could tell you what ISIS stands for, much less ISIL. Most Americans couldn’t pick out Iraq or Syria on a map}

    Most Americans could not tell you much about their own country or their government. But they can tell you all the stats you’ll ever not need about sports-thugs, great “artists” like Miley Cyrus, Snooki, etc.

    It has been a long and deliberate process of dumbing down of Americans.
    Starting when they are very little.
    That is how a relatively small number of evil people are able to use the wealth provided by 120 million American taxpayers to spread death and destruction all over the world – and very few Americans are aware or care.

    Just provide the cattle with lots of hay, provide shelter and warmth in the winter- and they will happily keep producing milk and steaks for the cowboys that manage the herd.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Vasilis says:
    @paul gottfried
    I have learned a great deal from reading the responses to my commentary and find that I'm in agreement with much of what I have read. What I disagree with profoundly as someone who has spent considerable time and energy researching fascism and who has a book on the subject coming out in mid-January, is Mr. Vasilis's effort to link Marine Le Pen to European fascism. Except for the populist, patriotic strains in her rhetoric, I can find no common ground between Marine and interwar fascism. The National Front does not advocate a one party state (unlike its opposition which in effect has already created one), has never called for abolishing a parliamentary government, and does not advocate the kind of corporate state that was characteristic of Latin fascist programs, in France as well as in Italy and Spain. The continuity that Mr. Vasilis is claiming to see is not there, save as a convenient fiction generated and perpetuated by the French and international leftist media. I'm not even sure that the now frequently encountered term "extreme rightist party" used to describe the Front in the WSJ and NYT has any relation to reality.

    Professor Gottfried,

    Based on your research, do you consider the National Front as it was founded and as it was led in the past by Jean-Marie Le Pen to have been associated with European fascism at that time? I refer to the period before the 2002 French Presidential elections, when Marine Le Pen was not a prominent figure in the party.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. nickels says:

    America’s turn:

    “…Petrusha [is a mush head]… And you know, it all comes from that same half-bakedness, from sentimentality. They’re fascinated not by realism, but by the sensitive, ideal aspect of socialism, its religious tinge, so to speak …to someone else’s tune, of course.”
    Dostoevsky, Demons 1870

    PC is commie time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. @Bill
    I'd say that process started before Clinton. The big symbolic victory for the cultural marxist left over the labor left was the 1968 democratic convention and the sixties more generally.

    I’d say that process started before Clinton. The big symbolic victory for the cultural marxist left over the labor left was the 1968 democratic convention and the sixties more generally.

    Interesting you juxtapose cultural Marxist left with labor left. I will never accept any claim that the social justice warriors represent the left. But I agree with your take on the ’68 convention. In terms of process you might say it culminated in the Clinton Administration. Its difficult to pinpoint beginnings. They say it all started with a big bang.

    I was among the soldiers from Fort Devens marching in the Saint Patrick’s Day parade in Boston in 1968. Instead of dress greens we marched in fatigues with our weapons at shoulder arms. They marched us through Roxbury, a black ghetto, as a show of force for the locals. You may recall the concern about riots in those days. Many of us stuck dandy lions in the mussels of our weapons to indicate our solidarity with the locals and our opposition to the war. Our officers on that day looked the other way. It wasn’t just the hippies and McGovern who opposed that disastrous war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    I’d say that process started before Clinton. The big symbolic victory for the cultural marxist left over the labor left was the 1968 democratic convention and the sixties more generally.
     
    Wouldn't that be the 1972 convention that nominated George McGovern? The nascent identity politics "left" did weaken the old line labor Democrats in 1968, but they weakened themselves even more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    In a way, the elite alliance with the darkies make good sense. Both are minorities.
    The rich and privileged class will always be a minority in any nation. And they will always come in conflict with the masses that have less. It is minority rich vs majority
    un-rich. The minority-haves are always anxious about the majority-have-nots. They fear class politics.

    The minority-haves can suppress the passion of the majority-have-nots in two ways. (1) Claim to represent the will of the majority AGAINST other peoples. This is especially possible if the minority-haves and majority-have-nots are of the same race and culture. So, the Russian Tsar could rally the Russian masses against the Japanese and the Germans. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a huge mess as the Russian efforts went poorly in the Russo-Japanese War and in WWI against Germany.
    Hitler also played this card once in power. He, with the support of German elites, suppressed the class rage of the German have-nots by diverting national rage at outsiders, aliens, and ethnic minorities. This was possible because German elites(economic minority of the haves) and German masses(economic majority of the have-nots) had race, culture, and identity in common.
    (2) But there is another way for the haves(economic elite minority) to pacify the have-nots(economic mass majority). It is by creating conditions for the development for the middle class. That way, society is made up of have-lots, have-somes, and have-nots. If there are more have-somes than have-nots, the have-lots have far less to worry about. While the have-somes may harbor some resentment toward the have-lots, they are reasonably content with what they got and don’t want revolution and don’t much care for class demagoguery. And Hitler played on this too, as did Franklin Delano Roosevelt with the New Deal. By means of massive military spending and public projects, both sought to create a vast middle class of producers and consumers. Also, the rich were taxed at higher rates or their businesses(especially in finance sector) were supervised by the state for the good of the masses. This is more doable if the elites and masses share race, culture, and history AND if the masses have sound values. (During the New Deal, US was mostly white gentile and ruled mostly by white gentiles.) The elites will be more willing to pay higher taxes if their wealth is spent on their own kind and if the masses make good use of it. If the elites can trust the masses as honest and hardworking, then providing more services and benefits will be seen as social investment for good of all. But in a low-trust society like Greece, even the conscientious rich don’t wanna pay taxes since so many Greek masses are lowlife leeches in the manner of “Eek, it’s a Greek.”

    Globalism does wonders for the have-lots and the upper middle classes(who are highly educated and with skills in specialization). But it undermines the middle class and the working class. The very rich and upper middle class together constitute an economic minority. As they make more and more, the rest will make less and less. The middle class will shrink and members of the middle class will fall to working class, service class, or even poor class. So, naturally, there is bound to be the rage of the masses against the economic minority of the globalist elites that keep making more and more.
    If the elites are at least of the same race and culture as the masses, there is a chance that they will try to control the rage of the masses by invoking nationalism, unity, and hostility toward other nations and foreigners. (Putin is able to do this in Russia to some degree. And Chinese elites can do it too.) But many of the elites of Western nations are now Jews, and Jews don’t wanna play that card(except when it comes to encouraging American hatred against certain nations deemed unfriendly to Jewish global domination: Russia, China, Iran). Also, Jews just not only lack a sense of common bond with masses of gentile whites. They feel contempt for reasons that are historical and intellectual. They see history as ‘Christians bashed Jews’, and they see themselves as smarter than dimwit gentiles. If anything, the good-will of white gentiles make Jews despise whites even more as sappy toadies. A con-man doesn’t respect his victims, especially if the victims thank the con-man of having been tricked as some kind of favor to themselves. Deep down inside, Jews must be rolling their eyes and muttering ‘oy vey’ at the cuckservatives who come to be dic*-slapped some more. (Or maybe Jews are paranoid that the so-called cucks are only acting cynically, i.e. their feigned loyalty to AIPAC can vanish overnight if the political conditions change. After all, if politicians can be made to go so easily from anti-gay stance to pro-gay stance, it means they have no deep loyalty to anything. There is nothing true or genuine about them except for opportunistically angling for favors and privilege. They are whores of AIPAC than its loyal wives. If the tide changes, whores will always go with the new winner. Jews may not like Pat Buchanan but Buchanan is a loyal wife to conservatism. His conviction is real. In contrast, the likes of Lindsey Graham are whoreservatives. They will go always go with the highest bidder.)

    [MORE]

    Anyway, the elite-haves can gain/maintain the loyalty and support of the mass-have-nots IF (1) they share same race, culture, and identity (2) the elites direct(cynically or sincerely) national rage at foreign enemy or hostile ethnic minority (3) the elites opt for national capitalism that grows and sustains a large-enough middle class where the majority of have-nots are given an opportunity to become have-somes.
    And that used to be the model for US and Europe for several decades following WWII.

    But why did this model decline? Rise of ‘free trade’ globalism. Rise of Union power and corruption. Moral degradation of the masses. The corrosive effect of leftist ideology. The insanely blind loyalty of conservatives to anti-cultural and amoral agenda of libertarianism that worship wealth and power above all else.

    ‘Free trade’ no longer meant what is good for GM is good for America.
    Unions made demands that no company could fulfill, so companies preferred to ship jobs overseas or hire immigrant workers.
    Moral degradation made whole swaths of Americans unfit to work at any kind of job.
    Leftist ideology, instead of criticizing moral degradation, always made excuses for the failures of blacks, the poor, and the working class. The slobs were always depicted as pure saintly victims of the Rich.
    ‘Rightist’ solution to all the above problems was ‘more free enterprise’ as if crazy ghastly Negroes, ass-tattooed ‘white trash’, and lagging Hispanics could some miraculously turned into Bill Gates if they were introduced to some Ayn Rand fantasy(or given free homes during the housing bubble era).

    If we take a look at the UK and the degradation of the yobs, it’s obvious that neither the Left nor the Right offers anything useful. To the Left, yob moral degradation is simply the product of a culture of greed. In other words, the solution is more social programs, more free stuff, and more compassion. Never mind that yobs are moral degenerates and tards. They are never to blame(unless they say something ‘racist’ or ‘homophobic’). This kind of socialism will never work cuz socialism without moral conditions and national consciousness simply boil down to ‘poor are noble for being poor and deserve more poor stuff, and no one should demand or expect anything from them.’ Same reason GREAT SOCIETY was a total disaster.

    But the Right is also foolish cuz it thinks people with serious moral problems will suddenly see the light and work hard and become responsible if they are made to respect business and enterprise and stuff.
    Now, being pro-business is good and necessary for progress, but the fact is succeeding in business is very hard work. In other words, it’s about delayed(or relayed)gratification. It takes diligence, discipline, self-control, commitment, focus, and etc. Rewards come much later. It’s a case of ‘no pain, no gain’.
    This is why a leftist with such virtues do better in business than a rightist without such values. Suppose a Marxist guy has the virtues associated with delayed gratification while an libertarian is lazy, trashy, impatient, and moronic. Even if the leftist is theoretically anti-capitalist, he will work better and harder in the capitalist economy whereas the latter, even if admiring of free enterprise, will suck at it.

    Because moralism has become ‘uncool’ and ‘square’ in our society that is addicted to the chimera of the ‘cult of the cool’, the Right is afraid to speak morals. It prefers to talk about success in business, but worship of money isn’t enough. It’s like DEATH OF A SALEMAN. Biff is doomed cuz he was led to believe by his pa that everything will be easy for him if he has faith in the dream, in himself, in materialism. But in fact, Biff never developed the necessary virtues necessary for long-term success. Though we hear of overnight sensations like Mark Zucky of facebook, most businesses require lots of time and effort to show any kind of reward.

    Things have gotten so bad that the elites in places like UK have just given up on their own people. So, the elites(the economic minority of haves) increasingly fear the masses(economic majority of have-nots). And this problem becomes ever more acute since many of the economic elites are Jews who have no feeling for the white masses.
    Since the economic minority fears the rage of the economic majority(native masses), it naturally identifies(to some degree) with ethnic minorities of immigrants and darkies. So, we have the alliance of econo-minority and ethno-minority against the econo-and-ethno-majority of white natives, most of whom are sinking ever more into have-not status. Since the econo-minority of the haves feel morally defensive vis-a-vis the econo-majority of the have-nots(or have-much-less), its only way of gaining moral advantage over the econo-majority is by pretending to protect the ethno-minorities who are supposedly the victims of the ethno-and-econo-majority(and protect homos from ‘homophobes’ who are most prevalent among the lower-middle and working classes).

    And we see something similar in the US. We have the alliance of the econo-minority of globalist elites and the ethno-minority of darkies & immigrants against the econo-and-ethno-majority of the white middle class and white working class.
    When we say ‘minority’, we tend to think of ‘poor non-whites’ or ‘under-privileged blacks or immigrants or illegal immigrants’. But the rich are always a minority, and in order to understand their psychology, we have to probe into their minority-consciousness. Even in a totally homogeneous society, the rich always feel some degree of anxiety since they comprise a minority of have-lots over the have-nots and have-lesses. All throughout history, there have been many cases of mob violence and mass uprisings against the rich and privileged. The rich have always feared the masses, and this is why the rich often relied on middlemen such as the Jews or the vain toadies such as homos.

    Given this sense of minority-anxiety among the rich, it isn’t all too difficult to understand why they feel some degree of affinity with ethnic minorities. Even if rich whites and poor Muslim immigrants have little in common, both groups share a minority status: econo-minority and ethno-minority.
    But the problem is made all the worse because many of the econo-minority elites in the US are Jews who feel deep anxiety about white gentile masses.

    Also, the rise of globo-high-tech favors the geeks. And geeks have a minority-feeling even in a homogeneous society. They were looked down upon as gawky or dorky. They were ignored or bullied in school. But such geeks have the smarts to make it in high-tech and eventually make lots of money. So, geeks see their success in terms of ‘revenge of the nerds’. Since they were picked on for their lack of conventional manhoodery, they naturally come to identify with homos. Geek minority and sexual minority. Most geeks are not homo, but their sense of emasculation vis-a-vis conventional standards of manhood makes them more sympathetic to homos and ethno-minorities(even if ethno-minorities may actually be more into masculine culture).

    What we need is a kind of National Humanism as the basis for a moral neo-fascism. For the Alt Right to gain true legitimacy, it must champion the poor whites in small towns and neglected communities. But unlike leftists who only point to such people as poor hapless victims(this is where Chris Hedges fails big time), the Alt Right must try to make those people realize their moral failings and work at a moral rejuvenation through a reformed consciousness that involves identity, heritage, history, myth, spirituality, true individuality, and community. Alt Right must create a Full Spectrum of modes of consciousness that can frack the minds of lost souls. Fracking is a means of sucking oil out of areas once abandoned as useless. In other words, with the right technique, you can suck oil out even from rocks. As it happens, most white folks in neglected or decaying communities are not the brightest bulbs. But everyone has some spirit and life in him or her, some inner fuel and energy. And if the Alt Right finds the right method of inspiring and instituting new ideas and good habits, it can make good use of many people who’ve been neglected. Better frackheads than crackheads.

    This is where Alt Right can learn from Maoism. Communism is useless, BUT Mao won a lot of respect and credit because he went to the sort of people who’d been neglected, indeed not only by the rich and privileged but by the communist elites who focused only on the cities and the classic proletariat. Mao figured, ‘in a land of peasants, we have to go the peasants.’

    While Alt Right types may be into Nietzsche and all that highfalutin ‘we are so superior stuff’, it can only win true moral validation and credit by showing that it has the power and conviction to heal, fix, change, and turn around the lives of so many whites who’ve lost their ways all across the nation. The combination of degenerate Pop Culture and demented Political Correctness has led to demise of the white soul. While white folks with fancy degrees and good jobs coast on good fortune, many whites(the other half described in COMING APART by Murray) are in decay and death mode(as recent studies have shown that death rates among poor whites have risen dramatically). It is through National Humanism that such people can be reached.

    And if the globo-elites wield the hammer of PC and accuse the Alt Right of filling the minds of poor whites with ‘hate’, the Alt Right should fire back and accuse the Globs of having corrupted, debased, and degraded so many people(especially the vulnerable have-nots) with cultural filth, garbage TV shows, ugly movies, hideous music culture, trashy fashions(like tattoos and body piercing), sexual excess, gluttonous piggery, and other nasty stuff.
    It is by winning over the hearts of the ‘loser whites’ and by helping them to change their lives around that the Alt Right will win genuine moral legitimacy.

    We tend to focus on education as the means to career success, and surely, that aspect of education is very important. But ultimately, the most important kind of education is imbuing people with the kind of knowledge and consciousness that has meaning even when they have lost their materialist standing in society.
    It’s like the Jews were educated in God and heritage. So, even though Jews used education to make money and gain wealth, even when they lost everything, they still had a moral compass because they had God, family, and heritage.

    We need to devise a new form of educational culture that isn’t fixated solely on careerism or materialism. I’m not talking of the kind of fancy-ass education where people learn esoteric stuff just to show off how special they are. Rather, I’m talking of education as a life-long pursuit that instills each person with a sense of history, belonging, direction, and destiny. This kind of education goes beyond school work. It is about knowledge and consciousness beyond the school, something to remember and revisit through all of one’s life.

    It’s like some Jews have two levels of education. There is conventional education where they learn the usual stuff of math and science and general curriculum of social studies and history. It’s the stuff that everyone is taught.
    But Jews have another layer of education apart from school. This comes through the Rabbis, Jewish schools(apart from regular schools), or personal learning through history and texts at home.
    In the long run, which education is more important? For individual career success, surely the education that focuses on science, math, and professional skills matter more. But for a sense of meaning, belonging, identity, heritage, and culture, the instillation of Jewish culture and identity is far more important.

    If a rich Jew keeps his money and loses his identity, he can have a good life. But he has nothing to bestow to his kids but materialism. But if a rich Jew loses his wealth but keeps his identity/heritage of Jewishness, he may not bequeath much to his kids in material terms, but his kids also have a rich sense of identity that goes back 1000s of yrs.

    In the end, cultural education is more important than professional education. Professionalism is all about materialism. If you have material wealth, you have worth, but without wealth, you have zero worth.
    But culturalism imbues you with a sense of worthy beyond material wealth, and in the long run, that kind of mind-set is more important for the empowerment of a people. If all the rich Jews around the world kept their wealth but suffered total amnesia about their Jewish identity, their descendants will eventually just become trashy slaves of mammon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. JackOH says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Mussolini’s core idea was “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
     
    Oswald Mosely, the most (hell, the only) important Fascist in the English-speaking world, said at the end of his life that he'd always been a man of the left. Facism seems rather centrist* to me, but the Anglosphere is pretty reactionary all around, so naturally he'd feel like a lefty.

    *and centrism, increasingly fascist!

    A. James Gregor, a pretty credible academic scholar of Italian Fascism, argues that the experience of WWI decisively turned many onetime Italian Communists away from internationalism and class struggle. Why? Because they saw the obvious upsurge in patriotism among workers upon the outbreak of the War, and no internationalist fellow-feeling. They concluded that Marx’s class didn’t exist, but national solidarity was a powerful, invigorating force.

    My personal feeling is it may be profitable to examine the exact nature of America’s government. I’ve long believed actual governance is reserved to the “Council of 25,000″, referring to Washington’s corporate lobbies, while Congress is permitted interstitial influence, such as pandering to identity hustlers, and the President is allowed his un-Constitutional war-making powers. My point, I think, is I could be dead wrong. But if some sort of American “Patriots’ Front” cropped up that promised to dissolve Congress, would it actually dissolve a substantive, representative assembly? Do we have a sort of “shadow Fascism” that quietly governs as a corporate entity, but will clamp down on anyone who talks in terms of a common, shared American nationality because that would potentially cut into profits?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    A. James Gregor, a pretty credible academic scholar of Italian Fascism, argues that the experience of WWI decisively turned many onetime Italian Communists away from internationalism and class struggle. Why? Because they saw the obvious upsurge in patriotism among workers upon the outbreak of the War, and no internationalist fellow-feeling. They concluded that Marx’s class didn’t exist, but national solidarity was a powerful, invigorating force.
     
    Mussolini, who himself had been a communist until the First World War, even coined a phrase to describe this well-known phenomenon: "Fascism is the socialism of the trenches."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. In response to Mr. Vassilis’s question: No, the National Front was never a fascist organization, before or after 2002. It was organized as a reaction to the French withdrawal from Algeria, not as an extension of the Vichy government or of Jacques Doriot’s Parti Populaire Francais from the 1930s. Although one of the cofounders Trixier-Vignancour had served in the Vichy regime, the more important co-founder Jean Marie Le Pen had volunteered for the French resistance in 1944. Whatever intemperate remark Jean Marie may have uttered after being grilled by left-wing, antifascist journalists, there is nothing that identifies him as a collaborator of Nazi German, unlike the French Communists who acted as Hitler’s lapdogs during the fall of France. Furthermore, there has been nothing in the programs of the Front that would suggest that it is trying to reproduce an interwar fascist state. So there!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {unlike the French Communists who acted as Hitler’s lapdogs during the fall of France. }

    Lying denialist Gottfried lies again: what a surprise.
    Communists were no lapdogs of Hitler.
    Your Turk buddies were.

    {In February, 1944, the Nazi occupation force, preparing to execute 23 members of the French Resistance, slapped copies of a poster on buildings throughout Paris that pictured and identified 10 of the condemned men.
    Not one had a French name: Manouchian, Grzywacz, Elek, Wasjbrot, Witchitz, Fingerweig, Boczov, Fontanot, Alfonso, Rayman. All were immigrants. The Germans identified the leader, Missack Manouchian, as Armenian, and the others as five Polish Jews, two Hungarian Jews, one Italian and one Spaniard. All were Communists.}*

    All were Communists.
    The Germans identified the leader, Missack Manouchian, as an Armenian.
    (good thing your Turk genocidal buddies did not succeed is exterminating all Armenians, Gottfriedoğlu.)

    {There is no hard evidence that the leaders of the party were betrayers....}*
    {For the most part, the accusation was vague and indirect...}*

    {The Communist Party professed satisfaction with the program afterward because all the participants in the debate had agreed that there was no evidence to support the accusation that the party had betrayed the Manouchian group. At the same time, film director Mosco, Jewish leaders and immigrant veterans of the Resistance felt satisfied because the role of the immigrants had finally been made clear.}*


    *
    http://articles.latimes.com/1985-10-25/news/mn-14198_1_french-resistance
    , @Thirdeye
    ".....the French Communists who acted as Hitler’s lapdogs during the fall of France."

    You might want to check on who formed the core of French underground resistance.

    Truth be told, French lapdoggery to Hitler was the rule rather than the exception, even after France had declared "war." They were betting that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union first. They lost their bet.
    , @Vasilis
    Thank you for the unambiguous response.
    I am still not convinced regarding Jean Marie Le Pen and the origins of the National Front, though I reserve judgement for Marine Le Pen. She reminds me of Gianfranco Fini, though now the stakes in Europe are much higher.
    Happy New Year!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @tbraton
    I said nothing in my message about voting for Hillary Clinton. I have no idea how you came up with that preposterous idea.

    BTW you left out the second man GHW Bush faced, Bill Clinton. I voted for GHW twice, in 88 and 92, and his son W once, in 2000. The Iraq War was the deal breaker for me.

    You didn’t print the ballot you’re casting in November, no, I’ll give you that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Drunk? On drugs? Or just mentally ill?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. iffen says:

    unlike the French Communists who acted as Hitler’s lapdogs during the fall of France

    How can we have a decent political argument if you are going to use facts?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  145. tbraton says:
    @Jim Christian
    You didn't print the ballot you're casting in November, no, I'll give you that.

    Drunk? On drugs? Or just mentally ill?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Nope. Just a superb judge of political dishonesty. I recognize a liar when I see one. I came of age in Bill Clinton’s Washington. You’re just like him. I understand Bill voted for GHWB too, just like you did. Great Centrist that Bill Clinton. Hillary too. Just. Like. You.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  147. Avery says:
    @paul gottfried
    In response to Mr. Vassilis's question: No, the National Front was never a fascist organization, before or after 2002. It was organized as a reaction to the French withdrawal from Algeria, not as an extension of the Vichy government or of Jacques Doriot's Parti Populaire Francais from the 1930s. Although one of the cofounders Trixier-Vignancour had served in the Vichy regime, the more important co-founder Jean Marie Le Pen had volunteered for the French resistance in 1944. Whatever intemperate remark Jean Marie may have uttered after being grilled by left-wing, antifascist journalists, there is nothing that identifies him as a collaborator of Nazi German, unlike the French Communists who acted as Hitler's lapdogs during the fall of France. Furthermore, there has been nothing in the programs of the Front that would suggest that it is trying to reproduce an interwar fascist state. So there!

    {unlike the French Communists who acted as Hitler’s lapdogs during the fall of France. }

    Lying denialist Gottfried lies again: what a surprise.
    Communists were no lapdogs of Hitler.
    Your Turk buddies were.

    {In February, 1944, the Nazi occupation force, preparing to execute 23 members of the French Resistance, slapped copies of a poster on buildings throughout Paris that pictured and identified 10 of the condemned men.
    Not one had a French name: Manouchian, Grzywacz, Elek, Wasjbrot, Witchitz, Fingerweig, Boczov, Fontanot, Alfonso, Rayman. All were immigrants. The Germans identified the leader, Missack Manouchian, as Armenian, and the others as five Polish Jews, two Hungarian Jews, one Italian and one Spaniard. All were Communists.}*

    All were Communists.
    The Germans identified the leader, Missack Manouchian, as an Armenian.
    (good thing your Turk genocidal buddies did not succeed is exterminating all Armenians, Gottfriedoğlu.)

    {There is no hard evidence that the leaders of the party were betrayers….}*
    {For the most part, the accusation was vague and indirect…}*

    {The Communist Party professed satisfaction with the program afterward because all the participants in the debate had agreed that there was no evidence to support the accusation that the party had betrayed the Manouchian group. At the same time, film director Mosco, Jewish leaders and immigrant veterans of the Resistance felt satisfied because the role of the immigrants had finally been made clear.}*

    *

    http://articles.latimes.com/1985-10-25/news/mn-14198_1_french-resistance

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    Hitler’s lapdogs during the fall of France.
    ...
    Communists were no lapdogs of Hitler.

     

    "during the fall of France"

    This would be post Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, pre Barborossa timeframe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Thirdeye says:
    @WorkingClass

    I’d say that process started before Clinton. The big symbolic victory for the cultural marxist left over the labor left was the 1968 democratic convention and the sixties more generally.
     
    Interesting you juxtapose cultural Marxist left with labor left. I will never accept any claim that the social justice warriors represent the left. But I agree with your take on the '68 convention. In terms of process you might say it culminated in the Clinton Administration. Its difficult to pinpoint beginnings. They say it all started with a big bang.

    I was among the soldiers from Fort Devens marching in the Saint Patrick's Day parade in Boston in 1968. Instead of dress greens we marched in fatigues with our weapons at shoulder arms. They marched us through Roxbury, a black ghetto, as a show of force for the locals. You may recall the concern about riots in those days. Many of us stuck dandy lions in the mussels of our weapons to indicate our solidarity with the locals and our opposition to the war. Our officers on that day looked the other way. It wasn't just the hippies and McGovern who opposed that disastrous war.

    I’d say that process started before Clinton. The big symbolic victory for the cultural marxist left over the labor left was the 1968 democratic convention and the sixties more generally.

    Wouldn’t that be the 1972 convention that nominated George McGovern? The nascent identity politics “left” did weaken the old line labor Democrats in 1968, but they weakened themselves even more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Thirdeye says:
    @paul gottfried
    In response to Mr. Vassilis's question: No, the National Front was never a fascist organization, before or after 2002. It was organized as a reaction to the French withdrawal from Algeria, not as an extension of the Vichy government or of Jacques Doriot's Parti Populaire Francais from the 1930s. Although one of the cofounders Trixier-Vignancour had served in the Vichy regime, the more important co-founder Jean Marie Le Pen had volunteered for the French resistance in 1944. Whatever intemperate remark Jean Marie may have uttered after being grilled by left-wing, antifascist journalists, there is nothing that identifies him as a collaborator of Nazi German, unlike the French Communists who acted as Hitler's lapdogs during the fall of France. Furthermore, there has been nothing in the programs of the Front that would suggest that it is trying to reproduce an interwar fascist state. So there!

    “…..the French Communists who acted as Hitler’s lapdogs during the fall of France.”

    You might want to check on who formed the core of French underground resistance.

    Truth be told, French lapdoggery to Hitler was the rule rather than the exception, even after France had declared “war.” They were betting that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union first. They lost their bet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. This last commentator, who seems to confuse me with a Young Turk, did not read my commentary very carefully. I did not say that the French Communists never fought against Nazi Germany. They simply didn’t lift a finger to do so and urged French soldiers not to fight as long as their Soviet masters were allied to Hitler. That relation ended after the Soviet Union was invaded by German armies in 1941, after the fall of France.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Daladier outlawed the PCF at the outbreak of the war and imprisoned whatever leadership there was that didn't go underground. Not exactly a formula for gaining their support for the war effort, wouldn't you say?

    Between June 1940 and June 1941, the PCF split into factions that advocated organized resistance to the occupation and those that adhered to the word of Stalin. That same "Hitler's lapdog" PCF refrained from organizing as an independent political force so as not to upset the allies during the liberation of France - again following Stalin.

    Other than the aborted incursion in late 1939, France didn't do more than just posture before they were invaded. Bottom line, the French were more concerned about how war would affect their personal fortunes than anything else. The French Right even welcomed the fall as they saw it aiding the elimination of their political enemies.

    If Jean Marie's volunteering with the resistance in 1944 is significant, isn't volunteering with the resistance in 1941 even more significant?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Vasilis says:
    @paul gottfried
    In response to Mr. Vassilis's question: No, the National Front was never a fascist organization, before or after 2002. It was organized as a reaction to the French withdrawal from Algeria, not as an extension of the Vichy government or of Jacques Doriot's Parti Populaire Francais from the 1930s. Although one of the cofounders Trixier-Vignancour had served in the Vichy regime, the more important co-founder Jean Marie Le Pen had volunteered for the French resistance in 1944. Whatever intemperate remark Jean Marie may have uttered after being grilled by left-wing, antifascist journalists, there is nothing that identifies him as a collaborator of Nazi German, unlike the French Communists who acted as Hitler's lapdogs during the fall of France. Furthermore, there has been nothing in the programs of the Front that would suggest that it is trying to reproduce an interwar fascist state. So there!

    Thank you for the unambiguous response.
    I am still not convinced regarding Jean Marie Le Pen and the origins of the National Front, though I reserve judgement for Marine Le Pen. She reminds me of Gianfranco Fini, though now the stakes in Europe are much higher.
    Happy New Year!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I think if someone wanted to get a sense of Jean-Marie Le Pen's generation, one could do worse than have a look at the films of Pierre Schoendoerffer. I just re-watched his Drummer Crab ( Le Crabe-Tambour) this morning and it stands up very well. Schoendoerffer and Le Pen belong to that generation too young for WW2 but old enough for the wars in Indochina and Algeria. That's what shaped them, not Vichy.

    If you'd like to see what the real heirs of the Fascists are getting up to, check out the videos posted at YouTube by Casapound Italia, especially the ones of their youth wing, the Blocco Studentesco. Now that's neo-Fascism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. map says:

    The fascist charge is not merely dog-whistling. To leftists, a fascist is someone as willing to use the government against the left as the left is willing to use the government against everyone else. That is the fascism leftists fear: someone coming out and telling them the jig is up.

    Bill Clinton was never a centrist. Clinton was the beginning of the Democrat war against whites, starting with NAFTA and ending with Waco and Ruby Ridge. Clinton was basically the incarnation of the modern High-Low strategy against the White Middle Class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kirt Higdon
    Ruby Ridge took place near the end of the Bush,Sr. regime and Waco near the beginning of the Clinton regime. NAFTA, mainly negotiated by Bush,Sr. before Waco, was ratified and became law under Clinton, though the ratification vote in both House and Senate came more from Republicans than Democrats. I'm no partisan of Clinton, but how was he (or how is his wife) different from either Bush?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. alexander says:
    @iffen
    I value liberty, justice, peace and prosperity and will work with anyone who can advance those causes.

    Great values, too bad you are pretty much by yourself.

    Hi iffen,

    Your ‘remark on Workingclass’s …Great values..”.liberty , justice, peace and prosperity.”….

    must make you a true, dyed in the wool “Neoconservative”…who ,no doubt, espouses

    ” repression, injustice, war and insolvency”as the essential characteristics of a healthy society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    No. It was a sincere and straightforward comment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @JackOH
    A. James Gregor, a pretty credible academic scholar of Italian Fascism, argues that the experience of WWI decisively turned many onetime Italian Communists away from internationalism and class struggle. Why? Because they saw the obvious upsurge in patriotism among workers upon the outbreak of the War, and no internationalist fellow-feeling. They concluded that Marx's class didn't exist, but national solidarity was a powerful, invigorating force.

    My personal feeling is it may be profitable to examine the exact nature of America's government. I've long believed actual governance is reserved to the "Council of 25,000", referring to Washington's corporate lobbies, while Congress is permitted interstitial influence, such as pandering to identity hustlers, and the President is allowed his un-Constitutional war-making powers. My point, I think, is I could be dead wrong. But if some sort of American "Patriots' Front" cropped up that promised to dissolve Congress, would it actually dissolve a substantive, representative assembly? Do we have a sort of "shadow Fascism" that quietly governs as a corporate entity, but will clamp down on anyone who talks in terms of a common, shared American nationality because that would potentially cut into profits?

    A. James Gregor, a pretty credible academic scholar of Italian Fascism, argues that the experience of WWI decisively turned many onetime Italian Communists away from internationalism and class struggle. Why? Because they saw the obvious upsurge in patriotism among workers upon the outbreak of the War, and no internationalist fellow-feeling. They concluded that Marx’s class didn’t exist, but national solidarity was a powerful, invigorating force.

    Mussolini, who himself had been a communist until the First World War, even coined a phrase to describe this well-known phenomenon: “Fascism is the socialism of the trenches.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Thanks, Seamus. I'd forgotten that quip, which seems to sum up the idea that the fascist state assigns a big, formal place to ties of common heritage, shared sacrifice, common blood, etc., and, implicitly, that economic interests and formalized individual rights are more bounded than, say, in an idealized America.

    Reg Caesar's post mentioning Oswald Mosley had me thinking of Mosley's sad observation in his memoir, which was something to the effect that the best aspirations of fascism and national socialism died in WWII. No one bothers to think that both ideas were onetime models for the politics of national revival.

    My second paragraph is just me doing some head-scratching, wondering whether the U. S. has lurched into some jive-time, circumstantial "half-Fascism" where the economic entities and specialized factions enjoy all the benefits of their partnerships with the state, meaningful civil liberties are a fraction of what they were, and, at the same time, the government cracks down on expressions of social solidarity. (Try to imagine a Hitlerism run for the sole benefit of Daimler-Benz and its corporate buds, and cracks down on unemployed workers wanting a job or folk-style festivals dedicated to Arminius and what-not.)

    Thanks again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. iffen says:
    @alexander
    Hi iffen,

    Your 'remark on Workingclass's ...Great values..".liberty , justice, peace and prosperity."....

    must make you a true, dyed in the wool "Neoconservative"...who ,no doubt, espouses

    " repression, injustice, war and insolvency"as the essential characteristics of a healthy society.

    No. It was a sincere and straightforward comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Avery
    {unlike the French Communists who acted as Hitler’s lapdogs during the fall of France. }

    Lying denialist Gottfried lies again: what a surprise.
    Communists were no lapdogs of Hitler.
    Your Turk buddies were.

    {In February, 1944, the Nazi occupation force, preparing to execute 23 members of the French Resistance, slapped copies of a poster on buildings throughout Paris that pictured and identified 10 of the condemned men.
    Not one had a French name: Manouchian, Grzywacz, Elek, Wasjbrot, Witchitz, Fingerweig, Boczov, Fontanot, Alfonso, Rayman. All were immigrants. The Germans identified the leader, Missack Manouchian, as Armenian, and the others as five Polish Jews, two Hungarian Jews, one Italian and one Spaniard. All were Communists.}*

    All were Communists.
    The Germans identified the leader, Missack Manouchian, as an Armenian.
    (good thing your Turk genocidal buddies did not succeed is exterminating all Armenians, Gottfriedoğlu.)

    {There is no hard evidence that the leaders of the party were betrayers....}*
    {For the most part, the accusation was vague and indirect...}*

    {The Communist Party professed satisfaction with the program afterward because all the participants in the debate had agreed that there was no evidence to support the accusation that the party had betrayed the Manouchian group. At the same time, film director Mosco, Jewish leaders and immigrant veterans of the Resistance felt satisfied because the role of the immigrants had finally been made clear.}*


    *
    http://articles.latimes.com/1985-10-25/news/mn-14198_1_french-resistance

    Hitler’s lapdogs during the fall of France.

    Communists were no lapdogs of Hitler.

    “during the fall of France”

    This would be post Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, pre Barborossa timeframe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @map
    The fascist charge is not merely dog-whistling. To leftists, a fascist is someone as willing to use the government against the left as the left is willing to use the government against everyone else. That is the fascism leftists fear: someone coming out and telling them the jig is up.

    Bill Clinton was never a centrist. Clinton was the beginning of the Democrat war against whites, starting with NAFTA and ending with Waco and Ruby Ridge. Clinton was basically the incarnation of the modern High-Low strategy against the White Middle Class.

    Ruby Ridge took place near the end of the Bush,Sr. regime and Waco near the beginning of the Clinton regime. NAFTA, mainly negotiated by Bush,Sr. before Waco, was ratified and became law under Clinton, though the ratification vote in both House and Senate came more from Republicans than Democrats. I’m no partisan of Clinton, but how was he (or how is his wife) different from either Bush?

    Read More
    • Replies: @map
    Waco occurred under Bill Clinton's and Janet Reno's watch.

    Ruby Ridge did not.

    But Waco occurred under the watch of the same FBI officials that fouled up Ruby Ridge, even after internal investigations put the actions of those officials under scrutiny.

    Why didn't Clinton and Reno have those officials removed before Waco occurred?

    Clinton didn't veto the NAFTA bill, which he could have. The result was his responsibility.

    I don't care about how similar Clinton was compared to Bush. Clinton was very different from Reagan and Clinton was very different from traditional Democrats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. JackOH says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    A. James Gregor, a pretty credible academic scholar of Italian Fascism, argues that the experience of WWI decisively turned many onetime Italian Communists away from internationalism and class struggle. Why? Because they saw the obvious upsurge in patriotism among workers upon the outbreak of the War, and no internationalist fellow-feeling. They concluded that Marx’s class didn’t exist, but national solidarity was a powerful, invigorating force.
     
    Mussolini, who himself had been a communist until the First World War, even coined a phrase to describe this well-known phenomenon: "Fascism is the socialism of the trenches."

    Thanks, Seamus. I’d forgotten that quip, which seems to sum up the idea that the fascist state assigns a big, formal place to ties of common heritage, shared sacrifice, common blood, etc., and, implicitly, that economic interests and formalized individual rights are more bounded than, say, in an idealized America.

    Reg Caesar’s post mentioning Oswald Mosley had me thinking of Mosley’s sad observation in his memoir, which was something to the effect that the best aspirations of fascism and national socialism died in WWII. No one bothers to think that both ideas were onetime models for the politics of national revival.

    My second paragraph is just me doing some head-scratching, wondering whether the U. S. has lurched into some jive-time, circumstantial “half-Fascism” where the economic entities and specialized factions enjoy all the benefits of their partnerships with the state, meaningful civil liberties are a fraction of what they were, and, at the same time, the government cracks down on expressions of social solidarity. (Try to imagine a Hitlerism run for the sole benefit of Daimler-Benz and its corporate buds, and cracks down on unemployed workers wanting a job or folk-style festivals dedicated to Arminius and what-not.)

    Thanks again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Vasilis
    Thank you for the unambiguous response.
    I am still not convinced regarding Jean Marie Le Pen and the origins of the National Front, though I reserve judgement for Marine Le Pen. She reminds me of Gianfranco Fini, though now the stakes in Europe are much higher.
    Happy New Year!

    I think if someone wanted to get a sense of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s generation, one could do worse than have a look at the films of Pierre Schoendoerffer. I just re-watched his Drummer Crab ( Le Crabe-Tambour) this morning and it stands up very well. Schoendoerffer and Le Pen belong to that generation too young for WW2 but old enough for the wars in Indochina and Algeria. That’s what shaped them, not Vichy.

    If you’d like to see what the real heirs of the Fascists are getting up to, check out the videos posted at YouTube by Casapound Italia, especially the ones of their youth wing, the Blocco Studentesco. Now that’s neo-Fascism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. map says:
    @Kirt Higdon
    Ruby Ridge took place near the end of the Bush,Sr. regime and Waco near the beginning of the Clinton regime. NAFTA, mainly negotiated by Bush,Sr. before Waco, was ratified and became law under Clinton, though the ratification vote in both House and Senate came more from Republicans than Democrats. I'm no partisan of Clinton, but how was he (or how is his wife) different from either Bush?

    Waco occurred under Bill Clinton’s and Janet Reno’s watch.

    Ruby Ridge did not.

    But Waco occurred under the watch of the same FBI officials that fouled up Ruby Ridge, even after internal investigations put the actions of those officials under scrutiny.

    Why didn’t Clinton and Reno have those officials removed before Waco occurred?

    Clinton didn’t veto the NAFTA bill, which he could have. The result was his responsibility.

    I don’t care about how similar Clinton was compared to Bush. Clinton was very different from Reagan and Clinton was very different from traditional Democrats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Thirdeye says:
    @paul gottfried
    This last commentator, who seems to confuse me with a Young Turk, did not read my commentary very carefully. I did not say that the French Communists never fought against Nazi Germany. They simply didn't lift a finger to do so and urged French soldiers not to fight as long as their Soviet masters were allied to Hitler. That relation ended after the Soviet Union was invaded by German armies in 1941, after the fall of France.

    Daladier outlawed the PCF at the outbreak of the war and imprisoned whatever leadership there was that didn’t go underground. Not exactly a formula for gaining their support for the war effort, wouldn’t you say?

    Between June 1940 and June 1941, the PCF split into factions that advocated organized resistance to the occupation and those that adhered to the word of Stalin. That same “Hitler’s lapdog” PCF refrained from organizing as an independent political force so as not to upset the allies during the liberation of France – again following Stalin.

    Other than the aborted incursion in late 1939, France didn’t do more than just posture before they were invaded. Bottom line, the French were more concerned about how war would affect their personal fortunes than anything else. The French Right even welcomed the fall as they saw it aiding the elimination of their political enemies.

    If Jean Marie’s volunteering with the resistance in 1944 is significant, isn’t volunteering with the resistance in 1941 even more significant?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    If Jean Marie’s volunteering with the resistance in 1944 is significant, isn’t volunteering with the resistance in 1941 even more significant?

    Jean-Marie Le Pen was 13 in 1941.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Thirdeye
    Daladier outlawed the PCF at the outbreak of the war and imprisoned whatever leadership there was that didn't go underground. Not exactly a formula for gaining their support for the war effort, wouldn't you say?

    Between June 1940 and June 1941, the PCF split into factions that advocated organized resistance to the occupation and those that adhered to the word of Stalin. That same "Hitler's lapdog" PCF refrained from organizing as an independent political force so as not to upset the allies during the liberation of France - again following Stalin.

    Other than the aborted incursion in late 1939, France didn't do more than just posture before they were invaded. Bottom line, the French were more concerned about how war would affect their personal fortunes than anything else. The French Right even welcomed the fall as they saw it aiding the elimination of their political enemies.

    If Jean Marie's volunteering with the resistance in 1944 is significant, isn't volunteering with the resistance in 1941 even more significant?

    If Jean Marie’s volunteering with the resistance in 1944 is significant, isn’t volunteering with the resistance in 1941 even more significant?

    Jean-Marie Le Pen was 13 in 1941.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    According to the Wiki, Le Pen was turned down by the FFI in 1944. The colonel who turned him down was a Communist. While the statement that Le Pen volunteered for the resistance is technically correct, it is deceptive in leaving the impression that he actually served in the resistance. Trying to make a case that French Rightists were less collaborationist than the PCF on the basis of Le Pen's unsuccessful attempt to join the resistance strikes me as extreme cherry picking, especially when one of the founders of FN served in the Vichy regime and one faction of the Monarchist group Action Francaise, which Le Pen later joined, was definitely collaborationist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Thirdeye says:
    @Cagey Beast
    If Jean Marie’s volunteering with the resistance in 1944 is significant, isn’t volunteering with the resistance in 1941 even more significant?

    Jean-Marie Le Pen was 13 in 1941.

    According to the Wiki, Le Pen was turned down by the FFI in 1944. The colonel who turned him down was a Communist. While the statement that Le Pen volunteered for the resistance is technically correct, it is deceptive in leaving the impression that he actually served in the resistance. Trying to make a case that French Rightists were less collaborationist than the PCF on the basis of Le Pen’s unsuccessful attempt to join the resistance strikes me as extreme cherry picking, especially when one of the founders of FN served in the Vichy regime and one faction of the Monarchist group Action Francaise, which Le Pen later joined, was definitely collaborationist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast

    Trying to make a case that French Rightists were less collaborationist than the PCF on the basis of Le Pen’s unsuccessful attempt to join the resistance strikes me as extreme cherry picking ...


    I don't think anyone here is trying to do that, we're determining what a 16yr old Jean-Marie Le Pen did during the Occupation; which seems more than a little fetishistic. It's only from our Nazi obsessed time that we measure all things in relation to Hitler. Was a teenage J-M Le Pen sufficiently anti-Hitler? Is defunct political party A farther from Hitler than defunct party B? How many hitlers tall is the Eiffel Tower?

    Listen, French politics were profoundly shaken up by the Algerian War. New alliances and schisms came from it. Former members of the Free French, like Hélie de Saint Marc, found themselves imprisoned for a failed putsch against de Gaulle while former Vichy police chiefs like Maurice Papon rehabilitated themselves by cracking down on Algerians in Paris with lethal force.

    Trying to figure out Jean-Marie Le Pen and the modern Front National by trying to measure their distance from the Vichy regime - and without taking the Algerian War into account - would be like trying to figure out Russia while assuming nothing much of importance has happened there since Stalin died.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Thirdeye
    According to the Wiki, Le Pen was turned down by the FFI in 1944. The colonel who turned him down was a Communist. While the statement that Le Pen volunteered for the resistance is technically correct, it is deceptive in leaving the impression that he actually served in the resistance. Trying to make a case that French Rightists were less collaborationist than the PCF on the basis of Le Pen's unsuccessful attempt to join the resistance strikes me as extreme cherry picking, especially when one of the founders of FN served in the Vichy regime and one faction of the Monarchist group Action Francaise, which Le Pen later joined, was definitely collaborationist.


    Trying to make a case that French Rightists were less collaborationist than the PCF on the basis of Le Pen’s unsuccessful attempt to join the resistance strikes me as extreme cherry picking …

    I don’t think anyone here is trying to do that, we’re determining what a 16yr old Jean-Marie Le Pen did during the Occupation; which seems more than a little fetishistic. It’s only from our Nazi obsessed time that we measure all things in relation to Hitler. Was a teenage J-M Le Pen sufficiently anti-Hitler? Is defunct political party A farther from Hitler than defunct party B? How many hitlers tall is the Eiffel Tower?

    Listen, French politics were profoundly shaken up by the Algerian War. New alliances and schisms came from it. Former members of the Free French, like Hélie de Saint Marc, found themselves imprisoned for a failed putsch against de Gaulle while former Vichy police chiefs like Maurice Papon rehabilitated themselves by cracking down on Algerians in Paris with lethal force.

    Trying to figure out Jean-Marie Le Pen and the modern Front National by trying to measure their distance from the Vichy regime – and without taking the Algerian War into account – would be like trying to figure out Russia while assuming nothing much of importance has happened there since Stalin died.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    I agree with what you say. The markers of what's "right" and "left" can become meaningless when comparing different eras. Economic nationalism was "left" in the postcolonial world, although it contradicted the purist "left" doctrine of internationalism. Economic nationalism was "right" in the industrialized nations, although the foundation for that association has been undermined by the neoliberal model that regards the world as one big colony for an international financial elite. Ethnic nationalism has traditionally been "right" although a version of it, racial essentialism, has been promoted by the American faux-left since the late 1960s. The white identity movement has always been far right, although it is entirely logical to compare it to racial essentialism among American minorities. Translate "Viva La Raza" and you've got a wonderful slogan for the white identity movement. We've got a situation now where the American faux-left embraces some ethnic nationalism opportunistically, yet rejects economic nationalism as equivalent to ethnic nationalism. Economic nationalism has been conceded to the right for no good reason and now everyone's squirming when its most visible promoter is Donald Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Thirdeye says:
    @Cagey Beast

    Trying to make a case that French Rightists were less collaborationist than the PCF on the basis of Le Pen’s unsuccessful attempt to join the resistance strikes me as extreme cherry picking ...


    I don't think anyone here is trying to do that, we're determining what a 16yr old Jean-Marie Le Pen did during the Occupation; which seems more than a little fetishistic. It's only from our Nazi obsessed time that we measure all things in relation to Hitler. Was a teenage J-M Le Pen sufficiently anti-Hitler? Is defunct political party A farther from Hitler than defunct party B? How many hitlers tall is the Eiffel Tower?

    Listen, French politics were profoundly shaken up by the Algerian War. New alliances and schisms came from it. Former members of the Free French, like Hélie de Saint Marc, found themselves imprisoned for a failed putsch against de Gaulle while former Vichy police chiefs like Maurice Papon rehabilitated themselves by cracking down on Algerians in Paris with lethal force.

    Trying to figure out Jean-Marie Le Pen and the modern Front National by trying to measure their distance from the Vichy regime - and without taking the Algerian War into account - would be like trying to figure out Russia while assuming nothing much of importance has happened there since Stalin died.

    I agree with what you say. The markers of what’s “right” and “left” can become meaningless when comparing different eras. Economic nationalism was “left” in the postcolonial world, although it contradicted the purist “left” doctrine of internationalism. Economic nationalism was “right” in the industrialized nations, although the foundation for that association has been undermined by the neoliberal model that regards the world as one big colony for an international financial elite. Ethnic nationalism has traditionally been “right” although a version of it, racial essentialism, has been promoted by the American faux-left since the late 1960s. The white identity movement has always been far right, although it is entirely logical to compare it to racial essentialism among American minorities. Translate “Viva La Raza” and you’ve got a wonderful slogan for the white identity movement. We’ve got a situation now where the American faux-left embraces some ethnic nationalism opportunistically, yet rejects economic nationalism as equivalent to ethnic nationalism. Economic nationalism has been conceded to the right for no good reason and now everyone’s squirming when its most visible promoter is Donald Trump.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. IA says:
    @hello.tulip
    Paul Gottfried is spot on in this essay. However, the question is how to create an authentic nationalist party that is competitive in a national election. There are plenty of pissed off hard scrabble white people who are sick of being told how privileged they are when they can't even afford to take their kids to the dentist. They are, in themselves, the single biggest group of potential voters in the entire electorate, given the pyramid principle. But that is not enough to win a national election, even in terms of votes, and you need allies in business and ideally some donors if you want to build the party.

    As far as the state of the right, you either have these Koch brother neoliberal tomfoolery policies (like privatizing social security and open borders) that no one who is not on Wall Street or paid by Wall Street wants. However, if you go over to alt-right land, all you find is white supremacy and Jew baiting. Granted, America is a majority white country, but most whites are not white nationalists, even by a long-shot. The only voting group in the GOP that is close to tribal are the Mormons (GOP has greater than 70% turn-out). If you are looking for the tribal vote, look at who turns out for Democratic candidates. I understand some people want to form a "white tribe" but most whites are not in the least interested in being in a tribe, and hostile to the very idea. It's great if you want to move to Idaho and be some kind of extremist, but it is no recipe to win a national election.

    I think Le Pen is doing a decent job of putting together a credible political movement with a mass voting base, and if she stays in the 40's, eventually the voters will put them in power. The Establishment can only whip up the masses with xenophobia so many times, before familiarity takes over and the average voter is not afraid to vote for the strange new political party (new at least since Marine Le Pen gave it a face lift).

    In contrast, given Karl Rove's strategy, and the dominance of corporate donors, who seem to place the value of cheap labor over the value of a long-term viable political party, the GOP on the national level is looking like an endangered species. Its funny, but pundits like George Will don't seem to get it. The neo-cons are pretty good at tactically changing sides, so they will have jobs backing corporate Dems, but most of Conservative Inc. will sink like the Titanic once the GOP is no longer competitive in national elections.

    but most whites are not in the least interested in being in a tribe

    Not a question of being interested or not. In the coming conflict they will be forced to pick which side they are on. In fact, Frankenegro and Islam will make fence-sitting more and more uncomfortable for the Eloi. If they weren’t so violent they could have dhimmified Europeans without them even noticing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. IA says:

    The white identity movement has always been far right

    German National Socialism was far right?

    You evidently don’t read white identity web sites like Radix, New Alternative Right, Social Matters, Jack Donovan and many others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Whatever German National Socialism was, it wasn't a white identity movement that proceeded on the basis of fury at the behavior and politics of a hostile, feral, Negro underclass.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Trump is showing up what a farce Republican presidential “races” have become in recent elections.

    First an establishment candidate is selected. Let us call him, um, Romney. Then a number of other figures are invited to participate in the traveling stage show, but like the majority of contestants in the Ms. Universe contest, they are just there to make up the numbers. Some of them will have been offered other minor offices as a reward for their participation, others will just be pleased to get the name recognition.

    There has to be a woman, a black guy, and a a selection of governors from Republican strongholds around the nation. There will be a Hispanic or two, a Catholic, a New Englander, a Hillbilly, a Southerner, and someone from California.

    The black guy will be allowed to act as pacemaker for the first few furlongs of this horse race, but will inevitably drop out when the sexual allegations are released. The woman will get the attention of a few male voters who would not otherwise have paid attention if she has nice legs, and will remind women that their daughters could become lawyers too.

    But this is not a real contest. Coming into the final straight the candidate with the Wall St. money riding on him will pull away and pass the winning post easing up. Just a training gallop for the big one later on.

    Now this year, along comes Trump and enters the race without being invited, much to the chagrin of those who had arranged for Bush Mk. III to win the warm up race in a canter. Even worse, he gives the electorate the impression that he might do something about some of the things that affect their lives.

    It is almost as if we lived in some kind of a democracy where people who had different ideas and points of view could run for political office.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. alexander says:

    Good comment Mr Mason,

    Our candidates all come” pre-packaged” for us……they seem to function as little much more than” finger puppets” for the “invisible hand” in the back room.

    As though the entire trajectory of the country for the next four years, has already been scripted….no matter who the people choose as their candidate..or, for that matter, as the next President.

    Every election cycle…the” illusion “that it might actually make a” difference”..who we pick…is falling away…..and the reality that it makes “No” difference ..at all..sadly becoming the truth of the matter.

    As far as “independent” thinkers go, with the exception of Mr Trump (as you say), it is a pretty sad stable of candidates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  170. @Andrew Nichols
    For goodness sake - there's still Sanders - probably the only candidate who would be regarded as normal anywhere else on the planet.

    Bernie Sanders is as eager to give amnesty to illegal aliens as any other Democrat. That makes him a nonstarter in my book. I do give him credit for being an honest socialist, unbought by the usual buyers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. chris says:
    @Eye of Soros, Armand Hammer
    Trump is belligerent? Against the cucks, traitors and scum who have been destroying this country for over half a century. I'd prefer a firing squad but if all I can get is belligerence I'll take it.

    brilliant comment to this article, or just in general !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. chris says:

    Thanks for a brilliant article, Dr. Gottfried !

    I was very surprised to be able to take solace in your comment: “If the result of Trump’s rude break-in at the Republican country club is the election of Hillary Clinton as president, I certainly wont‘t weep.” I guess I won’t either; I just needed to hear someone say that in order to accept it, Thanks !

    As far as her beating Trump in the election, there is of course also the camouflaged elephant in the room – just like in France where the CIA and NSA are collaborating with the french secret service to undermine the LePen campaign, they are surely planning to do that to the Trump campaign, here; which would then surely hand the victory to Ms Rodham.

    Fortunately, it will take her no time to entangle herself in endless scandals which will make her presidency a complete (and needles to say an endlessly entertaining) disaster. She will then do what all Clintons do in such situations and start a war; probably with Iran. But this would only happen later then it would have under comparable Republican administrations so no net loss there.

    Maybe that is the best outcome we can expect out of the situation, the destruction of the Republican and Democratic parties in succession.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  173. Ace says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Mussolini’s core idea was “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
     
    Oswald Mosely, the most (hell, the only) important Fascist in the English-speaking world, said at the end of his life that he'd always been a man of the left. Facism seems rather centrist* to me, but the Anglosphere is pretty reactionary all around, so naturally he'd feel like a lefty.

    *and centrism, increasingly fascist!

    The Wikipedia entry for Mussolini indicates that fascism was seen as a “third way” in that it was both revolutionary and traditionalist. Perhaps that is what strikes you centrist about Mosley.

    However, fascism can hardly be said to make representative government one of its key tenets. It’s authoritarian nature locates it on the left in my view. If one advocates coercive methods, one’s particular goals are irrelevant to the analysis. If I use those methods to advance the class struggle or the advancement of traditional Italian culture, I am still a leftist.

    I see the Anglosphere is hopelessly enmired in the sappiest and most destructive fantasies of the left. I would be ecstatic if there were anything remotely reactionary in it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    If I use those methods to advance the class struggle or the advancement of traditional Italian culture, I am still a leftist.
     
    So protecting and preserving traditional culture is now leftist? What are you? A libertarian or something?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Ace says:
    @Vasilis
    Ace, American and European perspectives on fascism differ vastly, mainly because much of Europe has gone through fascism at some point, while the US has not. I suspect that our main difference is just that I have lived in Europe for over 3 decades. In the United States liberty, equality, brotherhood, work, family and country are six great things that we all can cheer for. In France "Travail, Famille, Patrie” was the slogan of the Petain government that collaborated with with the German occupation during WW2 and it was presented as an alternative to the republican “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, which the Free French and De Gaulle fought for. In France it is not lets have all six, it is either/or. I do understand that this is not widely known or understood in the United States, but if you do not take it into account you cannot understand what is happening in France.

    Fascism in mid war Europe was greatly assisted by opposition to communism, but the anti-parliamentarian roots of fascism predate the Bolshevik revolution. I consider exactly this anti-parliamentarian stand as the basic characteristic of fascism, the rest is in my opinion either ornamental or circumstantial of that period. To put it in another way, communism was a great step forward from democracy that led to a deep fall down a sheer cliff, while fascism was a step back from democracy that made sense for some people only as long as communism was a clear and present threat. Both can still make great talking points though, especially if you do not have to actually apply them and answer to the public for their results.

    As for Marine Le Pen, I reserve judgement. Her party has fascist origins, but she may have seen the futility of her father's position and may be sincerely seeking to transform it into a parliamentarian right wing party. Her intentions remain to be seen. You correctly include her positions on the EU and Europe as fundamental, she did not win this victory on the issue of immigration alone. Her main issue at this time is if France will be an independent country or not, which makes her position very strong with the French public.

    In any case though, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump, he is the totally different product of a totally different political system and that was the main point of my initial post.

    ,

    Thank you.

    I’ll not claim great insight into European politics which I think have much more of an affinity with authoritarianism. Not for nothing is “dirigisme” a French word. The great movie “The Sorrow and the Pity” (everything I know is from the movies!) indicated that before WWII Europeans believed that “democracy” had failed and that the choice was only between fascism and communism. Hardly a baseless belief with the streets of Russian and Europe veritably awash with thugs, private armies, and secret police organizations. The Weimar Republic was the veritable poster child for ineffective government.

    I defer to your personal experience of European politics but to me the distinction between “Travail, Famille, Patrie” and “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” is meaningless. If people lined up behind Petain or De Gaulle surely it had to be for some more substantive reason, with these slogans merely functioning as rallying flags.

    As I commented elsewhere here today, fascism was seen as a third way and fear of communism was a major reason why fascists flourished as they did. There weren’t a lot of good options and, anyway, the street thugs that served either movement discouraged, shall we say, multiparty experiment. (Just as AntiFa thugs today serve as the unofficial enforcement arm of the German government and other European governments.) Again, I don’t see that there’s anything to the idea that certain parties stepped forward from democracy or stepped back from it. Authoritarianism was in vogue and, alas, the E.U. shows that it is still very much alive today.

    I am not much for “rootsism,” a la the FN’s supposed “fascist origins.” All the more so because of the leftist tactic of trying to tar the patriotic parties with the neo-Nazi or fascist label. I’ll get excited about such (putative) origins when the left has a conniption fit over the Maoist history of European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso; and Merkel’s past as a communist functionary and child of a pastor father clearly in the service of the Stasi; and the past membership in an underground Commie terrorist groups Revolutionärer Kampf and Putzgruppe of Joschka Fischer, former German Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister; among other examples of people who have wallowed in all the pathologies of socialism and communism.

    One last point on Marine Le Pen. As is customary with the left, every effort is made to locate her and the FN on the right but someone else has stated that the party’s platform is indistinguishable from any garden variety socialist party. That only makes sense if one notes how firmly committed most Europeans are to the welfare state. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think John Derbyshire proposed that the left-right distinction is essentially history and that the real division is between nationalists and nativists on one side and globalists and diversity idiots on the other. Not quite his words but you get the point. :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Ace
    The Wikipedia entry for Mussolini indicates that fascism was seen as a "third way" in that it was both revolutionary and traditionalist. Perhaps that is what strikes you centrist about Mosley.

    However, fascism can hardly be said to make representative government one of its key tenets. It's authoritarian nature locates it on the left in my view. If one advocates coercive methods, one's particular goals are irrelevant to the analysis. If I use those methods to advance the class struggle or the advancement of traditional Italian culture, I am still a leftist.

    I see the Anglosphere is hopelessly enmired in the sappiest and most destructive fantasies of the left. I would be ecstatic if there were anything remotely reactionary in it.

    If I use those methods to advance the class struggle or the advancement of traditional Italian culture, I am still a leftist.

    So protecting and preserving traditional culture is now leftist? What are you? A libertarian or something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    The key words, Mr. Padraig, are "coercive methods."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Ace says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    If I use those methods to advance the class struggle or the advancement of traditional Italian culture, I am still a leftist.
     
    So protecting and preserving traditional culture is now leftist? What are you? A libertarian or something?

    The key words, Mr. Padraig, are “coercive methods.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Ace says:
    @IA

    The white identity movement has always been far right
     
    German National Socialism was far right?

    You evidently don't read white identity web sites like Radix, New Alternative Right, Social Matters, Jack Donovan and many others.

    Whatever German National Socialism was, it wasn’t a white identity movement that proceeded on the basis of fury at the behavior and politics of a hostile, feral, Negro underclass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. The idea that the “Murdoch” media is against Donald Trump is absurd – from the start of the Primary campaign Donald Trump has been treated as a hero figure by “Fox and Friends” in the morning to “Hannity” in the evening.

    And the idea that only “neocons” are against Mr Trump is also absurd. Mr Trump has never met a government spending scheme he did not like, and opposes free trade – not because NAFTA and so on are not close enough to free trade (not because of the regulations and so on in NAFTA) , but because they are too close to free trade. Mr Trump wants to use the power of government against any business owner he does not like (for example his threats of “Anti Trust”against the owner of Amazon books – because Mr Trump does not like what is written in the Washington Post) – what is this Putin Lite?

    Was Barry Goldwater a “neocon”? What about William F. Buckley? Or Ronald Reagan? This article is part of a attempt to destroy traditional American limited government conservatism and replace it with European style nationalism (indeed Fascism – and NO Paul Gottfried everyone is NOT a Fascist). The movement of Barry Goldwater and Joe Foss will not become the movement of Carl Schimtt. Fascism and National Socialism will not replace Anglo American conservatism. The ideas of Edmund Burke and Winston Churchill will continue to defeat the ideas of Fascism and National Socialism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
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 Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS