The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Publius Decius Mus Archive
Toward a Sensible, Coherent Trumpism
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

At the time of this writing, Donald Trump is in a commanding position to win the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Naturally, Trump’s legions of enemies in what used to be called the “conservative movement” are flailing and despondent. They should be. Trump has, for now, more than revived his momentarily flagging campaign. And even if he is eventually defeated at the polls, this win boosts the chances that his ideas—if we may use such a lofty term for Trump’s as-yet unformed and instinct-driven platform—will outlive his candidacy. Trump’s run has opened the way, for the first time in more than a generation, toward progress and return—progress beyond ossified ideologies, and return to a superior understanding of man, politics, America and the West itself.



Trump is, in the decisive sense, more conservative than the entire conservative establishment. Unlike them, he is actually trying to conserve something bigger than his job and status: namely, the American nation. Yet “Trumpism” needs something Trump himself cannot provide. John Derbyshire praises Trump’s “gut conservatism” as a welcome relief from the failures of the intellectual class. One can sympathize with his point without finding it altogether satisfying. “Gut conservatism” after all still depends on some definition of what conservatism is. Which requires thinking and writing, i.e., intellectualism, and perhaps even philosophy. The gut may be right more often than a broken clock, but—as Trump’s contradictory pronouncements over the years illustrate—it is unreliable and so must be ruled by the brain, which nature generously provides for the purpose. Derbyshire is thus too quick to dismiss conservative intellectualizing as irrelevant. Forging a fresh definition of conservatism, or of reinterpreting the old one to meet the necessities of the times, is not merely relevant but necessary.

Yet it is unquestionably true that to this task, our current crop of mainstream conservative intellectuals is not merely unsuited but wholly useless. National Review’s anti-Trump symposium reads as if it were written to make the point undeniable. Trump supports ethanol! Burn the heretic! At least listing the “conservative” boxes that Trump fails to check can be considered substantive. The rest of the symposium—like nearly all other conservative anti-Trump broadsides—consists merely of personal attacks. Many of which, to be fair, Trump has coming. But all this hardly amounts to a conservative refutation of, or counterproposal to, Trump’s program. The most they could say on that score was to paraphrase, probably subconsciously, Lionel Trilling’s dismissal of 20th century conservatism as “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas” and apply it to Trump.

But Trumpism, while not yet a coherent body of thought, points the way to one. Trump himself—no man of ideas, to say the least—is unsuited to the task of thinking through what his popularity means or how to build on it. Others will have to do the real work. Herewith, an attempt to get started.


America First

Trump’s two slogans—“Make America Great Again” and “Take Our Country Back”—point to the heart of Trumpism: “America First.” Some will no doubt flinch at being reminded of an alleged stain on America’s past. This is not the place to explain or defend 1940-41’s (unfairly maligned) America First Committee. It’s just that those two words capture the essence and appeal of Trumpism as no others do or could.

Trump seems to grasp intuitively something our elites have forgotten or smugly deny: politics is by nature particular. However arbitrary at the highest level of philosophical speculation, here on the ground, the distinctions between citizen and foreigner, compatriot and outsider, friend and enemy never go away. Even the ancient Greek philosophers—the greatest abstractionists of all time—understood the necessity of borders and the permanence of national distinctions. Socrates’ “city in speech”—the greatest political abstraction of all time—is closed to outsiders.

It’s not hard to understand why globalized elites—including the Republican billionaire donor class—favor the erasure of borders: they get, and stay, rich from it. More curious is why conservative intellectuals go along. No doubt some of their own funding comes from those same donors. Many of them also manifestly enjoy the preening that being on the side of enlightened opinion enables. In their hearts, nearly all “conservatives” long for absolution on the charge of “racism”. Like the atheist caricature of the devout husband guilt-wracked for coveting his own wife, the modern conservative believes the leftist lie that his natural affinity for people who look, think and speak like himself is shameful and illegitimate, to be internally repressed and publicly denied.

In this, the only difference between our “conservatives” and the liberals they claim to oppose is that the latter aren’t conflicted. Both groups have after all been educated at the same schools and steeped in the same post-American, far-left ideology. Thomas Sowell once eviscerated Rawls’ “difference principle”—the insistence that no policy, however beneficial to the common good, should be enacted if doesn’t help the lowest of the low—as the “wino’s veto.” Elite conservatives embrace it fully, not so much as an idea, but rather from the gut realization that privilege requires self-justification. Always taking the side of “the other”—the more alien and distant, the better—over and against their own people and country is a high-octane way to display high-mindedness. Speaking up for one’s own is the ultimate sign of a rube—or worse.

This yearning to appear high-minded has caused conservatives to equate principle with abstraction. They take the philosophic argument that “love of one’s own” is ultimately an insufficient basis for goodness to be reason’s last word and thus assume that anything particular—including their own country—must be, in and of itself, low and unworthy of their unalloyed allegiance: the high qua high always has some admixture of the abstract. Hence the continued insistence that, for America to be good, it must be conflated with its principles. Against any common-sense resistance to the latest righteous, destructive fad, conservatives and liberals alike scold from the same hymnal: “That’s not who we are.” To which Trump supporters instinctively respond: speak for yourselves. Maybe that’s not who you are, but it’s who we are, and we’re fed up with your sanctimony.

Paleo-conservatives are the notable hold-outs to this trend, but they embrace unreason in a different way. In their reverence for tradition, they must—if only implicitly—hold that tradition is good, or at the very least that their tradition is good for them. But for even that narrow formula to work, the good must have some content that transcends particulars. Those Greek philosophers—indispensable founders of “our tradition”—understood this clearly. But paleos are more hostile to abstraction than neocons are enamored of it, and insist that any theoretical investigation of the good or assertion of principle leads in a straight line to universalism, utopianism, quotas and open borders.

Both sects could learn something from their common inheritance. The American Founders managed to be principled and particularist, abstract and grounded, broad-minded and loyal, all at the same time. The Preamble to the United States Constitution pledges its purpose to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Note that there is no mention of tradition, culture or heritage. Not that the Founders dismissed or opposed these things, but they evidently—and wisely—concluded that unity, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare and liberty are all higher goods. And not merely our goods or good for us (though of course they are) but above all good simply.

Yet, as the Preamble’s final five words make abundantly clear, there are practical limits to how much good, and for whom, politics can accomplish. The Constitution and the social compact it enshrines are for us—the American people—and not for foreigners, immigrants (except those we choose to welcome), or anyone else. The original state constitutions of Massachusetts and Virginia—twin cradles of the American Revolution—state much the same: “The end of … government is to secure the existence of the body-politic; to protect it; and to furnish the individuals who compose it”; and “government is … instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community.” The same men who declared that “all men are created equal” also, and in virtually the same breath, excluded “all men” from de facto or implicit membership in the American nation.

The American people—like every people—have always felt in their bones their particularity, their uniqueness, their status as a people distinct from other peoples. Elites—donors and intellectuals alike, on both the left and the “right”—scoff at this natural, healthy and true belief as “nativism.” Is it then any wonder that the first presidential candidate in a generation to speak of America as something more than just a “shining city on a hill”—as an actual country, to be loved for what it is and not merely for what it represents or could become—has found enormous appeal?

Truth at Last!

The other, related source of Trump’s appeal is his willingness—eagerness—gleefulness!—to mock the ridiculous lies we’ve been incessantly force-fed for the past 15 years (at least) and tell the truth. “Diversity” is not “our strength”; it’s a source of weakness, tension and disunion. America is not a “nation of immigrants”; we are originally a nation of settlers, who later chose to admit immigrants, and later still not to, and who may justly open or close our doors solely at our own discretion, without deference to forced pieties. Immigration today is not “good for the economy”; it undercuts American wages, costs Americans jobs, and reduces Americans’ standard of living. Islam is not a “religion of peace”; it’s a militant faith that exalts conversion by the sword and inspires thousands to acts of terror—and millions more to support and sympathize with terror. “American exceptionalism” does not require, or even encourage, us to democratize the world—a task of which we are in any case incapable. The Iraq War was a strategic and tactical blunder that destroyed a country (however badly governed), destabilized a region, and harmed American interests. The benefits of free trade concentrate at the top (outsize profits) and bottom (cheap panem et circenses); the middle, and especially the working, classes have been hurt by globalization.

When one hears words coming out of a politician’s mouth finally reflect—rather than diametrically oppose—what one can see with one’s own eyes, the effect, we’ve (re)discovered, can be exhilarating.

All of which is to say, the root cause of Trumpism is the spectacular failure of our elites to serve the people they ostensibly lead. Those howling the loudest about Trump—the Davos overclass, establishment Republicans, and American “conservative” intellectuals—are in Stage 4C denial that their obliviousness, coupled with their ability (ante Trump) to silence and marginalize all opposition, are the principal causes of his rise. Whether their failures stem from cynicism, venality, greed, rationalization, delusion or honest disagreement (I think it’s all of the above) will need to be thought through by later historians. For now, it’s enough finally to see clearly their errors and—to revive and rehabilitate a Clinton-era phrase—“move on.”


Nationhood, Sovereignty and Immigration

The first task is a simple reassertion of American nationhood and sovereignty. Which begins, yes, with regaining control over our borders and dismantling our insane immigration policies, both formal (e.g., the idiotic visa lottery) and informal (the bipartisan consensus not to enforce any law that results in less immigration—at least from non-European sources).

Let the full enormity of the crisis we face finally be realized. The left supports mass immigration and the Davos economy—top plus bottom against the middle—for obvious reasons. Republicans support it in fealty to their true masters (their donor class) and in the vain hope that they will get credit from the left for not being “racist.” More mysterious is why conservative intellectuals, whom one would think should know better, use abstractions to happy-talk themselves into believing all will turn out for the best, despite all observable evidence showing the contrary.

Here I address my neoconservative friends specifically, and also those Trump supporters who are either hostile to or try to wave away America’s founding creed. Yes, it is true that “all men are created equal.” But Lincoln adds the crucial caveat: all men are not “equal in all respects” (emphasis in the original). They are not “equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments or social capacity.” People from different nations with different circumstances, histories, beliefs and traditions will—by definition—hold very different conceptions of good government, some irreconcilably opposed to our own. It has been said that a principal cause of Rome’s fall was that “many men who never knew republican life and did not care for it … became Roman citizens.” Why then do we Americans continue to import millions upon millions who have never known republican life and do not care for it? In doing so, we do not uphold our Founding creed; we hasten and enable its oblivion.

This fact—and it is a fact, observable in every corner of this country where mass immigration has overwhelmed, eroded, and de-Americanized formerly American communities—must be faced squarely. To my philosophic friends, I acknowledge that to most of you, this truth seems to go against the grain of everything you think you believe and everything you think we’ve been taught. But it is, on reflection, perfectly in keeping with what we learned. Politics, as noted, is always particular: we learn that from observation and confirm it through theoretical investigation. Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon (and so many others) are, not surprisingly, wiser than the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Machiavelli and Montesquieu (and so many others) further teach us that differing histories, laws, religions, habits, and even climates differentiate the peoples of the world in ways that are not so easy to change—and accustom to liberty some better than others. Our Founders and Lincoln recognized, and warned about, this fact as well. The “abstract truth” of equality is “applicable to all men and all times,” but often in an abstract way. Equality means that we may not rule another without his consent. It does not mean that you can take anyone from anywhere and make him, overnight, a good American simply on the basis of his natural right not to be ruled without his consent.


Limited Government—If You Can Keep It

Yuval Levin, in his contribution to the National Review symposium, says that “we need limited government.” Not quite. Limited government is not a need but an aspiration that in rare cases becomes an achievement which is experienced as a blessing. It is but one form—a modern form—of republicanism, which is the superior form of government for a people fit for liberty, which not all peoples in all times and places are. Limited government is therefore, in practice, of limited application. The ceaseless importation of people unaccustomed to liberty, coupled with the continued hollowing out of the American middle class, makes the American people less fit for liberty every day.

It would have been more precise for Levin to say that he “wants” limited government—I do, too!—but one must wonder if he understands the El Niño scale of the currents tugging this hope out to sea. A limited government is one whose powers are limited to securing the rights, plus the moral and material conditions necessary to the exercise of those rights, of its own people. That job is plenty hard enough for even the best government with the best people. The more tasks government assigns to itself, and the more incompatible people it takes in, the less limited it will become, until it is perforce unlimited. If so-called “conservatives” cannot understand that mass Third World immigration poses an existential threat not merely to the limited government they profess to cherish, but to the nation that limited government is supposed to conserve, then they have no right to that name. For the one thing American conservatism has most definitely not conserved, in the face of unrelenting onslaught, is the American nation.

Some will no doubt object to this characterization and point to a policy paper or editorial that questions the wisdom of the visa lottery or the carried interest loophole. Fine, let us stipulate to that. You’re agin’ it! Though it’s only fair to note that this newfound conviction has the appearance of a deathbed conversion. Trump’s success with the immigration issue has terrified much of the right into switching sides while pretending they were with him all along. Fairness also requires acknowledging that the paleos figured all this out 25 years ago, if not before, and tried to warn us. Instead they watched as “conservatives” who proselytized for open borders were showered with honors while their own careers ebbed away or were actively sabotaged. The paleos can be forgiven for feeling that these born-again immigration hawks owe them an apology. But if it’s just too hard to say “I’m sorry I used to denounce you for a view that I now claim to hold,” the new converts could at least strive for greater intellectual integrity than the Communists who condemned, praised, and then again condemned fascism—all within less than two years.

Even if one accepts that this conservative Great Awakening is genuine, one must still ask: what has conservatism accomplished in the way of slowing or stopping mass immigration or any other policies that favor foreign and elite interests over American—and especially those of the American middle class? And what is this same bunch likely to achieve if we allow them to remain our leaders? One can concede that conservatives occasionally write against these things, but judging by what economists call “revealed preference,” one senses that their hearts aren’t really in it. One observes very little conservative agitation against the great erosionary trends of our time but rather complacency coupled with a hair-trigger quickness to denounce as “nativist,” “xenophobic,” and the small-t trump card, “racist” anyone to their right who writes about immigration in the wrong way. For there is a right way and wrong way. The right way is either to support open borders or to gingerly check the box of having voiced some mild reservations while indicating that you’re against “illegal”—but all for “legal”—immigration, are “not a racist” or an “Islamophobe,” that building a wall is impossible and won’t work, that the topic is really of interest only to obsessive loons, and that there are much more important things to worry about anyway, such as the capital gains tax or Medicare reform. The wrong way is to be opposed in earnest, to point out in detail and specificity immigration’s costs and drawbacks, and to try to do something about it.

That alone explains most of the conservative anger at Trump. His position paper on immigration is wholly sound, as are most of his statements. Though it’s probably impossible to force Mexico to pay for a wall and in any case unnecessary. Most Americans would gladly fund it ourselves anyway. What’s a few more billion added to the national debt? Well spent if it helps preserve the nation. Trump may also have gone too far in his call to ban entry to all Muslims for an indefinite period, except for accredited diplomats. Really? Even business travelers from Dubai? The real issue is permanent resettlement, not travel—assuming a Trump administration would resume enforcing visa law. As is by now completely obvious to all but blinkered ideologues, Islam and the modern West are incompatible. That may not be a permanent fact, but it holds true for now and for the foreseeable future. If it’s ever to change, change will have to come from within Islam. As the experience of Europe has decisively shown, we in the West don’t have the power to change Muslims. But the reverse is true: when we welcome them en masse into our countries, they change us—and not for the better.

Only an insane society, or one desperate to prove its fidelity to some chimerical “virtue,” would have increased Muslim immigration after the September 11th attacks. Yet that is exactly what the United States did. Trump has, for the first time, finally forced the questions: Why? And can we stop now? Yes, of course, not all Muslims are terrorists, blah, blah, blah, etc. Even so, what good has Muslim immigration done for the United States and the American people? If we truly needed more labor—a claim that is manifestly false—what made it necessary to import any of that labor from the Muslim world? From a region and a faith that is at best ambivalent about the societies that welcome them and at worst murderously hostile? This question has, until now, been ruled wholly out of bounds—illegitimate even to raise. Immigration to the United States—by Muslims or anyone else—is presented as a civil right for foreigners: the burden is forced on Americans to prove that Muhammed is a terrorist or Jose is a criminal, and if we can’t, we must let them in. Trump alone among major political figures has stood up to say this is nonsense.

But does Trump believe in, or will he enact, any of the policies he’s promoted? He has given reasons to doubt. His statements on this, his signature issue, are inconsistent. Should he manage to get elected and not move forward aggressively to control immigration, his support will evaporate more quickly than a raindrop in the hot sun. It’s not clear that Trump understands this. Also unclear is how he will build a governing party that can take over the executive branch to implement, and enforce, his vision. But all these are just more reasons why Trumpism is too important to be left to Trump.


It’s Not “the Economy,” Stupid

Let us turn to the two other core pillars of Trumpism: economics and foreign policy. These again are areas where the conservative establishment and the Republican Party have spectacularly failed their supporters and voters.

Regarding the former, orthodox conservatism holds there is but one correct doctrine: the free market über alles! If that means offshoring the last job from the last factory on America soil so that productivity can tick up, and the CPI down, one-tenth of one basis point, then so be it. The numbers never lie and their movement in the “right” direction proves that outsourcing is the right thing to do and all the laid off workers back home are just losers or whiners. Winners go back to school and upgrade their skills.

Plato and Aristotle teach that in a healthy political community, the richest citizen ought to have no more than five times the property of the poorest. Perhaps that formula is inapt to a modern commercial republic. And without question, the Aristotelian virtue of magnificence—through which accumulated wealth has created so much beauty and splendor in the world—depends on great fortunes. But is it necessary—or healthy—for our richest citizen to hold literally one million times the wealth, not of our poorest citizen, but of the median income? A fortune he is spending, I need hardly add, not on magnificent bequeaths to his own country or civilization, but on social engineering the Third World. Even if this disparity were morally and politically defensible, is there any sane reason to favor policies that widen it—both by pushing the incomes of the lowest down, and those of the richest up? Conservative politicians and intellectuals alike have helped create, and continue to help maintain, a new class of tax-exempt aristocrats, well beyond ducally rich, who are not loyal to the American people, American interests, or America itself. Perversely, yet fittingly, the more conservatives have bent over backwards to kiss the arse of this class, the more its members and the big businesses they run have turned left to openly despise and mock conservatism and conservatives. Seeing conservatives court billionaires—which I have had occasion to do dozens, if not hundreds, of times—is like watching dorks tell cheerleaders how pretty they are: the more their lips move, the more the girls’ mouths pucker in contempt.

National Review—and many others on the econo-right—are deeply outraged that Trump came out for ethanol. But why? The policy may be economically indefensible, but far less defensible is conservatism’s fetishization of “the economy” as the highest good. To paraphrase James Carville’s famous 1992 self-rebuke, what’s “the economy” for, stupid? Is it to produce pretty numbers in Labor Department and Heritage Foundation reports? Or is it to serve human welfare? More specifically, what is the American economy for? Is it to raise standards of living for the Third World poor while enriching transnational billionaires at the expense of the American middle and working classes? Or to serve the interests of the American people?

Ethanol is but one case in point. The policy is, as noted, economically illiterate. It violates every tenet of the Austrian and Chicago SchooIs. It’s a subsidy, pure and simple, to a special and sectional interest, in this case corn farmers. But that subsidy is both an economic and a political act, and more fundamentally the latter than the former. It’s a way of transferring wealth to, and thus conserving a people (middle American farmers) and an endeavor (farming) that we, the American people in toto, find important. To Davos Man and the economy-fetishizing “conservative” intellectual, farming is considered irrelevant to a developed market and we can always import food more cheaply from somewhere else. Comparative advantage! By all means, let’s attack and alienate American corn farmers in order to save a buck or two and prove our conservative bona fides! To those with a better grounding in political fundamentals, farming is understood to be the backbone of any political community and helping one’s fellow citizens takes precedence over trimming the price of an ear corn by ten cents. If and when the whole rotten system that conservatism helped the Davos class to build (and still helps prop up) finally collapses, we are going to need those corn farmers and their corn and perhaps then the intellectuals will see that the subsidy served some purpose after all. In his contribution to the National Review symposium, William Kristol quotes Leo Strauss’s letter to Willmoore Kendall on Israel (which, I note in passing, the late Lawrence Auster once cited approvingly as evidence that Strauss was far from the utopian “naïvecon” his enemies on the right made him out to be), to accuse Trump of vulgarity. But elsewhere in that same letter, Strauss defends Israel against conservative complaints that “Israel is run by labor unions”: “a conservative, I take it, is a man who knows that the same arrangement may have very different meanings in different circumstances.”

Even if this argument is wrong—that is, the argument about some higher purpose for the ethanol subsidy; the point about paying slightly more for vegetables in order to help one’s fellow countrymen stands either way—even if the higher argument is wrong, it is still absolutely true that inequality has been rising since the beginning of the Wall Street boom in 1982; that real wages have stagnated or even fallen for everyone below the blue city financial, technological and managerial classes; that finance—once a vital service to the real economy that makes things and enriches human lives—has morphed into “the economy’s” summum bonum; and that the Republican-conservative response has been and remains to invoke Hayek and call for tax cuts, deregulation, freer trade and “enterprise zones.” This is not merely an electoral death-wish; it’s also morally obtuse.


Tariffs, Trade—Why Not Both?

It’s ironic that it took a dissident billionaire to wake us up to the fact that America has decayed into an oligarchy. It’s probably also not incidental that Trump’s wealth is tied to the soil—American soil—rather than derived from the eminently exploitable vagaries of international finance. Yet Trump’s actual program is, to put it mildly, scattershot. He simultaneously calls for massive tax cuts and massive tariffs (and then denies both in the next breath). Personally, I concede up front that I don’t know the answer. But I know that the debate will have to change, fundamentally, and that old taboos will need to be transgressed.

What, for instance, is so sacred about free trade? And what so evil about tariffs? Tariffs were the central pillar of Lincoln’s economic policy, and of the Republican dynasty that industrialized the nation in the generation after the Civil War. Maybe they are the wrong answer for our times. But can we at least talk about it? Not under the terms of the debate today. Even raising the question will get you sneeringly mocked as an ignoramus.

But how about replacing rigid ideology with Aristotelian prudence? Trade policy, like all economic policy, should serve American interests, not “the economy.” When and where free trade serves American interests, let’s trade freely. When it doesn’t, let’s try something else. Maybe even sometimes a combination of the two. Ronald Reagan required Japanese auto makers to build plants on American soil, and thus hire American workers and pay American taxes, as a price of admission to our market. For this heresy against free trade, will National Review expel him from the conservative pantheon?

The argument that consumer prices will rise, and this alone is reason enough to keep trade as open as possible, falls flat in and of itself. Time and again, people have proven themselves willing to pay more for certain goods. How many reading this live in the cheapest home in the cheapest neighborhood they could, so long as their minimal rent pays for a door, four walls, a Pullman kitchen, Murphy bed and a bathroom? Are the same people willing to pay higher prices for their homes eager to despoil their fellow citizens and sacrifice their country in exchange for lower prices on their iPhones? Maybe. But can’t we ask them?

To repeat: I don’t know that protectionism is the answer. I don’t know what the answer is. I’m pretty sure it isn’t economic and tax policy that treats hedge fund managers as the republic’s only indispensable men. And I know that not only are we currently asking the wrong questions, we’re not asking any questions at all. Conservative economic doctrine is every bit as rigid as campus P.C. dogma, and apostasy punished every bit as swiftly and mercilessly. It’s well past time to overthrow the enforcers.


Neither “Naïvecon” nor Paelo-Isolationist

On foreign policy, Trump is superior to the naïvecons in that he understands the difficulty—one might even say impossibility—of American power (hard and soft) to transform backward, alien, non-Western, non-democratic societies into paragons of Americanism, and also grasps the America people’s complete disgust and exhaustion with such futile efforts. In keeping with our national creed, let us have no wish to rule the peoples of other nations without their consent—and also feel no obligation to drag, pressure, cajole, force or “help” such nations achieve what we insist is the only just form of government. Ours may well be the only just form of government, or the only one that gets the foundation right. But the ancients also teach us that all actual governments fall short of perfect justice in some way, that rectifying this is one iota shy of impossible, and that attempts to do so tend to backfire spectacularly. The flaws and injustices of other nations are not ours to redress, even if we could—which recent experience in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere conclusively shows that we can’t.

Trump is also superior to the paleos, defeatists and isolationists in that he recognizes that America still faces dangerous enemies and is willing to use American power to defend American interests. Moreover, as a commercial republic, America’s interests do not end at our borders. The nature and purpose of our alliance structure and global responsibilities are widely misunderstood by paleos and neo-isolationists, whose hearts may be in the right place—waste no more American blood and treasure in futile, grandiose adventures—but who equate every movement of the American military beyond American soil as such an adventure.

It is true that America was able to become a great economic power in the three-quarters of a century between the Civil War and World War II without fielding a large military. But that’s because the Royal Navy did the necessary work of keeping the sea lanes open, maintaining a balance of power favorable to Western interests, and deterring—and when necessary policing—the most menacing challengers to this pro-Western order. The United States took up this mantle because in 1945 our statesmen judged we had to, not because they wanted to. Perhaps our overseas posture is more fit for that time that our own and is now too extensive for current needs. Perhaps if the American economy were to retrench away from a near total reliance on foreign trade and finance and toward more domestic production, savings and investment, that posture could be scaled back while still protecting our commercial interests. By all means, let’s have that debate. But the only way it will be productive is if the “scale back” side does not insist that the conversation begin from the knee-jerk stridency of the Pauls, pere et fis.


Chapter 11 for Conservatism, Inc.?

This is hardly an exhaustive platform, much less a fully-formed political philosophy, to fulfill and supersede a Trumpism that remains inchoate and incomplete. These remarks will have served their purpose if they provide an initial foundation for a detailed exploration of what Trumpism could and should be.

That work won’t be easy and there will be resistance. The leading lights of what Paul Gottfried has termed “Conservatism, Inc.” know that Trump and Trumpism represent existential threats to their relevance and livelihoods. That’s why they’re working to crush both with a fervor they’ve not been able to muster against any enemy, foreign or domestic, since the demise of the Soviet Union.

When one turns from conservative intellectuals to Republican politicians, one observes a situation disastrously worse. The digits of one hand suffice to count all of the truly committed defenders of American sovereignty, liberty, and nationhood in Congress or running for president. The rest are bystanders or cowards or Quislings. “Conservative” hero (“nobody’s better on entitlements!”) Paul Ryan—when not caving to every line item on the Obama wish list and lecturing the right wing of his party that their resistance is disloyal and paranoid—spends his time conspiring once again to sneak through “comprehensive immigration reform” in the teeth of stern opposition from his party’s voters.

To the Republicans I can say only this: your dogged adherence to the Davos agenda is suicidal lunacy. I understand how necessary it appears to you in the short term, as you vacuum up cash to ensure reelection. But one does not need a PhD in math to understand that importing millions upon millions who vote for you at best 60-40 against—and in nearly every case at far lower levels than that—while sticking it to your actual voters over and over in obeisance to your donors, amounts to a guarantee of eventual demographic and electoral irrelevance. Thus, to the charge that Trump will destroy the Republican Party, one can only laugh and note that he hardly need bother, as the Republicans are doing a fine job of that themselves. David Frum distilled Trump’s message into one tart phrase: “We are governed by idiots.” That’s only half right: the Democrats know what they’re doing and know that it serves their interests.

Still, the pol-egghead axis may yet stop Trump in his tracks. Conservatism, Inc. certainly looks forward to refreezing the hands of the ideological clock to November 1980 and refighting that election for the tenth time (and losing it for the sixth, and third in a row).

But Trumpism will go forward with or without Trump. If conservatism and the Republican Party can’t be convinced to come along for the ride, then they must be forced to accept for themselves the “creative destruction” they claim to favor for the economy. Poetic justice for those who consider Trump beyond the pale because of his business bankruptcies.

“Publius Decius Mus” is the pseudonym of a longtime writer for mainstream conservative publications. Some of his other writings may be found at

Hide 93 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. AKAHorace says:

    Hope that this is not too off topic.

    The internationalist left and right want to make people who are equally concerned about everyone, whether citizen or not. Someone who sees every human on this earth as equally worthy of concern. This is a noble vision. Someone who is like this might claim to be morally superior to most of us who comment here at the Unz review (at least in Sailer, Derbyshire and Buchanan columns). But the law of unintended consequences means that their policies favour those who are completely amoral and are equally callous to everyone, regardless of where they are from. They aim very high but hit very low.

    A citizen who loves his country and fellow citizens and cares for their honour may be appealed to on the strength of national honour. Not as beautiful as what the internationalists want, but a limited and durable quality. We can respect other countries while being loyal to our own.

    (full disclosure, I am not American).

  2. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Very well done, good politicians seldom have the intellectual or policy chops to further their inchoate ideas. This is a really good start to putting some flesh on the bones of the make America great again slogan. It’d be great if the writer latched on to some of people in the Trump campaign. IF they win, they will have to govern, and having some worked out philosophy will help them pick people and priorities. I am worried that Trump will completely screw the pooch once he is in office and discredit Trumpism.

    As an economist, we don’t have a lot to guide the middle way between free trade and protection. Our models aren’t really good enough to say where to go. He’ll have to reach outside the economics profession to set his trade policy but somebody who is still aware enough of economics to avoid some big pitfalls.

    • Replies: @Latium Laurentum
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    The difference between a dumb person and a smart person.

    A dumb person will do something stupid for a dumb reason.

    A smart person will do the same stupid thing for a smart reason.

  4. About saving the corn farmers– do they not also have a duty to look out for our interests? Is every hand on the farm American? Is that ethanol pumped into their own tractors?

    A few years back, a Mexican (whose legal status I don’t know) working for a Wisconsin farmer did something unwise with a power line, and ended up burning off all four of his limbs. Would workers’ comp pay cover the enormous cost of not only healing him, but supporting him for the rest of his life?

    The news articles made sound like the farmer had a lot of compassion for his now-handless hand, but it was too little, too late.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
  5. Leftist conservative [AKA "Congolese Space Rat in a Cage(Make Great Again)"] says: • Website

    too long…look, it all comes down to this—immigration brings economic growth…and that increases profits….but the white working class and its culture is an obstacle to Big Business cramming more immigrant worker/consumer cattle into america, so that big business can increase growth and profits.

    So how can big business overcome the obstacle that is the working whites and their culture?

    Propaganda. Pro-immigrant propaganda. Pro-nonwhite propaganda.
    Anti-white propaganda.

    That is the essence of the propaganda campaign of the last few decades. It is all about raising the social status of nonwhites and immigrants in order to overcome resistance to mass immigration and the growth it brings. And also about engendering white guilt into young and malleable minds.

    it is all about money, in the end.

    But that sort of propaganda campaign only works for so long. Hence Trumpism.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  6. “The ceaseless importation of people unaccustomed to liberty, coupled with the continued hollowing out of the American middle class, makes the American people less fit for liberty every day.”

    To any reader disinclined to credit this statement I relate the following anecdote. About a year ago we learned that my 18-year-old niece had become pregnant. In an earlier time, someone in my circumstances might have reacted different than I did, but I suspect many would do precisely what I did.

    I texted one of my social worker friends to make sure my niece got in contact with the appropriate government agencies that provide publicly funded benefits to a such a person. And so it goes as the middle class find themselves not quite able (or sometimes not willing) to address their own dilemmas.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    , @woodNfish
  7. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    American POTUS candidates are supposed to protect those Too Big to Fail banks and provide cover for the world’s biggest counterfeiting outfit, the FED.
    They are also supposed to swear absolute loyalty to Israel and vow to take care of her over the USA.

    They also should state they will continue these idiotic and illegal ME wars and make ominous sounds about certain African countries, and make veiled threats to Russia and China.

    And, they are supposed to hint at cutting those ‘entitlement’ payments of Social Security and Medicare, even though the retirees already paid for them.

    If Trump would endorse this platform, the MSM would start falling in love with him.

  8. tris says:

    This article is flawed since it assumes that intuition needs an intellectual framework.
    In fact intuition precedes thought, and not as commonly believed the other way round. Thought is only a formalization of intuitive concepts.
    Trump is smart because he trusts his intuition, which is always superior to intellectual rigor.
    These policy frameworks are in any case a joke, because politicians routinely ignore them. They end up following their intuition, mostly special interests, and then try and cover it up on the outside by finding some obtuse reference to the framework. The press then tries to sell us these lies as the politician being “principled”.

    Trump is in touch with his intuition, and his value system is solid. As a Christian I can find lots of problems with him, but he is not my pastor, he is supposed to lead the country which is a secular institution anyway.

    • Replies: @random observer
    , @SteveM
  9. “Derbyshire is thus too quick to dismiss conservative intellectualizing as irrelevant. Forging a fresh definition of conservatism, or of reinterpreting the old one to meet the necessities of the times, is not merely relevant but necessary.”

    Necessary for intellectuals I suppose.

    • Replies: @iffen
  10. TG says:

    OK, fine. But how about this?


    OK the word is awful. But Eisenhower defended the borders, mostly kept us out of stupid wars while still keeping the nation strong, we had trade but didn’t give away our entire manufacturing base, taxes on the rich where high and he defended social security etc. but he didn’t cripple the economy with rules. He moved to support civil rights for blacks – slowly but he did – but he was no social justice warrior.

    Historians call his administration ‘boring’. Which is surely the highest accolade that any nation’s leader can ever attain.

    If only Eisenhower had a last name that could be more easily turned into a noun. Ikeism? Ikistry? Help me out here, people.

    His philosophy was so pragmatic, so colorless, that it almost defies catchy description. And perhaps that is the point…

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  11. iffen says:

    Forging a fresh definition of conservatism, or of reinterpreting the old one to meet the necessities of the times, is not merely relevant but necessary.

    Now this is a conservatism that I can get behind.

    In a related area, could we get the natural order people to go back to the ancestral mansion, go up into the attic, open up an old trunk and get out their frayed and abandoned noblesse oblige and help lead this political upheaval in a direction that will benefit all of us in the greatest of all nations, plebe and patrician alike?

  12. nickels says:

    Some great stuff in there.

    Of course, Trump is trying to convince people to follow him, so an intellectual treatise on his views wont help him now; the crowd could care less about reason and can not be suffered to stand even the smallest amount of intellectualizing.

    But this esssay is, nontheless a good hack through the woods with a machete for the philosophizing crowd (I mean that in a positive sense).

    I suspect Trump operates on his gut as much as intellect, and, also, hesitates to lay all his cards on the table for his opponents to see.

    • Replies: @Talha
  13. nickels says:

    I suspect that, to some extent, the neocons became so obsessed with trimming their positions to be ‘marketable’ that, in the end, they finally BECAME their own diluted and ossified compromises.

  14. iffen says:

    Necessary for intellectuals I suppose.

    Boxers can’t get there without Snowballs.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It is Plato’s “city in speech”, from the Republic. Not Socrates.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  16. Agent76 says:

    Dec 18, 2015 Donald Trump: The Establishment Candidate

    While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political status quo, let’s look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions, represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the “anti-establishment” Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.

  17. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    his ideas—if we may use such a lofty term for Trump’s as-yet unformed and instinct-driven platform

    What’s unformed or instinctual about the key points of Trump’s platform:

    A. End the uncontrolled flood of Third-World immigration to the US and Europe.

    B. End the tax and trade agreement regime that favors unrestricted global wage arbitrage and pursuit of absolute advantage in international trade, to the detriment of American and European workers.

    C. End the drive for global hegemony and seek, not to destroy great power rivals, but to negotiate durable agreements with them.

    Trump’s platform is nationalist, in defense of the sovereign, democratic nation state, and opposed to the 100-plus-year-old Anglo-American project for the New World Order, i.e., global governance.

    More concisely, Trump is opposed to the genocide of the European peoples, by the globalist Money Power.

    • Agree: Bill
  18. @Agent76

    So many angles on this, but let’s touch on a couple.

    For decades Ron Paul has been accused of being “controlled opposition”, even unwittingly. His newsletters and libertarian polemics have accomplished nothing in decades.

    Now, several alt-right sites have pointed out Trump’s connection to the Likud, and they’ve fingered Trump as a Likud plant to seize control of the GOP. They point to his Jewish family and his Likud endorsement video. Maybe Trump is running for Likud in the US?

    Trump isn’t what he appears to be, but by opening the populist Pandora’s Box, he may have unleashed forces he can’t control.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Bill
  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Early on in the article, the author references the definition of ‘conservatism’ – here it is. Before I give it, please know that I am under no delusion that the true definition for political conservatism is functionally intact. As most readers UNZ know, America has been increasingly deconstructed since the beginning of the 1900s both culturally and politically. When studying the fall of nations, everything always comes back to which groups world-view within the fallen nation was most powerfully represented. Post 1800s America, increasingly represents the Democratic Party moving from liberalism which is a relative concept, to Marxism and globalism. Just to the right of Democrats, and on a paralleling trajectory as the Democratic Party ‘veered off to the left (so to speak),’ has been the GOP which was once ‘the party of the constitution,’ and is now ‘the party of seemingly lesser destruction to America, and destruction in different ways.’ The GOP now being infected with conservative-impostors like a cancer, most of whom exist in the form of ‘establishment new world order global-engineers’ and that are useful-pawns enabled by there accomplice conservative-impostors on globalist Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News/Business network. ‘Establishment’ Democrats and Republicans being two sides of the same coin (do a search for head Hegelian-dialectic to better understand this highly effective tool for societal and political engineering).

    DEFINITION & MEASURE FOR U.S. ‘POLITICAL CONSERVATISM’: resistance to change from the original intent of America’s amended constitution.

    This definition exists irrespective of whether or not one agrees with the amendments, which is another conversation. The general definition for the word ‘conservative’ is, ‘resistance to change.’ Within the context of our constitutional-republic type of government with the republic being based in the ‘rule of law,’ and the ‘rule of law’ being defined by the constitution, the definition for ‘political conservatism’ becomes ‘resistant to change from the original intent Americas amended constitution.’ The words ‘original intent’ are critical here, because not only is ‘original intent’ specified as something the United States Supreme Court is to ‘weight’ its decisions with, but defining ‘original intent’ as a specification discourages those who would conveniently place their own meaning on the intent of the constitution in order to pursue agendas necessarily requiring the deconstruction of our constitutional republic form of government.

    And yes, our Supreme Court has bee increasingly poisoned with ‘enlightened’ constitutional-deconstructionists since the early 1900s.

    Of course, the ‘original intent’ issue assumes citizens care enough about the survival of America to read the writings of the authors of the constitution and amendments, to know their original intent. But in the end, America’s existing deconstructed and emaciated state is purely a product of the worldview of the group most powerful he represented within society and government over the past century+. Moreover, America’s condition is a product of of those engaging in much trash-talking and complaining, but who ‘reason to inaction’ ensuring their world-view is not represented –- something likely to cost them their lives and ensure Americas destruction as those national, regional, and global engineers occupying most centers of power necessarily will not tolerate the existence of dissenters in the future. This, because socialism, whether national, regional, or global, always brings ‘equality of tyranny for all,’ except for the statist ruling ‘enlightened-tyrants’ whose fixation is on eliminating competition.

  20. iffen says:

    It’s the Jews what done it!

    How could I have been so blind?

  21. @iffen

    Thanks. I had to look it up.

    Its help for high school home work. Is it adequate in your opinion?

    • Replies: @iffen
  22. Rehmat says:

    Former Congressman Ron Paul is different from his Zionist butt-licking senator son – but he like Trump was not a blind supporter of the Wall Street or Israel.

    Two things will turned Ron Paul a great threat to the Establishment were, 1)he wanted to stop all military aid to Israel, Egypt and Pakistan, and 2) he refused to buy “9/11 official story”.

    Ron Paul had been accused of loving Jews but hating Israel by the organized Jewry.

  23. A commenter on the Irish Savant quotes Madeleine Albright as having said, “I’m a refugee, I don’t have a terrible story, but I’m so grateful to America and America is a big country and refugees really work hard and want to be a part of the diversity of America.”

    What is the logical inconsistency in this statement?

    “to be part of the diversity of America.”

    How can an entity be a diversity? Or a diversity be an entity.

    To borrow an analogy from Geology, the nearest I can come to visualizing what she is talking about is a type of rock called “conglomerate”. Conglomerate is, as you would suspect, not structured like an isomorphic crystal. Indeed it is not even composed of a uniform molecular structure, it is not one particular blend of elements such as granite or feldspar. It is rather a hodgepodge of various stuff thrown together willy nilly and squeezed together so as to fuse into a lump.

    Each of the various types of minerals of which it is composed retains their own identity, being bound together only by a type of aggregate. When it is broken, it doesn’t break through the rocks of which it is made, but through the matrix or aggregate which binds it together. Thus, it is seen that that which binds the rocks together is weaker than the internal bonds that give the rocks their identity.

    Just so.

  24. polistra says:

    The economist Hernando deSoto has already formulated an ‘upscale’, part scientific and part spiritual, version of Trumpism. Though it comes from an odd perspective, it strikes me as deeply true.

  25. @AKAHorace

    I’m not American either [Canadian].

    On one level I am happy to concede the point that the internationalist vision is a “noble” one. It is a Christianish one, to be sure. One we might need some day when the world faces a true common threat. I can’t dismiss it out of hand.

    But I don’t know that the degree of internationalism we really need is incompatible with nations, or with a whole range of particularity and subsidiarity both of sovereignty and moral concern.

    I don’t, for example, concede the claim that these internationalists are entitled to claim moral superiority, or that the more particular vision I embrace is less beautiful. If internationalism presumed the extension of Western civilization and the best of others [East Asian, Indian, perhaps, in selected doses] to the world and the embrace of this standard by all, I could see it as beautiful even if not wholly my taste. But that isn’t what is on offer from any internationalists I now see.

    Rather I see that things that have been generated by my civilization, and which cross many of its particular boundaries but are rooted in one or another of its parts, are not to be universalized but sacrificed.

    The internationalism on offer posits, for me, more loss than gain.

  26. Bill says:

    Couldn’t you just as easily see Ron Paul’s criticism of Trump as further evidence that Ron Paul is controlled opposition?

  27. @tris

    I am not sure any human being acts entirely on intuition all the time. The minute one starts taking in information about the world one is learning, the minute one starts making connections between what one learned yesterday and what one sees today one has an intellectual framework, the minute one starts making value judgments about what one sees and drawing inferences about the next thing one sees based on those judgments, one has a worldview and even an ideology.

    No one can expect to function in even a relatively basic human society without them. Even the act of consciously withdrawing from society to go live on a mountain would be an act informed by every stage of that process.

    We are men, not beasts. Or at least we try. Pure intuition uninformed by the rest of the above sequence is a waste of human material.

    That doesn’t mean a man’s gut is not one of his tools, or that it’s not a useful thing to no about a man, especially in times like these. It’s just not the only thing if we expect Trump to be president of a vast and complicated federal republic under a constitution and rule of law, and handling its relations with equally complicated other countries and players.

    Indeed, I’m sure Trump does have an intellectual framework already, one built over decades of his business career and well-suited to that role. This column seems a worthy attempt to extend the instincts Trump appears to have on policy issues and give them an equivalent context. It seems like a framework that actually matches what he says, and one that goes a long way to reconcile many of the positions one sees on this site [at least the more righty pages].

    It doesn’t mean recognizing a common set of gut instincts isn’t good enough reason to elect him, though. His instincts will guide him as he decides where and how a program can be implemented, where it has to be compromised, and what means to use when doing either. But having the program is much better than just going into the presidency with no goals in mind, no context to explain them, and just blowing with the wind. Presidencies fail on less weakness. And he won’t be going in just as a caretaker, he needs to move the needle on some things.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  28. SteveM says:

    Re: “This article is flawed since it assumes that intuition needs an intellectual framework.
    In fact intuition precedes thought, and not as commonly believed the other way round. Thought is only a formalization of intuitive concepts.
    Trump is smart because he trusts his intuition, which is always superior to intellectual rigor.”

    Not quite. Intuition must be analytically validated and updated for any decision to be considered robust. Trump’s intuition my be correct, but as of now he has not demonstrated the discipline to codify it. And as the author implies, has not proposed genuinely coherent strategies to address what is both intuitively and empirically broken. In other words, Trump’s cake may have the correct ingredients but it’s only half-baked. And Trump may actually be a lousy baker.

    And regarding the basis stated by the author for the American Global Cop model.

    “The United States took up this mantle because in 1945 our statesmen judged we had to, not because they wanted to.”

    “Had to” quickly morphed into “wanted to” by the end of the Eisenhower administration. Otherwise Ike would not have felt obligated to warn of the danger and the costs of the Military-Industrial-Complex.

    And parenthetically, “protecting the sea lanes” is a bogus rationalization. Who threatens the sea lanes apart from some rag tag pirates? Moreover, the sea lanes are crossed by commercial ships manufactured in China, owned by European and Asian companies, flagged in Liberia, crewed by Asians, Africans and South Americans and carrying comparatively little cargo that is manufactured in the U.S.A.

    So why are my tax dollars used to nominally protect those ships? The author is cutting the Neocon interventionists more slack than they deserve. Moreover, the perverse Cult of Military Exceptionalism that has sprung up in the United States since 9/11 makes a “conversation” infeasible. The “military first” Global Cop model should not be discussed. It should be pounded into the ground.

  29. Eustace Tilley (not) [AKA "Schiller/Nietzsche"] says:

    Thanks for the “favour” of “disclosing” that you are not an American colonial. It is an “honour” to have fine gentlemen such as you here at What ho, old chap!

    But the “noble vision” of the internationalists is obviously a total sham. They are deliberately destabilizing nations in North Africa and the Near East as well as fomenting trouble on Russia’s borders in pursuit of their ignoble vision of world domination — for their benefit, not ours.

    And, for what it’s worth, I personally feel no moral obligation to “respect” other countries. Not all persons are worthy of respect; the same is true for countries. Why anyone would respect Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, for example, is beyond my imagining.

    • Replies: @AKAHorace
  30. Big Bill says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Did the Mexican send his money home to the motherland? Did the motherland gratefully accept his offerings? Then he needs to return to the motherland. He did nothing for me.

  31. Talha says:

    Totally agree with the import of your statements. I think Trump recognizes he has reached a critical mass with respect to cult-of-personality. He stated as much. When he said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters”, he was implicitly stating that he knows the crowd that is supporting him would support him regardless of an obvious, clear-cut (and frightening) moral failing and criminal action – propensity to murder. To me that would feel insulting, but from someone else’s perspective, he is praising them for being ‘loyal’ and able to keep their normal, gut-reaction revulsion in check.

    What does ‘Trump’ mean? I think it means whatever you want it to mean. He has left the details purposefully ambiguous – which seems to be the genius in his approach – something like, “I’ll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” and refer to some stats about trade deficits which Mexico may or may not be able to materialize into actual coffers to spend on a wall. Just let the supporter fill in the blanks in their own mind with how they think Trump feels about something. The promises (if you can call them that – I mean, how do you objectively evaluate the breach of a promise to ‘make America great again’) he is making are beyond the scope of the executive branch to make – but he wouldn’t be the first guy to do it. He is a great salesman and marketer, definitely a man whose time has come in our current age of brand-name politics.

    There is a quote from the brilliant sci-fi book series Dune that I think encapsulates the politics of our age so well:

    “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” – from Chapterhouse Dune

    May God preserve you and your family.

    • Replies: @nickels
  32. Big Bill says:

    Better she gave it up for adoption, learned her lesson, and became a chastened but productive member of society. As it is, she will have a parade of boyfriends (or stepfather, if lucky) and raise the child in a lower class welfare culture.

    That is no favor to her or her child.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  33. Qasim says:

    Excellent article. But as a Muslim, I found several points objectionable.

    Islam does NOT exalt conversion by the sword. 14 centuries of history show this assertion is overwhelmingly false. Besides, you could have just stuck to writing “Islam is a militant faith that inspires thousands to acts of terror” in order to make your point without adding in a falsehood.

    Even so, what good has Muslim immigration done for the United States and the American people?

    Many thousands of physicians treating patients for one. Even cab-drivers and convenient store workers offer a needed service, pay taxes etc. Plus Muslims as a whole espouse the sort of conservative values that are in dangerously short supply in this country. Again, if you want to make the argument that the good does not make up for the bad, then that is your choice. But to claim there is no good is unnecessarily insulting.

    From a region and a faith that is at best ambivalent about the societies that welcome them and at worst murderously hostile?

    Again with the hyperbole. Ambivalent at best? Why not “happy and grateful to partake in the freedom and prosperity” at best? Are you really claiming many or most Muslims in the US don’t feel this way?

    Only an insane society, or one desperate to prove its fidelity to some chimerical “virtue,” would have increased Muslim immigration after the September 11th attacks.

    Or a society whose immigration policy reflects the perceived interests of a group that views homogenous white societies as a potentially existential threat. Why did you leave this option out? I am pretty sure it crossed your mind. This is a point that really irks me about many of the articles on this site (Derbyshire and Sailer do this all the time). Muslim immigration isn’t the result of some powerful Muslim lobby, and Muslims have no say in our foreign policy towards Muslim countries either. Arguing for the validity of nativist sentiment while ignoring which group is most responsible for making such sentiment anathema is kind of cucky IMHO.


    To make where I am coming from more clear, I have no problem with Americans deciding to stop Muslim immigration. That is their right, they have already been much more generous than any other Muslim country would have been, and I don’t want my kids to grow up in some Balkanized country where an increasing number of people violently hate them.

  34. joe webb says:

    good article.

    “But paleos are more hostile to abstraction than neocons are enamored of it, and insist that any theoretical investigation of the good or assertion of principle leads in a straight line to universalism, utopianism, quotas and open borders.”

    Thank you for helping me understand why my suspicions about paleos have been well founded.

    Since I have never followed the paleos much, but have been aware of them as I assume the magazine The American Conservative, pretty much is paleo, and have wondered why that magazine is so creaky and stiff-limbed, for example refusing the word “Jew” when 90% of its articles are about jewish domination of US foreign policy, and my only personal experience with paleos has been with one who dropped out and became a white nationalist as well as ditching his long addiction to libertarianism, your remark that paleos are allergic to “theoretical investigation of the good” is very useful in explaining my puzzlement about them.

    First Principles do lead to some sort of Universalism, but it is not restricted to Liberal Universalism and the ‘wino veto’. Thank you for that one.

    Greek Philosophy had no problem with Athenian restriction of citizenship by race (parents and grandparents had to be born in Athens) and by class ( aristocracy, metics, slavery).

    The category of race and racial difference can be considered a Universal which recognizes genuine Difference, and thus accommodates Particulars.

    The universal in this regard is a recognition and privileging of Darwinian Evolution as the master universal which then accounts for the particulars of racial difference, personal differences within a particular race, and justice as particularistic in some large degree…thus embodying a recognition of Difference.

    Also, because all the races are homo sapiens, the principle of recognizing ‘one’s own’ as legitimate, the wino’s veto can be avoided but the legitimacy of “being human” as a claim to justice can be observed. Therefore minimal rights are reserved for all races, just as “person” in the US constitution and jurisprudence provides legal rights to non-citizens, travelers, etc.
    There is therefore ‘philosophic’ validity in adopting a Darwinian and Evolutionary view for dealing with our current problems of racial and immigration conflict. In brief , non-citizens and other races can be treated ‘fairly’ but we owe them not the wino’s veto, or the racial spoils system that today obtains, or even residence among us.

    This applies to other countries as well. Whites can be guaranteed their rights to person and property while resident in another country, but they have no claim to permanent residence, citizenship, voting, welfare, or entry in the first place.

    Sir Arthur Keith , about a half-century ago, began a study of ethics based on Darwinian reality.
    He wrote during the war, and his material is on line.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Tulip
  35. woodNfish says:

    This article becomes pretty good after it past the first few paragraphs of really stupid assertions, and then it just becomes too boringly long:

    (Trump’s) ideas—if we may use such a lofty term for Trump’s as-yet unformed and instinct-driven platform

    This is complete bullshit by someone who should know better and has not bothered to do the research so he can make an intelligent comment about his the person of whom he is writing. Trump has posted his positions on his website. They are well written and clearly stated. Trump has also published a book, Crippled America, which goes into his positions in more detail and other subjects.

    Trump’s contradictory pronouncements over the years…

    Trump addresses this in his book and says that yes, he has changed his mind about certain things over the years. So what, everyone does. He has had to change his mind and plans many times as a businessman in order to get projects done. If he wasn’t flexible, he wouldn’t be successful.

    I skimmed the rest of the article because the fact is, Trump has the most conservative platform of any of the candidates, and this writer, like most of his fellow hacks, is too lazy to do the research to try and learn who Trump is and what he stands for rather than have it spoon fed to him by the LSM. If he can’t get that right, why should I waste my time pretending he can get the rest correct?

    Seem to me if you want to play pundit you ought to at least know what you are talking about. So far only two people do; Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanon. Everyone else is a lazy ass hack and that includes Ron Unz and Sailer. Shameful.

  36. woodNfish says:

    And so it goes as the middle class find themselves not quite able (or sometimes not willing) to address their own dilemmas.

    You are referring to yourself, right? Because you and the rest of your family put the responsibility for this bastard on the rest of us instead of taking it on yourself. I have my own family to care for, I am not interested in paying for yours too.

  37. iffen says:

    How can some people string words together in reasonably coherent sentences, but thereby demonstrate that they have zero reading comprehension?

  38. @TG

    taxes on the rich where high

    Those were income taxes, which are levied not on “the rich” but on the getting-rich. The rich already have their money.

    That’s why billionaires love the income tax. It keeps the hoi polloi from joining them. It gates their community.

    Also, as in Japan to this day, those high marginal rates had tons of “socially useful” exemptions and deductions to channel people into the proper behavior.

  39. @Big Bill

    As it is, she will have a parade of boyfriends (or stepfather, if lucky) and raise the child in a lower class welfare culture.

    Or, if luckier, Grandma will send the child to Punahou.

  40. iffen says:

    Working people have few political organizations, nothing on the national level. Groups defeat individuals. Without some political organization, working people have no chance against the interest groups. Without a group of intellectuals devoted to working people and their organizations it will be impossible to exert political power over the longer term.

    • Replies: @Rhino
    , @WorkingClass
  41. woodNfish says:
    @Leftist conservative

    Immigration does not bring growth, especially when it undermines higher paying jobs and increases unemployment. At best it brings stagnation, at worse it brings recession and even depression as we have now.

  42. If we want an intellectual backing for Trumpism, we need look no farther than what George F. Kennan wrote in 1948:

    “”…we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.”

    Maintaining the “position of disparity” the United States enjoys with respect to the rest of the world is the job of every American politician. To the extent that such persons subvert that objective rather than supporting it, they are not only failing in their responsibilities, but also betraying the public trust. For too long, the powers-that-be have engaged in “the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction” at the expense of their fellow citizens. They have acted toward them as Mrs. Jellyby towards her own children, to their great shame.

  43. woodNfish says:

    Even if this were true, and it isn’t, Trump has never been a politician, so he has never had the choice of operating outside of the regulated policies of our lovely police state. As a self-funded candidate, Trump is the only person who has an iceberg’s chance in hell of changing it. The GOPe and the rest of the establishment, including Ron Paul, knows this and they are afraid their traitorous gravy train is about to end. That is why they oppose him.

  44. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    More important than Social Security is Racial Security. Indeed, without Racial Security, there is no Social Security as things will fall apart.

    We are seeing this in Sweden and Minnesota. As Africans soak up more and more of social welfare, there is less for the whites who are growing demoralized.

    Proggy moral masturbation leads to dissipation and demoralization.

  45. woodNfish says:

    There is nothing noble about balkanizing America. These people are destroying the engine that has created one of the wealthiest societies in the history of mankind, not just for the super wealthy, but for all of its citizens. Even the so-called “poor” in the USA on average own their own home, have 2 cars, two TVs, a computer, two cell phones, cable TV and internet. Poverty is relative. No one here is walking around with the distended bellies of starvation.

    By importing people en masse from third world cultures who have no history of Westernization and its ensuing socialization, they come here and want to remake the USA into the same kind of hellhole they left. It will end badly as it always ends badly everywhere it has been tried.

  46. nickels says:

    Agree that Trump is quite excellent at stepping through the minefields by keeping things slightly vague.

    He seems to have a great intuition for dealing with the media, probably a result of his many years in the spotlight.

    However, I think there is more to his success than just showmanship. He is one of us (contemporary Americans) . We’ve all grown up along side him and watching his somewhat wacky antics for decades. He was always a little on the entertainment side, but he also had the serious/hard working/down to business thing going for him.

    These other candidates came out of (relatively) no where. Having been burned on Obama, a huge important factor is someone that we know.

    Just how much we know Trump, of course, will unfold, but decades of familiarity are not without meaning.


  47. Tulip says:
    @joe webb

    One can love the Greeks, but the Greek polis never became the basis of an Imperial power. It was the Kingdom of Macedonia and later Rome that set the course of Western Civilization, and these imperial powers were based on a cosmopolitanism and an openness to strangers that was uncharacteristic of the provincial Greek polis.

    I point this out because America presides over an international system of hegemonic power, both military and economic. It is all fine to pine for the Anglo-Saxon yoeman farmers of the Founding Nation, but it is unrealistic to go back. Yes diversity is terrible, and we need to stop digging, but America today is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious territorial state, and it presides over an even more diverse planetary system of power. Some form of ethnonationalist particularism, or even some kind of “white nationalism” is unworkable as a practical matter, without dismantling the entire system, which will never happen short of an exogenous collapse.

    As a practical matter, there needs to be some restrictive notion of national identity that identifies and excludes the Barbarians while at the same time includes most of the present multitudes.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @joe webb
  48. Tulip says:

    It is unfortunate in a country supposedly devoted to free speech, any intelligent writing of the conservative variety must be published anonymously.

  49. I never understood the conservative logic of:

    He’s not conservative, so in revolt, we will vote for Hillary ????

  50. joe webb says:
    @random observer

    Intuition , right, is not enough. see my reason based argument on #34. There is an architecture that can compass these problems. And yes, Reason, needs to inform any kind of intuition. Just the facts M’am.

    Btw, beasts do not reason, although they can think a little bit in what we would call a rational way to find food, etc.

    Getting the Biology straight on what we are is the First Thing. After that, everything follows.

    Joe Webb

  51. iffen says:

    Interesting thoughts in this comment.

    Not so sure about the yeoman farmer description, more like planters and landed gentry or wannabes.

  52. AKAHorace says:
    @Eustace Tilley (not)

    I apologize if my comments appears arrogant and/or anti american. I am not a Brit. I thought that before I comment about Trump I should make it clear that I am not an American and so don’t have to live with the consequences of his success or failure as much as most of you who are American do.

    I disagree with mass immigration. This is a fight that is not confined to only the United States.

    To win this fight we will have to win over many people who see us who post here at the Unz review as facists. To change their minds we should accept that most of them are decent people. If we demonize them this will be difficult.

    The internationalists may be our enemies but most of their supporters are well meaning if misguided. To quote a communist “those who are not against us are with us.”: It seems like a winning strategy to me.

    • Replies: @iffen
  53. Very well done! A long article, but well worth the read. A couple thoughts…
    1. The bright lights of today’s “conservatism” are all leftists. The revealed preferences of a Ryan, McCain, Romney, Rubio, etc. differ little if any from those of the Clinton’s or Obama or Pelosi, etc.
    2. The pinnacle of Austrian economics, the all-knowing free market, in which the consumer is sovereign and votes with his wallet is sheer fantasy. No system of government is more free market oriented (i.e. for sale) than the U.S. government. In such a system, those with the dollars rule, no matter where those dollars come from. Hence the oversized influence that wealthy foreign and global interests have over our government, as compared to the lack of power of the vast majority of U.S. citizens, which the government was established to protect.
    3. Many seem shocked that intellectuals of a conservative bent haven’t seen through the charade of leftist politics running amuck, and over and through “conservatism”. Not me. The founding fathers, with the exception of Jefferson and Madison, were not intellectuals, but were men of practical intelligence and action. Today’s intellectuals stuck in their intellectual silos have little in common with them. They’re kind of like potted houseplants, owned and paid for by their wealthy benefactors. Very few have both the willingness and ability to break free from their all to comfortable intellectual and financial resraints. Hence the vile they feel for Trump, and the founding fathers, and the principles they established in the U.S. constitution.

  54. Rhino says:

    I agree. I like where Trump is going, and voted for him, but lots of conservative-type people seem to need a checklist of principles, apparently so that they can, among other things, play gotcha and complain about why good enough isn’t perfect.

    My law partner is a perfect example. I’ve got him talked into Trump for now, but as soon as some neocon comes along and reminds him that the Mexicans mow his lawn more cheaply, he’ll be rolling back on over to the neocon side of things.

    The principle check list will help with his type, but also be frustrating because the principles are not easily applied to all circumstances. For instance, when should war be waged? Well with a neocon it seems to be whenever we can get away with it, and for us the answer is that it depends.

    The advantage that neoconism has is that it is simple to apply. Tariffs? “Bahhh, Bahhh, Bad!” Unlimited Immigration? “Bahhh, Bahhh, Good!” The reasons allegedly supporting these answers are never very well understood by the mass of people.

    • Replies: @iffen
  55. iffen says:

    The only thing that I can think of would be to form some sort of faction within the Republican Party. Just put some basic points out there that gets a group together and try to grow it over time. We would need people that would do basic party stuff. Regardless of what happens with Trump (I really think they will bring Romney back to deny him the nomination) the establishment will recover and there will not be a party dedicated to the middle. The Democrats are set with the top and bottom against the middle and the Republicans are set with the top and fooling most of the middle into trying to elect more better Republicans forever.

  56. Durruti says:

    Mr. Mus,

    The weakness in your thesis is here:

    “The ceaseless importation of people unaccustomed to liberty, coupled with the continued hollowing out of the American middle class, makes the American people less fit for liberty every day.”

    You are truly denying History here. It is precisely -Americans- who are “unaccustomed to liberty.

    Our elections are Rigged (bought & circus).

    We have not hosted a Constitutional Government in Half-A-Century.

    America’s rulers have exterminated in excess of 4 million humans since the Coup d’etat in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

    Vietnam – 2 million (US Senate figures).

    Indonesia – 1 million (1965).

    Guatemala – 100,000+

    Iraq – 1 million & millions displaced.

    Syria – 150,000, & millions displaced.

    Imperialist Butcheries in Libya, Afghanistan, Chile, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Ukraine, (you fill in the rest……….).

    American Congress totally suborned by Zionist Rothschilds & their friends – \$money.

    Bailout of \$13Trillion to top .01%

    Obomber & H Clinton anointed as Senators, & then as Presidents.

    There is more, much more tragedy in the Least democratic Nation on earth, and one that is not even Sovereign.

    For Ron Paul, Edward Snowden, & others in opposition.

    We must Restore our American Republic.

    For the Democratic Republics we must rescue, and for those we must forge!


    • Replies: @joe webb
  57. Durruti says:

    Why am I unable to fix my comment – as I attempted to do so – well within the time frame for fixing? As I was fixing the usual typos, the page suddenly disappeared. This has happened on other occasions.


  58. joe webb says:

    you are basically correct in your observation…up to a point. Greece as well as Rome both enjoyed a republican form for centuries. This included total race and aristocratic based political forms.

    Greece blew up thru class struggle and plain old internecine warfare…Pelopponesian War. Arguably there was some Principle involved since Sparta led the oligarchicals and Athens led the Republican states. Still, it was White-guy cussedness, rivalry, and imperialism.

    Rome was more complicated, but one thing is for sure, the army under the Republic was yeoman farmer based and the patricians could not live without them. Tribunes helped keep the balance between patrician and pleb. This was true of Greece too, with the importance of citizen armies keeping oligarchs at bay.

    There was also the clientism of just about all folks which provided a stabilizing force of myriad personal relationships between the classes.

    Empire came with too much conquest, and in the context of the times, of economic scarcity certainly compared to our own times. No Social Security check.

    Nationalism was a guarantee of survival. No weapons, and guts/virtue , you die.
    The failure of the city state in Greece led to Stoicism and the search for a larger Human Context. Hence the univeralistic ideas of Hellenism. This fed into Rome and justified the Roman Imperialism…presumably to Unify and avoid the petty polis Greek political form. I guess this Hellenism fed into Christian universalism.

    So you Tulip, are in the same kind of bind…wanting a universalism to unify. It did not work either, with Rome. Of course, a thousand year run is not too shabby.

    Immigration and ‘universal’ citizenship for Others helped ruin the Roman virtu,, etc, etc. much remarked by Roman writers. Empire also brought, arguably, more civil war than during the Republic. The human drive for prestige/respect also contributed to conflicts.

    (as an aside, the avenues to gain prestige were much limited then compared to now. Energies for prestige gain are constant, but opportunities today as opposed to antiquity for such energies are huge.)

    So, the especially White race trait of a high altruism quotient, wants to Unify and bring peace and love to the world.

    It does not work that way. Every day in every way, the news presents the evidence of zero ability for races and even ethnys within a race, to get along.

    We are in a kind of Pax Romana today, never mind the old line about calling it peace when it was a wasteland.

    Globalism is the biggest idea joke of our times. Never mind the economics, the races are being taunted by the Liberals …make nice, the Others are you brothers and sisters.

    (Now we know about genetics and intelligence huge differences. No way can an average IQ of 90 or so, of a country, or a group, result in either Democracy, or civility in everyday life. On top of that is Temperament. No other race except Whites have invented liberty. White history, Greco-Roman, Germania, and Indo-Europeans (think Homer) demanded liberty, and free speech. In short, it was I get to speak, and if you try to bar me from speaking, I will kill you.)

    There is no evidence that this can work. We are seeing the Beginning of the counter-revolution in the West now. Date it from 2015, or 2016.

    The ideological Empire of Racial Equality is on the ropes.

    Joe Webb

  59. joe webb says:

    the usual problem with this kind of leftist rant is this: what were Other races and so on doing that was or is any better.?

    answer: none. joe Webb

  60. Talha says:

    Some of the stuff Mr. Trump says makes a heck of a lot of sense (I’m glad he is saying it), other stuff has me questioning basic grasp of logic.

    “Islam hates America” makes as much sense as “Islam loves America”.

    It seems to be devoid of nuance…great for soundbites though.

    A Trump Presidency will either be America’s saving grace or our karmic comeuppance; I guess we’ll see…

    Note: As someone else has pointed out, you don’t need to make things up to make a point…

    Islam is not a “religion of peace”

    This is opinion, so, not falsifiable; totally depends on one’s criteria for peaceful. Technically Islamic rules of warfare consider war to be; prohibited, discouraged, merely permissible, encouraged or obligatory – all based on circumstance.

    it’s a militant faith

    Again, not falsifiable, depends on one’s criteria for “militant”.

    that exalts conversion by the sword

    This one is stated as a factual statement and is false. This has no basis in the definitive rulings of any of the existing four Sunni Orthodox schools of jurisprudence. By consensus, one cannot be forced to convert from his native religion, he is given the option to reside as a covenanted and taxed citizen (dhimmi) – females and children are exempt from taxation; the Shafi’i school only applies this to People of the Book, but this is a theoretical application since the historic successive caliphates have been Maliki, followed by Hanafi, who extended it to any religion and even materialists/atheists. This is recognized by non-Muslim scholars of history; for instance Prof. David Nicolle (probably the most knowledgeable scholar alive of military history and tactics of the ancient and medieval world of the Muslim lands), who had no problem writing a book and titling it “Armies of Muslim Conquest” states clearly early on that the term jihad is not compatible with the analogous European term “Holy War” and that it was not used to enforce conversion. Here I would like to point out that there have been historical aberrations from this general rule; the Almohad conquest of the Iberian peninsula and the conquests of parts of India by certain sultans immediately come to mind, though there were other instances. Undisputed by fact is that the oldest Christian (mostly Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian, etc.) communities have resided in Muslim lands as conquered minority peoples for centuries. This even includes people like the Yazidis. We would not be hearing about their persecution and expulsion now if they were forced to become Muslim centuries ago.

    and inspires thousands to acts of terror—and millions more to support and sympathize with terror.

    True, based on their nihilistic interpretation which is divorced from traditional Orthodoxy (they consider Orthodoxy to be the ones mired in misguidance for centuries). As the contemporary Shafi’i British scholar, Abdul-Hakim Murad (may God preserve him) stated, “Maliki ulama [scholars] do not become suicide-bombers. No-one has ever heard of Sufi terrorism. Everyone, enemies included, knows that the very idea is absurd.” On top of that, when dealing with over 1.5 billion, “thousands” and even “millions” is not a useful yardstick since even if the entire equivalent of every man, woman and child in the entire UK were all hard-core extremists – that would still be around 4%.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  61. @iffen

    Organized labor had a prominent seat in the Democratic coalition before Clinton kicked us to the curb in favor of NAFTA and accompanying corporate bucks. And yes. The working class has had no representation since. And because we are uneducated by definition of course we require assistance from the professions regarding any attempt to organize. So where are the academics sympathetic to labor? Coopted by the party which is coopted by the Oligarchy which is rapidly impoverishing and enslaving us all.

    The way out is secession. The time is nearly ripe with the empire in rapid decline.

    • Replies: @iffen
  62. iffen says:

    The way out is secession.

    You need to keep things within reason.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  63. @iffen

    I can see how it might get me detained. But as speculation about what post imperial America might look like I don’t think its unreasonable. The Soviet Union balkanized. The EU is in process of balkanizing. Why not the lower 48? Its not unprecedented.

    Perhaps this thread has gone far enough afield. But if you care to – what do you suppose post imperial America will look like?

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @MarkinLA
  64. iffen says:

    To win this fight we will have to win over many people who see us who post here at the Unz review as facists.

    A significant number who post here are fascists. Doesn’t that give your hopes a fatal flaw?

    • Replies: @joe webb
  65. iffen says:

    But if you care to – what do you suppose post imperial America will look like?

    The middle class and working class will learn from Trump’s success and come together politically to exert political power and enforce policies that benefit our country, starting with the themes that have jump started Trump, namely, an immigration hiatus, an end to our eternal warfare around the world and economic policies that benefit the majority and thereby the whole nation.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  66. Decius says:

    RE: “What comes next,” I’ve been thinking about it a lot. Some of my musings are at the blog. Others I am keeping to myself (for now), in part because they are not yet fully formed and in part because my blog partners would object.

    I will say that I did buy and read Michael Hart’s book on secession and was not too impressed. I don’t mean to cast aspersions at him or at anyone who sympathizes with him. Only that I think a lot more work will have to go into this idea and he just skips over some massive problems, the most obvious being contiguity.

    • Replies: @iffen
  67. MarkinLA says:

    The Soviet Union balkanized.

    The USSR was composed of hundreds of different kingdoms and tribes all either willingly or forcefully absorbed into the Russian Empire. Many never wanted to be a part of it (like the Muslims) and some were driven to want out by Stalin.

  68. Who is this Publius Decius Mus (Mouse)? Pat Buchanan?

  69. iffen says:

    The political project of supreme importance is therefore the transformation of passive Middle Americans into a new ruling elite, while the ideological project of supreme significance is the formulation of a new nationalism which will justify that political project.

    I copied this from the blog and really like the ideas driving it.

    We need a new elite to take power that is dedicated to the middle class and working class and attuned to their interests. This will be a monumental, if not impossible task.

    If that can be achieved some new method of exercising political control that resists decay and the encroachment by the malignant users that flock to power must be created.

  70. Trumpism transcends both the two parties and the two “accepted ” ideologies. It is rooted in “blood and soil, kith and kin.” It is nativism, populism, and a welling up of a desperate sense that all might be lost – that the American experience was all for nothing. It is now or never, and if the latter, then devolution will proceed apace, and most likely not without violence.

    So Trumpism might best be termed AFFIRMATIONISM. We affirm ourselves, family, friends and associates, religion, culture, civilization, ethnicity, country, and even species. But this does not mean that we wish harm to others. For to value one’s family does mean that one wishes harm to the family next door, just that we value our own higher. But any people that does not AFFIRM, is deleted from the world cultural and group genome pool.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  71. joe webb says:

    please define “fascist” and fascism. compare and contrast Italy and Germany, and any other examples, like the Iron Guard of Romania in the teens and 20s…Codreanu and the dozen or so fascisms of eastern and central Europe,

    Let me suggest some properties: nation, people (volk), military readiness, manly virtues, honor, mixture of aristocratic and democratic principles, racialism, and anti-liberalism. And lasts but not least the precipitating political factors for their appearance, for example, communism and jewish influence in communism.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @iffen
  72. joe webb says:
    @Rick Johnson

    exactly and I always ask folks who have children…so who do you save first, your kids, or the neighbor kids in some awful life threatening event?

    I have seen some pretty funny responses from liberals and lefties. I ask then, if for example, they chose the neighbor kid first, but the natural kid was second to be saved, would there be an psychological damage to the natural kid, or to the parent who then had to live with his choice?

    The liberal sense of the Natural Order is practically insane. An old friend of mine failed the above test. I asked him if he could depend on his kids to take care of him in his old age. he said, No.

    Woody Woodpecker laughter here.

    Joe Webb

  73. joe webb says:

    It looks like you are not reading the newspapers or even watching TV news.

    Isis, for example and the other absurd lunatics. Story in NYT today on Isis and its kidnapping of women for temporary wives of soldiers. They get raped repeatedly, and are handed around to other rapists.

    Arab IQ is 84-84 average and they are crazier than our blacks.

    Time to awaken from your pretty little stories. I have known a number of muzzies as I was active a few years ago in the Iraq sanctions movement. That experience cured my virginity about Arabs.
    The ladies do have such a hard time waking up…it is in the female genes…be nice.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Talha
  74. joe webb says:

    Whites are the People/race that has invented 99% of everything, technical and humanistic. We are the adventurers, the explorers, the experimenters, the rationalizing and scientific and objective observers of reality….all of it.

    WE invented liberty. No other race has invented liberty. No other race has invented it and put it.into law.

    Without White “supremacy” the world slides back into despotism, both Oriental and African, etc.

    No white nationalist of whom I am aware wants to dominate and rule over the other benighted races. We want to escape from them. White Racialist Escape from the Muds in what WN is.

    All the Do-Gooding Whites are free to leave with their pet projects of Uplift. Go in peace, but go.

    Joe Webb

  75. joe webb says:

    I notice that the violence and chaos, quote quote, of the Trump rally is being blamed by the usuals on Trump, not the violators and intruders into private event for Trump.

    I have not seen one word in the jewyorktimes or other msm, about Free Speech being violated by the protesters. They have not learned their abc s of civics lessons about free association, privacy, and free speech.

    It is beyond their ability to understand. And/or, if some do understand, they are just fundamentally killers.
    That is fundamentally what all third worlders are.

    Self-defense is the natural right of obvious logic and is implicit in the Second Amendment, which the jews want to abolish.

    Joe Webb

  76. joe webb says:

    The Counter-REvolution has begun. Halleuluja! Whatever happens to Trump, here and in Europe is has begun. The long run of 1789 has entered its morbid stage, and will take a few more years to die, assuming that Europe does not blow up real big this summer, or a depression strikes hard at the social peace, or more Isis type bombs do not go off.

    There will be a super-charged counter revolutionary moment if any or all of these things happen.
    It will be electoral I am quite sure. A couple more years of the treason of the elites is another thing. Joe Webb

  77. Talha says:
    @joe webb

    Dear Joe,

    To begin, may God grant you a great reward for your work against the Iraq sanctions, which hurt the most vulnerable people in an already-devastated country.

    I’m quite aware of what is happening, but I don’t watch TV news – most of it is trash and unreliable. There are mush better sources of information, for instance on Syria, Prof. Joshua Landis is indispensable ( How that should alter what I stated, I can’t grasp.

    You called out ISIS as absurd lunatic, good for you. Their interpretation of Islam certainly is absurd lunacy and the vast majority of their victims (pint for pint of blood, pound for pound of flesh) have been other Muslims; this is a factual statement. All of the nations (Muslim and non-Muslim) of the world have closed the door to the world of slavery – all must abide by this covenant; ISIS cannot unilaterally open it. As Mufti Taqi Usmani (may God preserve him), former Grand Mufti of Pakistan, made clear: “… most of the nations of the world have today formed a pact between them, and have agreed that a prisoner from the captives of war will not be put into slavery, and most of the Islamic lands today are participants of this agreement, particularly the members of the United Nations, so it is not permissible for an Islamic country today to put a captive into slavery as long as this pact remains.” Of course, we are dealing with people who think blowing people up during Friday prayers in a Shiah mosque is an act of virtue, so none of their other interpretations really surprise me.

    As far as Arab IQ is concerned, OK, makes sense; education in that area is a mess.

    As far as, “they are crazier than our blacks” – don’t really know how to evaluate that one – a lot of presumptions there, can you cite some source for this, or is it just opinion.

    I’m not sure what “pretty little stories” I mentioned. I thought I had mentioned factual statements based on sources of medieval Islamic scholars (I refer to them because they are the most reliable, unhampered by any apologetics of latter day discourse). I even mentioned a solid non-Muslim scholar of medieval and ancient Islamic warfare history and the exact book to find the statement.

    “The ladies do have such a hard time waking up…it is in the female genes…be nice.” Not exactly sure what that all means…

    May God preserve you and yours.

  78. @iffen

    I sincerely hope you are right iffen. I think the Trump supporters will be defeated inasmuch as Trump will be denied the nomination or defeated by the establishment in the general election. In the course of the coming Clinton administration they will coalesce not into a loyal opposition but rather a resistance movement. In any case, what plays out plays out against a back drop of the decline and fall of empire.

    What happens when Washington has to choose between supporting its legions in the field or supporting its legions on social security, medicare and food stamps. What happens when it can do neither. It seems to me that normalcy bias prevents us from even discussing the inevitable end of empire.

    • Replies: @iffen
  79. iffen says:
    @joe webb

    “the hit dog hollers”?

    • Replies: @joe webb
  80. iffen says:

    I think the Trump supporters will be defeated inasmuch as Trump will be denied the nomination or defeated by the establishment in the general election.

    Unfortunately I believe you are correct. Quite a bit depends upon the outcome on this Tuesday. If Trump can actually get a majority of delegates before the convention they will let him have the nomination. If he is even one delegate short they will put Romney into a couple of the late primaries and give the nomination to him.

    In the course of the coming Clinton administration they will coalesce not into a loyal opposition but rather a resistance movement.

    This is the only available straw to grasp IMO.

    Have you read any of the posts at the blog listed for the author of this article? I have started reading the archives and I am very encouraged by the analyses and opinions.

  81. joe webb says:

    right but the dog lacks reason. So what is your point?

    If you have a point besides dragging out the cliches. Say the magic word, Hitler, and case is closed.

    Joe Webb

  82. joe webb says:

    Hi Talha, you are familiar with the bell curve. In any cohort of people or race, despite an average IQ of X (low ), there will always be, on the right tail of the curve, a lot of smart folks, who can, if they have political power, gets things done, relatively rationally. That explains ancient rchitecture in the Third World of today, for example, where elites held power and certainly kept the stupids under strict control.

    Arab IQ , per Richard Lynn, IQ and Global Inequality, is @ average 84-5. Egypt is 81 probably because of interbreeding with black Africans. African IQ average is 67. We use 70 as the starting point of of mental retardation, or whatever the polite term is now.

    Societies of dimly-witted people need Strong Men to rule them. Societies of even smarter people, tend to seek leadership, and that is a good thing. It is primal in social animals…finding the Leader. The leader makes the most sense, makes good decisions, and has his retinue of closer supporters.

    Whites, going all the way back to antiquity, put severe constraints on a Maximum Leader. This is known as Aristocracy, or rule by the few, but certainly not rule by a single Maximum leader. When Rome degenerated into Empire, the Maximum Leader doctrine was theorized as the Principate, or in the case of HItler, the Prinzip, if I got the spelling right.

    The distinction is ” the leader” and opposed to ” a leader”. No aristocracy allowed, in White history, for The Leader. Furthermore in Rome, Leadership was always linked to Advise and Consent…as we term it now.


    When what we call dictators arose in White societies, it was and is an aberration of the general norm, and in Rome, per some writers, was a function of Empire and the corruptions of great wealth, and loss of virtu due to, as we would say now, “too big to fail” as irony, and the loss of solid Latin ethnic solidarity, which had obtained throughout the Republic. In other words, the cosmopolitanism that followed empire and funny ideas like Stoicism, led to a polyglot racial problem and loss of virtu and too many stupid people.

    Everywhere else in the world today it is The Leader, or Oriental Despotism to use the old Enlightenment term which was developed during the great age of exploration of the world outside of Europe. There is no republican/democratic principle there. It is the Strong Leader, One Man.

    This is explained by either low IQ or Temperamental factors like submissiveness, etc. or both. Thus East Asia of the north which is slightly higher in IQ than whites, nevertheless is the prime example of Oriental Despotism. It will always be despotism because of submissive temperaments. UR last year had a bi0-cultural coevolution article of rice agriculture vs. wheat agriculture which described how submissive/collectivist personality types were developed traits of rice growing, as opposed to individualist traits due to wheat growing.

    The rest of the Third World…it is low IQ, like India whose national IQ average is 82. India is not a democracy per western white standards.

    This is all biology and its traits…not ethics. So I hope this sketch addresses some of your concerns.

    Women , per evolution and biology, are the custodians of children and nurturers in general. That is just biology. I saw a recent study that found that men have far less patience and interest in child care than women.

    Women carry purses cuz they are gatherers, and men carry spears or the equivalent today because we are hunters. Of course, there are always exceptions, but this is the general rule. Women are tad less smart, in general about 5 points, than men, or white men anyway from studies.

    They can become good professionals, but after 120 IQ, men leave them in the dust on the way up to very high IQs. This is just biology and evolution. The glass ceiling is not glass, it is biology -a trait rooted in tens of thousands of years of evolution.

    I am pro-arab in the context of the jewish wars that the US fights. However, I am a racialist, and Arabs do not fit in Europe because of low IQ and Islam, which empirically, tends to extremism.

    Blacks do not fit, nor do Chinese fit in White countries. Nowhere on the planet is there any race or even ethnic mixing (think the White Balkans for example) that works. look at Arab clan/tribal problems here there is not even a race/ethnic problem.

    We are tribal, and that is because of Evolution…our tens of thousands of years of bio history was tribal, the primal horde, etc. All of us. I was chatting with an 18 year old white gal the other day who started using the word “oppression” with regard to blacks.

    I said, please. I gave her homework to go home and google the Minnesota Twin study with regard to identicals separated at birth and raised in differing environments. The next day I saw her and she was shocked, but because she is smart, she was able to talk reasonably about it. More is coming for her…next is racial IQ.

    She mentioned a local school that she did not like. I said how come? She said she just did not like them. I asked why again. Turned out that the school is her school’s athletic rival.
    I said, uh, tribalism..huh? She blushed. White upper middle class schools, both of them. She got it but her probably high IQ helped.

    This is biological reality. The key to world peace is Separation of the Races and Reason based trade , not globalism…another story. We all can get along, but not on the basis of equality, but on the basis of mutual respect…a form of love.

    Thank you for your courtesy. Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Talha
  83. iffen says:

    To win this fight we will have to win over many people who see us who post here at the Unz review as facists.

    A significant number who post here are fascists. Doesn’t that give your hopes a fatal flaw?


    akaHorace said “others” view the people who post here as fascists. He wants to win over many of the “others” and views their perception that we commenters are fascists as an impediment to winning them over. If he is serious about winning then he needs to understand that some of the commenters here are fascists and take that into consideration when he makes plans if any. Nazis, fascists and WNs cannot be a part of a political solution to the problems that the US currently faces and their participation would prevent the development of any workable political movement.

    You can express any political dogma or beliefs that you desire. You are not free to dictate to me how I perceive that expression.

    • Replies: @iffen
  84. Decius says:

    Will “führer” do? NR’s Kevin Williamson has joined the “conservative” Trump=Hitler brigade.

  85. iffen says:

    Joe Webb,

    Quit trying to bonk 18 year olds, you are embarrassing yourself.


    • Replies: @joe webb
  86. joe webb says:

    another resenter. And I see no argument, only ad hominemism.

    The thing that attracts young gals to me is not only my relatively good looks, but my great arguments…they have the Aha! experience.

    Young people can be approached more easily than the college ruined and liberal arts lies. The Aha experience is strong enough to smash thru what was once called the paper tiger…the tissue of flimsy claims as well as perhaps having the benefit of youthful rebellion, in this case, rebellion against liberalism as opposed to the rebellion against the conservatism of my youth.

    Today’s establishment is in big trouble, in every way, and while youthful white altruism is still around, which is good, they can be instructed by facts and personal example, calm, knowledgable, friendly and yes, sexy inasmuch as there is nothing wrong with that…just human. Is Bernie Sanders sexy? What attractiveness he has is just ideological..lots of failed ideas seeking one more time.

    Do women find Trump sexy? Probably. Women are attracted to power and powerful personalities. This is just evolution…the particular need of women for a provider for children, not just herself. Also, since only recently have women begun to be able to earn good salaries, the history their evolution has been dependence on men.

    The new cosmopolitanism that Frees our gals to dream the impossible dream…is a dead-end, but many of our white women do not figure it out until it is too late, when their youthful bloom is gone, they are childless and 50 years old. So much for the jewish subversion of feminism.

    Envy, rivalry, competition, and so on, is just part of the evolutionary order. Strong males go to the top of the breeding hierarchy in all social animals. That is what has helped evolution along, a bio-cultural accelerator.

    African sexual non-discriminative breeding, and the Free Love of White low-life, breeds half-wits, and can establish no distinctive high status , high intelligence Family and clan cohort that can help build an aristocratic order based on quality genes.

    Part of personal power is the ability to charm. Personal prestige is based on ability, accomplishment, good looks (something the ancient world of Greco-Roman and Germanic types revered) and wealth also…which does not hurt, but is not absolutely necessary, except in a commercial society like ours.

    I seem to recall that HItler said somewhere that he needed to remain unmarried for the German woman’s psychological needs. HItler was arguably not great looking, but he had Personality, and was charismatic and a good speaker. Oratory has died out in our age of print media, and maybe there is something very primal about oratory….the speech around the bonfire, etc.

    Song and oratory are similar…visceral in effect. Trump is not a great orator, but he at least can speak with few notes, and keep it not pointy-headed intellectual, but with diction to match everyday speech of whites.

    They love it. It is the B S orientation of the public intellectuals, and media flunkies and cliche civics lessons parroting by the pols…the buzz of TV…white folks have had enough.

    Ans this is here to stay….nor more B S is what white folks crave.

    And , they still love beauty pageants, and sex women and men…just biology folks…and especially they love the beauty of the White race, men and women, the most beautiful race on the planet.
    Joe Web

  87. Talha says:
    @joe webb

    Dear Joe,

    Now this is reasoned discourse, thanks – much better than the playground antics that passes for ‘discussion’ on these type of boards.

    I can see why you have come to your conclusions. Though I disagree, you don’t seem to be the type of person who feels racial differences (and advantages of one over another) are means to call for oppression or exploitation of others; this is respectable.

    It seems you are fundamentally a materialist – perhaps I’m wrong – so all things boil down to genetic traits, evolution, etc. I’m not sure whether or not you accord any weight to human free will or whether you believe actions are determinate based on the genetic composition and hereditary traits.

    My personal objections have to do with giving IQ far too much weight in the determination of the success of a society. To me, IQ, like physical strength, acute eyesight, resistance to diseases, or a host of other genetically related human advantages are essentially amplifiers. It allows the tribe/nation/group to carry out the fulfillment of the “collective will”. Unfortunately, depending on what exactly that will is, can bespeak of either disaster or prosperity. Case in point, the two most horrific conflicts in the world’s history were basically steel-cage-no-holds-barred matches between the societies of the highest IQs – mostly “White”, though the intelligent “Asians” also gave it what-for. They unleashed their fury on each other in an industrialized manner that was unprecedented and burned each other’s cities to the ground in a manner that would have given the Mongol Horde pause.

    IQ does not necessarily equate with wisdom, they have a correlation, but are distinct. I can easily see that societies, maybe duller than us, would look at developing and maintaining the technical ability to destroy the world multiple times over with askance. They would be pardoned for believing this to be madness. Furthermore, the societies with the highest IQs seem to be the ones with the penchant for having negative replacement birth-rates. I have four kids, not actually a whole lot, but children are not easy to raise correctly. They require constant attention. Societies that have given up the ability to raise children in stable families have demonstrated incomprehension with the basic consequences of time preference – which is neither wise nor intelligent. They are building the material foundations which other people will simply inherit – irrespective of whether they had the requisite IQ to build it themselves.

    From a purely evolutionary perspective, intelligence is not an indicator of genetic success.

    There were a few other things you mentioned that don’t pan out to my reading of history, I could be wrong. One thing you mentioned is that aristocracy in the ‘white’ world was distinct and had limitations put on it. I honestly haven’t come across evidence of, say the Safavids, Ottomans, or other world dynasties operating on different terms vis-a-vis its rulers and population. In fact, Suleiman ‘the Magnificent’ was known for his legislative reforms – this was years before anything of the like was ushered into much of Europe (there were exceptions like the Magna Carta and the Swiss Confederacy, of course).

    You reference the societies in the third world that need strong men to keep them together. I would disagree. You need a strong man to keep a nation-state together in those regions. Tribal and aboriginal people are fiercely independent and decentralized. Europe hasn’t been tribal for centuries and forgotten that part of its history. Tribal people’s concepts of freedom would be radical in our understanding. Unfortunately, they were given the nation-state model which is a particularly European invention and forged in the context of cataclysmic events like the plague, Protestant Reformation, Thirty-year’s war, etc. The problems we see now are a result of a circle trying to be fit into a square hole.

    If you survey the Muslim world starting from only hundred years ago, I would understand why you would think Islam “empirically, tends to extremism”. If you survey the entire historical narrative, then you see that it indeed has these waves of fanaticism that raise their heads every couple of centuries. They cause trouble and mayhem, and are then either fought and brought to heel or just die off on their own. The resurgent Jihadist-Wahhabism is the face of this scourge in our day and age – they are loud for their numbers, but “empirically” the vast majority of the Muslim world is just not on board with their agenda. The flames are also fanned by things like drone strikes, invasions of countries that haven’t attacked us, our sales of arms to dynasties like the Saud, and a host of other things which you are already well-aware of since you did work against the ghastly sanctions against the Iraqi people. Out of that very legitimate anger, you have people who take the response to the extreme and find religious justification to promote it – that is not surprising to me, does it actually surprise you?

    Racial/ethnic mixing in societies can be a very powerful instrument. If they can get along in a generally civil manner. Just one example; the Ottomans were the longest lasting dynasty in human history. Though they were the rulers, their genius in being able to take advantage of the skills and aptitudes of the various peoples under them were the core of their strength. As the Jews (many of them skilled physicians and merchants) were expelled from Spain by the Alhambra Decree, the Ottoman’s absorbed them and it is recorded that Sultan Bayazid mused to his court, “You venture to call Ferdinand a wise ruler; he who has impoverished his own country and enriched mine!” The skill is in maintaining that civility and avoiding breakdown of law and order. America has absorbed many of the most intelligent people from other countries and they have enriched it so it should be selective of who it lets in – that seems to be a rational policy. However, I do agree with you, that once the rot sets in and people fracture along ethnic/tribal lines, this can lead to a very frightening outcome and have one questioning whether all the previous advantages were worth it.

    May God grant you honor in this life and the next.

  88. Vox actually has fairly good analyses of Trump.
    The tone is different than yours, but their facts are solid.

  89. @Anon

    I’m not sure that Trump’s “scattershot” approach is not deliberate.
    At the start of his campaign I thought he was flying by the seat of his pant, but I’m not so sure anymore.
    It’s obvious to me he has a well thought out strategy and picked the right “generals” to carry out the battle plan.
    I’m no longer inclined to second guess him.
    I don’t think it’s an inability to articulate or formulate his policies. Rather it’s an innate understanding that a leader is the one with the overarching vision. The details will be worked out by those around him.
    I suspect he’s been surrounding himself with quality people long before the time he finally decided to run.

    It’s been so easy to underestimate him and be proven wrong that that I’m no longer inclined to do it.

  90. @Agent76

    On immigration Trump represents a radical departure from the establishment. He actually wants to enforce immigration law.

  91. The truth says:

    Hey Stupid (Decius or whatever your name is)

    The Conservatives you decry and besmirch have been fighting the fight.

    We won back control of Congress in both houses. Then they torpedoed us all by caving to Obama and the democrats repeatedly. THAT is what gave rise to Donald Trump. The Conservative movement has not sold themselves out, the people they elected did by their actions once they got to Washington. Your entire “essay” smacks of Alinsky through and through and does nothing but further divide the base.

    This election has nothing to do with “the flight 93 effect”, it has everything to do with anger and change. We are drifting perilously close to an actual civil war, and if we are not careful, words, articles and smear will give way to bullets, clubs and spears. So go ahead, keep mouthing off. Just understand that in such circumstances (which some idiots out there actually wish for), you people die first. Anyone from the “revolutionary” regime will seek out and target all dissenters and troublemakers and execute them, by whatever means necessary, regardless of how anonymous you think you are, you will be found.

    Hitler and every other Tyrant without exception has done the same.

  92. Hcat says: • Website

    As a Religious Right type, I really struggle with this mode of thinking. We have always been told that our ideological enemies are the secular elites; immigrants they may be, ultimately, but they more likely came over on the Mayflower than over the Sonoran Desert. We remember with the sin of pride our victory with Proposition 8 in California in 2008 (since overturned by judicial finagling) when it won on the strength of black and Latino votes while actually losing whites and Asians. Do you think I’m ever going to forget this? I will not!

  93. Anonymous [AKA "Glaucon"] says:

    Actually, Socrates articulated the “city in speech,” so it is “his” city. My little brother Plato is just the guy who edited it and wrote it down in a dialogue, which we called Politeia, but in Magna Graecia it would probs be called something like, res publica.

    See you at the gymnasium!

    Source: I was at Cephalus’ place.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Publius Decius Mus Comments via RSS
Becker update V1.3.2
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism