The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
David Brooks Denounces "Russian Myth" Propagated by Czar Thomas the Jefferson
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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

Czar’s Palace, Russia

From the NYT:

A Return to National Greatness

David Brooks FEB. 3, 2017

The Library of Congress’s main building is one of the most magnificent buildings in Washington, or in the country. It was built in a pivotal, tumultuous time. During the 23 years in the late 19th century that it took to design and build the structure, industrialization transformed America. More people immigrated to America than in the previous 250 years combined. …

In that story, America is placed at the vanguard of the great human march of progress. America is the grateful inheritor of other people’s gifts. It has a spiritual connection to all people in all places, but also an exceptional role. America culminates history. It advances a way of life and a democratic model that will provide people everywhere with dignity. The things Americans do are not for themselves only, but for all mankind.

This historical story was America’s true myth. … It gave America a mission in the world — to spread democracy and freedom.

Admittedly, John Quincy Adams, who knew all the Founding Fathers from Franklin onward, said on July 4, 1821:

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. …

But JQA’s viciously Czarist rant is not who we are. JQA was America’s first minister to Russia, so, obviously, he was subverted there. Here’s photographic proof that JQA, long before Trump, was the original Siberian Candidate:

Screenshot 2017-02-03 17.14.08

In defense of JQA, however, he never had a chance to see Fiddler on the Roof to learn the True Meaning of America. But what’s Trump’s excuse?

It gave us an attitude of welcome and graciousness, to embrace the huddled masses yearning to breathe free and to give them the scope by which to realize their powers.

The Zeroth Amendment requires us to be Huddled Masochists. It’s who we are.

But now the myth has been battered. …

And so along come men like Donald Trump and Stephen Bannon with a countermyth. Their myth is an alien myth, frankly a Russian myth. It holds, as Russian reactionaries hold, that deep in the heartland are the pure folk who embody the pure soul of the country — who endure the suffering and make the bread. But the pure peasant soul is threatened.

This alien Russian myth was made up by the notorious Czar Thomas the Jefferson.

It is threatened by the cosmopolitan elites and by the corruption of foreign influence.

Similarly, Czar George the Washington wrote in his notoriously virulent Farewell Address, with help from Grand Duke Alexander the Hamilton:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

Back to Brooks:

The true American myth is dynamic and universal — embracing strangers and seizing possibilities. The Russian myth that Trump and Bannon have injected into the national bloodstream is static and insular. It is about building walls, staying put. Their country is bound by its nostalgia, not its common future.

The odd thing is that the Trump-Bannon myth is winning. The policies that emanate from it are surprisingly popular. The refugee ban has a lot of support. Closing off trade is popular. Building the wall is a winning issue.

The Trump and Bannon anschluss has exposed the hollowness of our patriotism.

“Anschluss” … I thought Trump and Bannon were Russians, not Germans. It’s hard to keep up …

It has exposed how attenuated our vision of national greatness has become and how easy it was for Trump and Bannon to replace a youthful vision of American greatness with a reactionary, alien one.

We are in the midst of a great war of national identity. We thought we were in an ideological battle against radical Islam, but we are really fighting the national myths spread by Trump, Bannon, Putin, Le Pen and Farage.

We can argue about immigration and trade and foreign policy, but nothing will be right until we restore and revive the meaning of America. Are we still the purpose-driven experiment

As described in The Federalist Papers by founding father Rick Warren

Lincoln described

Most famously in his Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our Proposition Generators brought forth on this continent, a new idea, conceived in immigration, and dedicated to the proposition that all imperialism is good:

Invade the World! Invite the World!

Brooks continue:

and Emma Lazarus

Founding Mother and authoress of the Zeroth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: “If anybody anywhere wants to move to America, you can’t stop them or even look at them funny because that would be racist, you racist.”

wrote about: assigned by providence to spread democracy and prosperity; to welcome the stranger; to be brother and sister to the whole human race; and to look after one another because we are all important in this common project?

Rare color photo of Abraham Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address (slightly retouched)

Or are we just another nation, hunkered down in a fearful world?

Do you ever get the impression that David Brooks sometimes draws his inspiration for his columns by reading the latest satires on iSteve and then crafting the Platonic Essence of whatever thinking I had just parodied?

 
Hide 126 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. When will someone of prominence offer the suggestion that – at 315 million people – we’re full.

    • Agree: MBlanc46, bomag
  2. One wonders if Brooks ever wrote anything that either made sense or was at least readable from a literally point of view. Old Pravda would have hired him without a second thought.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    If he ever has I must have missed it. As Steve points out Brooks seems to be competing with him in producing the most pitch perfect parody of NYT-think. I'm also puzzled why the Times seems to bill him as one of their housebroken conservatives. Don't see much evidence of that.
    , @pyrrhus
    We could always deport Brooks to Israel.
    , @Frau Katze
    This nut case is supposedly one of NYT's "conservative" columnists!

    I can't even figure out HOW their minds work. I can see how a businessman might want cheap illegal labour (even if I disagree, I can understand how's he thinking).

    I can't understand how people like Brooks think.
    , @Bill
    Bobos in Paradise is quite good. It's interesting to think about why he was able to write that book.
  3. These words should be on the Statue of Liberty:

    “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

    • Agree: syonredux
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    This is a fantastic idea, JDB.

    In fact, I can imagine a number of plaques inscribed with the words of American patriots on the subject of liberty. We'll never be rid of the Lazarus poem, but it could be drown out in a larger chorus of more rational statements.

    (Of course, I suppose it's too late to undertake such a project now. We'd have weirdos in masks protesting the selections -- demanding "inclusivity", "balance", and all their other euphemisms for [email protected] Besides, what does the Adams family have to do with America anyway?)
    , @Dr. X

    These words should be on the Statue of Liberty:

    “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
     
    You put the wrong sentence in bold. Should be the last one. Fixed it for ya.
    , @JohnnyGeo
    Amen!
  4. Who better than a Canadian to explain to us what it means to be an American. Wouldn’t he feel more at home a few hundred miles north, under the enlightened rule of Princess Rock Star* Justin Trudeau?

    *Courtesy of Kevin Michael Grace.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Brooks is neither a loyal Canadian citizen nor a loyal citizen of the USA. Brooks is a Zionist agent promoting the interests of Israel. He sends his sons off to join other war criminals in the IDF. Brooks encourages policies that will ultimately destroy the USA. If these succeed he will pack up and flee to Israel just like Ilana Mercer's family left South Africa when the White genocide her father helped foment began to pick up steam.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Harry Baldwin:

    Until you brought it to my attention I was unaware of Brooks's Canadian origins. He along with David Frum joins the list of completely undesirable Canadian exports.
    , @Another Canadian
    Brooks is a birth-citizen of Canada. I know Chinese who are more Canadian than Brooks. I bet he can't even skate.
  5. “Grand Duke Alexander the Hamilton”?

    LOL!

  6. We are in the midst of a great war of national identity. We thought we were in an ideological battle against radical Islam, but we are really fighting the national myths spread by Trump, Bannon, Putin, Le Pen and Farage.

    I wish the Chinese weren’t so passive. If they opened a third front, globalism would be done.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    I wish the Chinese weren’t so passive. If they opened a third front, globalism would be done.
     
    It's not in the Chinese interest.

    "Globalism"--certainly in David Brooks form--isn't going to win. Brooks's desired "Open Borders" will inevitably destroy the US--its liberty, its economy, its propositions. Brooks is just too pumped full of his Jewish globalist ideology and to PC about race to even mentally engage with the very fact that what people value about the US is the product of a particular people.

    For the Chinese it's all gravy. They aren't giving up their Chinese nationalism. They aren't going to destroy themselves with Open Borders. In another generation the West will be struggling with "diversity"--Merkel's "youth" will have spawned millions of full or half-blood foreign "Germans"; Muslim contention will be continual; Western productivity growth will be nill as Europeans die replaced by young Afro\Middle-Eastern "workers", as US whites die replaced by "Hispanics" and Africans. China will be a generation further advanced, with a population far more capable of technological dominance than the dystopia in the West.

    I don't like it. I think it will be a far less free, pleasant and prosperous world than if the US, the West had kept it's head screwed on straight. But alas we have ridiculous propagandists like Brooks so obsessed with their own ethnic narrative they insist on burning the joint down.
  7. The Trump and Bannon anschluss has exposed the hollowness of our patriotism.

    You don’t say…

    • Agree: Bill
  8. The Trump and Bannon anschluss

    D’oh!

    Anschluss means “the conjoining”. The conjoining of rump (not Trump) Germany and Austria (one of the remainders of the Austro-Hungarian empire) into a single nation, to be precise. Is is also written with an uppercase A, not a lowercase.

    The way the article is going, he should be writing “Ausschluss” – rejection, closing.

    We are in the midst of a great war of national identity. We thought we were in an ideological battle against radical Islam, but we are really fighting the national myths spread by Trump, Bannon, Putin, Le Pen and Farage.

    US, US, Russia, France (is that the old Le Pen or Marine), UK. What no Germany or Holland or Japan? (or even China, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan or Israel? Particularly Israel)

    • Replies: @wiseguy
    The Anschluss comment is particularly bizarre. It sounds like he doesn't even know what the Anschluss was.

    Does he think it was the Nazi equivalent to the march on Rome? It's the only way for his hyperbolic comparison to make sense, because Trump's election was an internal uprising, not the annexation of territory. Obviously.

    And can Brooks really be against the annexation of neighboring countries in principle? One could easily imagine him cheering the integration of Mexico by Emperor Jeb! into the Third Bush Reich.
  9. The thing about Jewish propaganda is, once you notice it, the propaganda’s ubiquity. The great example of the early millennial generation is An American Tail: Feivel and the mice are lovely, compassionate, innocent Jews, and the cats are anti-semites. And the moral of the story is that they’re here in America too, so society better watch out!

  10. @Harry Baldwin
    Who better than a Canadian to explain to us what it means to be an American. Wouldn't he feel more at home a few hundred miles north, under the enlightened rule of Princess Rock Star* Justin Trudeau?

    *Courtesy of Kevin Michael Grace.

    Brooks is neither a loyal Canadian citizen nor a loyal citizen of the USA. Brooks is a Zionist agent promoting the interests of Israel. He sends his sons off to join other war criminals in the IDF. Brooks encourages policies that will ultimately destroy the USA. If these succeed he will pack up and flee to Israel just like Ilana Mercer’s family left South Africa when the White genocide her father helped foment began to pick up steam.

  11. There’s a hilarious moment in the video outside the protest of Gavin McInnes. This loud obnoxious woman is screaming at a guy that racism and hatred are not who we as Americans are! Then one of the masked antifa screams something along the lines of “Fuck America. That is who we are.”

    It’s a delightful contradiction. America is a horribly racist country; Trump’s supposedly racist policies are “not who we are.” America was never great and was built on the backs of slaves; America is welcoming and tolerant per the zeroth amendment. They really need to get their story straight.

    And no, David, Americans do not exist to serve as some Totem to your liberal ideals.

  12. NOTE TO BROOKS…….can you work cossacks into your next column,that’s the ticket!

    • LOL: Frau Katze
  13. Assume, for the sake of argument, that America is a proposition nation, and was founded as such. If you wanted it to stay dedicated to that proposition, wouldn’t indiscriminate, mass immigration threaten it? Wouldn’t you want to select somehow for immigrants who shared the sentiments of Lincoln and Lazarus? How is letting in every Somali or Afghan with a pulse consistent with that?

    The elite view doesn’t even make sense on its own terms.

    • Agree: reiner Tor, Hibernian
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    Assume, for the sake of argument, that the elite view isn't all high minded idealism but rather malignancy dressed up as compassion, vice masquerading as virtue, hatred under the standard of a #LoveTrumpsHate sign.

    (I know you know this, I'm just making the point)
    , @WowJustWow
    Because if you see your own propositions as self-evident truths, as the default conclusions everybody would obviously come to in the absence of devils trying to convince them otherwise, then they should become apparent to everybody the moment they set foot upon America's magic dirt.
    , @guest
    He says America is at the vanguard of the human march of progress (this from a supposed "conservative"). The proposition upon which our Proposition Nation was founded is progress! Therefore, it's always progressing. Whatever Brooks and people like Brooks say it is, that's what is the true, essential American...thingy. Said thingy we must spread abroad, so that all humanity may enjoy thinginess.

    Just in case you were wondering if you get to be one of the people who decides what the ever-changing proposition gets to be, don't bother. Because whatever you'd come up with would be regress, not progress. Only special people know what constitutes progress, and only they may read from the secret book of American history.
  14. says the father of an IDF soldier:

    “In that story, America is placed at the vanguard of the great human march of progress.”

  15. There’s a trend of conservatives attacking even the idea of American nationalism.

    Tom Nichols:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/827623938897432576

    Noah Rothman:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/827665706665787392

    Along with Cato libertarian types who you’d expect to disbelieve in the existence of the nation:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/825851172451917825

  16. @Dave Pinsen
    Assume, for the sake of argument, that America is a proposition nation, and was founded as such. If you wanted it to stay dedicated to that proposition, wouldn't indiscriminate, mass immigration threaten it? Wouldn't you want to select somehow for immigrants who shared the sentiments of Lincoln and Lazarus? How is letting in every Somali or Afghan with a pulse consistent with that?

    The elite view doesn't even make sense on its own terms.

    Assume, for the sake of argument, that the elite view isn’t all high minded idealism but rather malignancy dressed up as compassion, vice masquerading as virtue, hatred under the standard of a #LoveTrumpsHate sign.

    (I know you know this, I’m just making the point)

  17. This was a pretty lulzy post, Steve. My chuckling gave way to laughing at the “anschluss” comment.

    “Their myth is an alien myth”

    Not myth, legend.

  18. Brooks cannot believe this is happening. His world is coming down around his ears and he can’t understand why. Why, oh why?!?!

  19. @Harry Baldwin
    Who better than a Canadian to explain to us what it means to be an American. Wouldn't he feel more at home a few hundred miles north, under the enlightened rule of Princess Rock Star* Justin Trudeau?

    *Courtesy of Kevin Michael Grace.

    Harry Baldwin:

    Until you brought it to my attention I was unaware of Brooks’s Canadian origins. He along with David Frum joins the list of completely undesirable Canadian exports.

    • Replies: @Broski
    Frum was long odious, but about five years ago he wrote a piece more or less endorsing HBD, if I recall correctly.
    , @Dr. X

    Until you brought it to my attention I was unaware of Brooks’s Canadian origins. He along with David Frum joins the list of completely undesirable Canadian exports.
     
    Interesting, isn't it, how two Canadian Jews ascribe to themselves the title of "American Conservatives" and see fit to lecture us on what the True Meaning of our nation really is.
  20. @jimbojones
    One wonders if Brooks ever wrote anything that either made sense or was at least readable from a literally point of view. Old Pravda would have hired him without a second thought.

    If he ever has I must have missed it. As Steve points out Brooks seems to be competing with him in producing the most pitch perfect parody of NYT-think. I’m also puzzled why the Times seems to bill him as one of their housebroken conservatives. Don’t see much evidence of that.

    • Replies: @Broski

    I’m also puzzled why the Times seems to bill him as one of their housebroken conservatives. Don’t see much evidence of that.

     

    Because they're liars, and stupid liberals fall for the lie and go around saying "well, even conservative David Brooks says [liberal opinion]..." I've heard that from half a dozen liberals in casual conversation. It's classic Overton Window manipulation.

    Brooks got the career-making tag because he spent some time working for the vile William F. Buckley, at whose rag he was, hilariously, the "token liberal."
  21. A True American Myth which is neither true nor American. What does that leave him with?

  22. I don’t know how many different ways there are to say this, but America in 2017 is not America in 1887, and we don’t have the space or the jobs or the resources for millions of grateful impoverished immigrants to come here and live 12 in a room on the Lower East Side.

    It’s interesting that Brooks, and those of his ilk, are committed to what amounts to laissez-faire immigration, in the confident belief that more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all. I mean, I expect the Pope to say that kind of stuff. Not secular journalists or anyone who wants to be taken seriously.

    The USA is finite. The country belongs to the people who are here, before it belongs to the world. Get a growing economy, raise the standard of living and purpose for the people who are here, and then — only then — can we talk about letting more people in, subject to some kind of rational appraisal about how many people we want living here.

    No intelligent person would counsel another person to just do stuff on a random basis, with no purpose, and no long term plan. So why is everyone insisting that the USA should just let stuff happen, with no regard to possible or even likely outcomes?

    • Replies: @Milo Minderbinder
    Exactly no one (outisde hard-core Libertarians) argue that we should have 1880s Labor, Education, Public Health, etc. Policies. I mean it's the $Current_Year!

    But some how for immigration we are trapped 130 years in the past.
    , @Broski
    Brooks doesn't believe that "more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all." He believes that when the Haven Monahans, and their Irish, Italian, etc. cousins are less than half the country it will be impossible for another Holocaust to occur and his people will be able to sleep at night.

    Of course, to him, the well being of the 200 million founding stock Americans is much less important than that of the 5 million Jews in the country. Tikkun Olam!

    , @honesthughgrant

    it’s interesting that Brooks, and those of his ilk, are committed to what amounts to laissez-faire immigration, in the confident belief that more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all.
     
    I think Brooks believes open borders will lead to a better life for HIM and people of his ilk. I don't believe for a second that "he believes it will lead to a better life for all".

    Why? Because Brooks is not stupid - quite the opposite.
    , @Alden
    "12 in a room on the Lower East Side."

    Now we've got illegal Chinese indentured servants living 25 to a 1,000 sq ft rowhouse in the squalid 7sq mile Chinatown formerly known as San Francisco.

    The census says only about 40 percent Chinese. But as we old timers know, Chinese and other Asians don't fill out government forms such as census until the 4th generation. West of Van Ness to the ocean, the entire town is Chinese, many of whom are illegal and all in violation of various health and building codes.
  23. @Harry Baldwin
    Who better than a Canadian to explain to us what it means to be an American. Wouldn't he feel more at home a few hundred miles north, under the enlightened rule of Princess Rock Star* Justin Trudeau?

    *Courtesy of Kevin Michael Grace.

    Brooks is a birth-citizen of Canada. I know Chinese who are more Canadian than Brooks. I bet he can’t even skate.

  24. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. …

    Wow.

    • Replies: @Dr. X

    Wow.
     
    Yeah... when you read Washington's Farewell Address and John Q.'s foreign policy statements (not to mention the Preamble to the Constitution: "...to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity") it's pretty powerful stuff. I might add that the Federalist Papers are chock full of references about the dangers of foreign influence, too (hence the "natural born citizen" requirement for the presidency, the Emoluments Clause, etc.)

    The Founders were hardcore nationalists, not open-borders pie-in-the-sky globalists.

    Of course, that's why they must be denounced as racist, slave-holding bigots by all the "good people" of today.

    , @syonredux
    I've always liked Henry Adams' account of his grandfather in The Education of Henry Adams:

    All the more singular it seemed afterwards to him that his first serious contact with the President [John Quincy Adams] should have been a struggle of will, in which the old man almost necessarily defeated the boy, but instead of leaving, as usual in such defeats, a lifelong sting, left rather an impression of as fair treatment as could be expected from a natural enemy. The boy met seldom with such restraint. He could not have been much more than six years old at the time,—seven at the utmost—and his mother had taken him to Quincy for a long stay with the President during the summer. What became of the rest of the family he quite forgot; but he distinctly remembered standing at the house door one summer-morning in a passionate outburst of rebellion against going to school. Naturally his mother was the immediate victim of his rage; that is what mothers are for, and boys also; but in this case the boy had his mother at unfair disadvantage, for she was a guest, and had no means of enforcing obedience. Henry showed a certain tactical ability by refusing to start, and he met all efforts at compulsion by successful, though too vehement protest. He was in fair way to win, and was holding his own, with sufficient energy, at the bottom of the long staircase which led up to the door of the President’s library, when the door opened, and the old man slowly came down. Putting on his hat, he took the boy’s hand without a word, and walked with him, paralysed by awe, up the road to the town. After the first moments of consternation at this interference in a domestic dispute, the boy reflected that an old gentleman close on eighty would never trouble himself to walk near a mile on a hot summer morning over a shadeless road to take a boy to school, and that it would be strange if a lad imbued with the passion of freedom could not find a corner to dodge around, somewhere before reaching the school-door. Then and always, the boy insisted that this reasoning justified his apparent submission; but the old man did not stop, and the boy saw all his strategical points turned, one after another, until he found himself seated inside the school, and obviously the centre of curious if not malevolent criticism. Not till then did the President release his hand and depart.
     

    The point was that this act, contrary to the inalienable rights of boys, and nullifying the social compact, ought to have made him dislike his grandfather for life. He could not recall that it had this effect even for a moment. With a certain maturity of mind, the child must have recognised that the President, though a tool of tyranny, had done his disreputable work with a certain intelligence. He had shown no temper, no irritation, no personal feeling, and had made no display of force. Above all, he had held his tongue. During their long walk he had said nothing; he had uttered no syllable of revolting cant about the duty of obedience and the wickedness of resistance to law; he had shown no concern in the matter; hardly even a consciousness of the boy’s existence. Probably his mind at that moment was actually troubling itself little about his grandson’s iniquities, and much about the iniquities of President Polk, but the boy could scarcely at that age feel the whole satisfaction of thinking that President Polk was to be the vicarious victim of his own sins, and he gave his grandfather credit for intelligent silence. For this forbearance he felt instinctive respect.

     

  25. Does Brooks lock his front door at night, or would that be fearful hunkering down?

  26. Is there a more disgusting pundit than David Brooks? The Leftists are Leftists, but Brooks pretends not to be a Leftist, and gets paid handsomely to offer all the detritus of the Left from the “Right”

    • Replies: @jimbojones
    Thomas Friedman definitely gives Brooks a run for his money. What a newspaper, the New York Pravda, to have two such as these!
  27. @SPMoore8
    I don't know how many different ways there are to say this, but America in 2017 is not America in 1887, and we don't have the space or the jobs or the resources for millions of grateful impoverished immigrants to come here and live 12 in a room on the Lower East Side.

    It's interesting that Brooks, and those of his ilk, are committed to what amounts to laissez-faire immigration, in the confident belief that more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all. I mean, I expect the Pope to say that kind of stuff. Not secular journalists or anyone who wants to be taken seriously.

    The USA is finite. The country belongs to the people who are here, before it belongs to the world. Get a growing economy, raise the standard of living and purpose for the people who are here, and then -- only then -- can we talk about letting more people in, subject to some kind of rational appraisal about how many people we want living here.

    No intelligent person would counsel another person to just do stuff on a random basis, with no purpose, and no long term plan. So why is everyone insisting that the USA should just let stuff happen, with no regard to possible or even likely outcomes?

    Exactly no one (outisde hard-core Libertarians) argue that we should have 1880s Labor, Education, Public Health, etc. Policies. I mean it’s the $Current_Year!

    But some how for immigration we are trapped 130 years in the past.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  28. Anyone who didn’t laugh out loud at Steve’s “rare photo” of Lincoln the Dairyman must be made of stone.

    Simply inspired.

  29. @jimbojones
    One wonders if Brooks ever wrote anything that either made sense or was at least readable from a literally point of view. Old Pravda would have hired him without a second thought.

    We could always deport Brooks to Israel.

    • Replies: @JohnnyD
    @Pryrrhus
    He has a son who serves in the Israeli army.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/surprise-brookss-israeli/
  30. @jimbojones
    One wonders if Brooks ever wrote anything that either made sense or was at least readable from a literally point of view. Old Pravda would have hired him without a second thought.

    This nut case is supposedly one of NYT’s “conservative” columnists!

    I can’t even figure out HOW their minds work. I can see how a businessman might want cheap illegal labour (even if I disagree, I can understand how’s he thinking).

    I can’t understand how people like Brooks think.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    I can't understand how people like Brooks think.


    Simple: Is it good for the Jews?
    , @utu
    "I can’t understand how people like Brooks think."

    America was not meant to be just a country. The Project Unites States of America was much more ambitious from the day one: (1) secure the continent, (2) defeat all empires, (3) become the only superpower, (4) dominate the whole world with the ideology of liberalism and capitalism.

    The well being of inhabitants of the US also known as American citizens never was the first priority unless it threatened the execution of the goals of the Project Unites States of America but once the populace is pacified the attention always returns to original external goals.

    Brooks knows it.

    Was Bolshevik Revolution carried out to make Russians happy? No, Soviet Union was to be the base for the world revolution and Russians were to be the soldiers of the world revolution. The same is expected from Americans. The ones who voted for Trump or who fantasized about America First of Charles Lindbergh are the ones who lost their revolutionary zeal and vigilance. They do not want to sacrifice their comforts for great revolutionary ideas.
  31. Did washington really write “I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens” as a parathentical. He was doing trump mannerisms before trump!

  32. Even Scott Adams buys into this line of thinking. In trying to come up with an honest and rational cost-benefit analysis of immigration, the main benefits he can think up are “to maintain the rights of non-Americans to immigrate here and to preserve the national character of the United States as a nation of immigrants.” http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156672488391/the-odds-of-being-killed-by-an-immigrant

    So a “national character” is something that can only be preserved by constantly changing it. It’s an interesting terminological reversal, along with the recent appropriation of “un-American” by the left as a way to shut down debate. See, if we stopped admitting immigrants to America, the next generation of Americans would be entirely the children of existing Americans, which would be un-American.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Adams is pretty cucked out actually.
    , @guest
    We are an un-nation: the nation whose national purpose is not to be a nation. Like a zombie, which is both dead and not dead.
    , @Desiderius

    to preserve the national character of the United States as a nation of immigrants
     
    Even if one grants this national character the zealots are messing up the how, which has traditionally been alternating eras of open and shut borders.

    We need an immigration pause to get the elites assimilated.
    , @Forbes
    Adams' observations are usually simple, straightforward and spot-on. In this instance his argument (the odds of, and fear of, getting killed by an immigrant) is dishonest. He posits that the fear is that Muslim immigrants will transition from assimilation to conquest. Meanwhile there is no evidence of assimilation--of immigrants of any sort, much less Muslim. It's been diversity and multiculturalism, all-the-time, for two generations. Assimilation died long ago.
  33. Reading the comments at NYT, I notice this NYT “pick” (over 2600 votes) using liberal cliche in existence:

    As a liberal and proud to say so, I take exception to your assertion that we’re ‘not comfortable with patriotism.’

    I’m a 30 year veteran of the armed forces, and my definition of patriotism includes protesting against those who would denigrate multiculturalism, because that’s who we are.

    I wore the uniform for half my life defending a country that makes no exceptions, but includes all; a country that doesn’t build walls but tears them down; a country that refuses to operate on fear, but conquers disease, demands female equality, recognizes LGBT people as equal partners under the law and puts men on the moon.

    The true myth is that only conservatives hold the keys to American greatness.

    These days they hold the tattered remnants of a sham America that never existed, and deserves to disappear, the white, straight, christian male entitlement myth that has worn out its welcome.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The author of the comment has a website and he is not a career soldier as one would normally understand the term. He spent one year flying a helicopter in Vietnam, and then spent the rest of his career apparently flying commercial helicopters for various purposes. I'm not making it up and I'm not doxxing, it's right there on the site, which features the same picture he used for his Times comment, where he used his real name.

    So it follows he spent one year active duty and then 29 years doing the weekend warrior bit. Not exactly what one thinks of when one thinks of a "30 year veteran" or "wearing the uniform for half my life." But then people should be careful about using their service time to make vast generalizations about America much less obiter dicta such as those featured in his comment. I mean, there have been a lot of guys (and girls) in the armed services of the United States of America and they aren't going to take their marching orders from some helicopter pilot.

    , @guest
    "that never existed, and deserves to disappear"

    I like my self-contradictions as fast and obvious as possible, too. (I realize they probably mean the phony idea needs to disappear, but they're the ones who wrote it like that.)

  34. @Frau Katze
    This nut case is supposedly one of NYT's "conservative" columnists!

    I can't even figure out HOW their minds work. I can see how a businessman might want cheap illegal labour (even if I disagree, I can understand how's he thinking).

    I can't understand how people like Brooks think.

    I can’t understand how people like Brooks think.

    Simple: Is it good for the Jews?

    • Replies: @Peterike
    I can’t understand how people like Brooks think.

    Simple: Is it good for the Jews?

    No, it's not even that anymore. They just hate white people. Whenever you read nonsense like Brooks' just ask yourself: would someone who hates white people say these things? Invariably the answer is yes.
  35. @Dave Pinsen
    Assume, for the sake of argument, that America is a proposition nation, and was founded as such. If you wanted it to stay dedicated to that proposition, wouldn't indiscriminate, mass immigration threaten it? Wouldn't you want to select somehow for immigrants who shared the sentiments of Lincoln and Lazarus? How is letting in every Somali or Afghan with a pulse consistent with that?

    The elite view doesn't even make sense on its own terms.

    Because if you see your own propositions as self-evident truths, as the default conclusions everybody would obviously come to in the absence of devils trying to convince them otherwise, then they should become apparent to everybody the moment they set foot upon America’s magic dirt.

  36. The true American myth is dynamic and universal

    Dynamic and universal. The variable, and the constant.

    • Replies: @guest
    There is a stinking river of idealism running through neoconservatism and mainstream leftism alike. All the reasonably intelligent people who in other times and places would spend their days going to church and worrying about what God wants them to do are now deeply concerned about the essential properties of abstract Americanism.

    America culminates history? Get back in the ground, Hegel.

  37. @WowJustWow
    Even Scott Adams buys into this line of thinking. In trying to come up with an honest and rational cost-benefit analysis of immigration, the main benefits he can think up are "to maintain the rights of non-Americans to immigrate here and to preserve the national character of the United States as a nation of immigrants." http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156672488391/the-odds-of-being-killed-by-an-immigrant

    So a "national character" is something that can only be preserved by constantly changing it. It's an interesting terminological reversal, along with the recent appropriation of "un-American" by the left as a way to shut down debate. See, if we stopped admitting immigrants to America, the next generation of Americans would be entirely the children of existing Americans, which would be un-American.

    Adams is pretty cucked out actually.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It's more that he's a nihilist, Donnie.
  38. @Jim Don Bob
    These words should be on the Statue of Liberty:

    "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

    This is a fantastic idea, JDB.

    In fact, I can imagine a number of plaques inscribed with the words of American patriots on the subject of liberty. We’ll never be rid of the Lazarus poem, but it could be drown out in a larger chorus of more rational statements.

    (Of course, I suppose it’s too late to undertake such a project now. We’d have weirdos in masks protesting the selections — demanding “inclusivity”, “balance”, and all their other euphemisms for [email protected] Besides, what does the Adams family have to do with America anyway?)

    • Replies: @Broski
    "We’ll never be rid of the Lazarus poem . . . ."

    And Trump would never be president. For 70 years white ethnic consciousness was dormant. For 40 years people who hate Europeans have been kicking the sleeping giant. Obama, about whose victory I was enthused for exactly this reason, finally woke up the giant.
    , @Anonymous
    Hey guys, keep up! Steve suggested this a week ago

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/what-should-trump-put-on-a-statue-of-liberty-plaque/
  39. @El Dato

    The Trump and Bannon anschluss
     
    D'oh!

    Anschluss means "the conjoining". The conjoining of rump (not Trump) Germany and Austria (one of the remainders of the Austro-Hungarian empire) into a single nation, to be precise. Is is also written with an uppercase A, not a lowercase.

    The way the article is going, he should be writing "Ausschluss" - rejection, closing.


    We are in the midst of a great war of national identity. We thought we were in an ideological battle against radical Islam, but we are really fighting the national myths spread by Trump, Bannon, Putin, Le Pen and Farage.
     
    US, US, Russia, France (is that the old Le Pen or Marine), UK. What no Germany or Holland or Japan? (or even China, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan or Israel? Particularly Israel)

    The Anschluss comment is particularly bizarre. It sounds like he doesn’t even know what the Anschluss was.

    Does he think it was the Nazi equivalent to the march on Rome? It’s the only way for his hyperbolic comparison to make sense, because Trump’s election was an internal uprising, not the annexation of territory. Obviously.

    And can Brooks really be against the annexation of neighboring countries in principle? One could easily imagine him cheering the integration of Mexico by Emperor Jeb! into the Third Bush Reich.

    • Agree: Broski
    • Replies: @CJ
    The Anschluss comment is particularly bizarre. It sounds like he doesn’t even know what the Anschluss was.

    It makes no sense at all. If Trump was an actual dictator, the nearest equivalent of an Anschluss would be engineering an annexation of Canada. Or maybe the English-speaking provinces only, with Quebec becoming a Vichy puppet republic. That would have made for a more entertaining Brooks fantasy than this one.

  40. @pyrrhus
    We could always deport Brooks to Israel.

    @Pryrrhus
    He has a son who serves in the Israeli army.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/surprise-brookss-israeli/

  41. @Frau Katze
    Reading the comments at NYT, I notice this NYT "pick" (over 2600 votes) using liberal cliche in existence:

    As a liberal and proud to say so, I take exception to your assertion that we're 'not comfortable with patriotism.'

    I'm a 30 year veteran of the armed forces, and my definition of patriotism includes protesting against those who would denigrate multiculturalism, because that's who we are.

    I wore the uniform for half my life defending a country that makes no exceptions, but includes all; a country that doesn't build walls but tears them down; a country that refuses to operate on fear, but conquers disease, demands female equality, recognizes LGBT people as equal partners under the law and puts men on the moon.

    The true myth is that only conservatives hold the keys to American greatness.

    These days they hold the tattered remnants of a sham America that never existed, and deserves to disappear, the white, straight, christian male entitlement myth that has worn out its welcome.
     

    The author of the comment has a website and he is not a career soldier as one would normally understand the term. He spent one year flying a helicopter in Vietnam, and then spent the rest of his career apparently flying commercial helicopters for various purposes. I’m not making it up and I’m not doxxing, it’s right there on the site, which features the same picture he used for his Times comment, where he used his real name.

    So it follows he spent one year active duty and then 29 years doing the weekend warrior bit. Not exactly what one thinks of when one thinks of a “30 year veteran” or “wearing the uniform for half my life.” But then people should be careful about using their service time to make vast generalizations about America much less obiter dicta such as those featured in his comment. I mean, there have been a lot of guys (and girls) in the armed services of the United States of America and they aren’t going to take their marching orders from some helicopter pilot.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Thanks. That is most helpful when evaluating what was written.
  42. Interestingly, Brooks has a son in the IDF (Israeli army). Israelis haven’t gotten the memo about welcoming in Emma Lazarus’s huddled masses. Perhaps, Brooks should spend some time in Israel preaching about equality and democratic values.
    http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/surprise-brookss-israeli/

  43. @Dan Hayes
    Harry Baldwin:

    Until you brought it to my attention I was unaware of Brooks's Canadian origins. He along with David Frum joins the list of completely undesirable Canadian exports.

    Frum was long odious, but about five years ago he wrote a piece more or less endorsing HBD, if I recall correctly.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Frum was long odious, but about five years ago he wrote a piece more or less endorsing HBD, if I recall correctly."

    And then went right back to being odious.

    His book The 70s was pretty good. He should have stopped there.
  44. @Alfa158
    If he ever has I must have missed it. As Steve points out Brooks seems to be competing with him in producing the most pitch perfect parody of NYT-think. I'm also puzzled why the Times seems to bill him as one of their housebroken conservatives. Don't see much evidence of that.

    I’m also puzzled why the Times seems to bill him as one of their housebroken conservatives. Don’t see much evidence of that.

    Because they’re liars, and stupid liberals fall for the lie and go around saying “well, even conservative David Brooks says [liberal opinion]…” I’ve heard that from half a dozen liberals in casual conversation. It’s classic Overton Window manipulation.

    Brooks got the career-making tag because he spent some time working for the vile William F. Buckley, at whose rag he was, hilariously, the “token liberal.”

  45. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Is there a more disgusting pundit than David Brooks? The Leftists are Leftists, but Brooks pretends not to be a Leftist, and gets paid handsomely to offer all the detritus of the Left from the "Right"

    Thomas Friedman definitely gives Brooks a run for his money. What a newspaper, the New York Pravda, to have two such as these!

  46. Please get in touch with Steve Bannon about drawing on his connections and expertise with producing media to bankroll a weekly program, in the vein of The Daily Show, but for thinking people; it would be premised upon solid gold like this piece, with biting commentary about socially constructed eyebrows and the like. Milo Yiannopolous and Gavin McInnes could participate as field reporters. Maybe have Mark Steyn contribute a segment (he has a similar knack for erudite, arch humour). There could even be a running gag (not every show, but once in awhile), called “”Wot the Hell Did He Say?” where Peter Brimelow analyses current events in his charming but thick accent, and John Derbyshire patiently translates it into American English.

    If not a serial program, perhaps a Christmas special.

    Think of the dishwasher you could buy your long-suffering and saintly wife.

    God bless you, sir; you are a national treasure.

  47. @Frau Katze
    This nut case is supposedly one of NYT's "conservative" columnists!

    I can't even figure out HOW their minds work. I can see how a businessman might want cheap illegal labour (even if I disagree, I can understand how's he thinking).

    I can't understand how people like Brooks think.

    “I can’t understand how people like Brooks think.”

    America was not meant to be just a country. The Project Unites States of America was much more ambitious from the day one: (1) secure the continent, (2) defeat all empires, (3) become the only superpower, (4) dominate the whole world with the ideology of liberalism and capitalism.

    The well being of inhabitants of the US also known as American citizens never was the first priority unless it threatened the execution of the goals of the Project Unites States of America but once the populace is pacified the attention always returns to original external goals.

    Brooks knows it.

    Was Bolshevik Revolution carried out to make Russians happy? No, Soviet Union was to be the base for the world revolution and Russians were to be the soldiers of the world revolution. The same is expected from Americans. The ones who voted for Trump or who fantasized about America First of Charles Lindbergh are the ones who lost their revolutionary zeal and vigilance. They do not want to sacrifice their comforts for great revolutionary ideas.

  48. @SPMoore8
    The author of the comment has a website and he is not a career soldier as one would normally understand the term. He spent one year flying a helicopter in Vietnam, and then spent the rest of his career apparently flying commercial helicopters for various purposes. I'm not making it up and I'm not doxxing, it's right there on the site, which features the same picture he used for his Times comment, where he used his real name.

    So it follows he spent one year active duty and then 29 years doing the weekend warrior bit. Not exactly what one thinks of when one thinks of a "30 year veteran" or "wearing the uniform for half my life." But then people should be careful about using their service time to make vast generalizations about America much less obiter dicta such as those featured in his comment. I mean, there have been a lot of guys (and girls) in the armed services of the United States of America and they aren't going to take their marching orders from some helicopter pilot.

    Thanks. That is most helpful when evaluating what was written.

  49. @SPMoore8
    I don't know how many different ways there are to say this, but America in 2017 is not America in 1887, and we don't have the space or the jobs or the resources for millions of grateful impoverished immigrants to come here and live 12 in a room on the Lower East Side.

    It's interesting that Brooks, and those of his ilk, are committed to what amounts to laissez-faire immigration, in the confident belief that more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all. I mean, I expect the Pope to say that kind of stuff. Not secular journalists or anyone who wants to be taken seriously.

    The USA is finite. The country belongs to the people who are here, before it belongs to the world. Get a growing economy, raise the standard of living and purpose for the people who are here, and then -- only then -- can we talk about letting more people in, subject to some kind of rational appraisal about how many people we want living here.

    No intelligent person would counsel another person to just do stuff on a random basis, with no purpose, and no long term plan. So why is everyone insisting that the USA should just let stuff happen, with no regard to possible or even likely outcomes?

    Brooks doesn’t believe that “more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all.” He believes that when the Haven Monahans, and their Irish, Italian, etc. cousins are less than half the country it will be impossible for another Holocaust to occur and his people will be able to sleep at night.

    Of course, to him, the well being of the 200 million founding stock Americans is much less important than that of the 5 million Jews in the country. Tikkun Olam!

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Fear of Holocaust is only one half of the equation. The other half is fear of assimilation.
  50. @ChrisZ
    This is a fantastic idea, JDB.

    In fact, I can imagine a number of plaques inscribed with the words of American patriots on the subject of liberty. We'll never be rid of the Lazarus poem, but it could be drown out in a larger chorus of more rational statements.

    (Of course, I suppose it's too late to undertake such a project now. We'd have weirdos in masks protesting the selections -- demanding "inclusivity", "balance", and all their other euphemisms for [email protected] Besides, what does the Adams family have to do with America anyway?)

    “We’ll never be rid of the Lazarus poem . . . .”

    And Trump would never be president. For 70 years white ethnic consciousness was dormant. For 40 years people who hate Europeans have been kicking the sleeping giant. Obama, about whose victory I was enthused for exactly this reason, finally woke up the giant.

  51. America is dead. It died years ago, per Paul Kersey of SBDL. He’s right. Around 1965, it ceased to exist. It just tottered on zombie like, but its dead, dead DEAD Jim. An ex-parrot and country.

    A nation cannot exist if its elites, and its women, despise it and its ordinary men. And that’s exactly the case. A majority of White women despise the IDEA of an America as anything as other than a global boarding house, Trump was just lucky that Hillary! was President Romney on steroids for White female turnout. “Dreamboat” Obama would have likely crushed Trump sadly through White women voting for the Black dude.

    The pill, condom, anonymous urban living, all killed America by making its women equal to its (White) men and thus earning nothing but contempt. Elites both pushed and reflected White women’s suddenly finding most of the White men beneath them (any man not above them is beneath them). Yes it was that simple. And universal across the West.

    ALL that is left is Racial and Ethnic Identity. Pan White Identity and solidarity are critical, given that the Nation-State is DEAD DEAD DEAD and America and all Western countries (even and especially Israel too eventually) are boarding houses for the Third World. There is no possibility of re-animating a dead corpse of America, not when everyone from Uber’s CEO to Eric Schmidt of Google finds it loathsome even to contemplate having a nation and borders. But survival requires navigating a Roman Empire actively inviting the Huns and Visigoths as new rulers.

  52. @SPMoore8
    I don't know how many different ways there are to say this, but America in 2017 is not America in 1887, and we don't have the space or the jobs or the resources for millions of grateful impoverished immigrants to come here and live 12 in a room on the Lower East Side.

    It's interesting that Brooks, and those of his ilk, are committed to what amounts to laissez-faire immigration, in the confident belief that more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all. I mean, I expect the Pope to say that kind of stuff. Not secular journalists or anyone who wants to be taken seriously.

    The USA is finite. The country belongs to the people who are here, before it belongs to the world. Get a growing economy, raise the standard of living and purpose for the people who are here, and then -- only then -- can we talk about letting more people in, subject to some kind of rational appraisal about how many people we want living here.

    No intelligent person would counsel another person to just do stuff on a random basis, with no purpose, and no long term plan. So why is everyone insisting that the USA should just let stuff happen, with no regard to possible or even likely outcomes?

    it’s interesting that Brooks, and those of his ilk, are committed to what amounts to laissez-faire immigration, in the confident belief that more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all.

    I think Brooks believes open borders will lead to a better life for HIM and people of his ilk. I don’t believe for a second that “he believes it will lead to a better life for all“.

    Why? Because Brooks is not stupid – quite the opposite.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Why? Because Brooks is not stupid – quite the opposite.
     
    I'm glad you said that. It touches upon something I noticed a few years ago and have never really had the chance to work into a conversation. Even though David Brooks is wrong about nearly everything he says and is about as conservative as a purple terrycloth bathrobe, he cannot be ignored. He seems to have a real talent for interpreting the mindset of the top ten percent; and, since these are the people largely responsible for setting cultural trends and steering society in accordance therewith, the topics David Brooks discusses have a strange way of becoming relevant despite being completely out of phase with reality. He is the herald of whatever social schemes the elites are about unleash upon the masses, although you might have do some Kremlinology to get at the core of it. In the mind of this tense, deluded, but well-connect Jew, all the cross-currents of elite preoccupation intersect.
  53. America culminates history.

    It does? Karl Marx, call your office!

  54. I grew up in a right-of-center town. Technically upper middle class, although we had plenty of plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. Town was (and mostly still is) around 75% Republican. No one, and I mean, NO ONE, ever thought of America in the David Brooks describes. Hearing his description is utterly bizarre.

    My senior class in high school was about 88% white, with the remainder Asians, Indians, Blacks and Hispanics. No one really intellectualized immigration but everyone seemed to be pretty happy with the arrangement, with a few Asian worker bees, Indian accountants, Hispanic payroll clerks. Yes, yes, I know the reasons why America doesn’t need immigrants outside of a few geniuses, but honestly I couldn’t really complain with the arrangement.

    David Brooks’ argument is utterly bizarre and ludicrous. Do people understand that there are 7.5 billion people on Earth?

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    No one, and I mean, NO ONE, ever thought of America in the David Brooks describes. Hearing his description is utterly bizarre.
     
    Not really. It's the run-of-the-mill bigotry our ruling class uses to rationalize, increasingly only to themselves, their illegitimate power and influence.
  55. “but we are really fighting the national myths spread by Trump, Bannon, Putin, Le Pen and Farage.”

    I’m surprised he never mentioned Shinzo Abe or Hwang Kyo-ahn, Prime Minister of South Korea. Interesting how it always has to be a Western Country. Also, national myths of Le Pen and Farage huh? The myths like France and Britain are actual countries with actual history?

    • Replies: @Pericles
    Let's not mention the heady myths swirling in former Palestine. Those are the sort that are worth preserving.
  56. @Jim Don Bob
    These words should be on the Statue of Liberty:

    "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

    These words should be on the Statue of Liberty:

    “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

    You put the wrong sentence in bold. Should be the last one. Fixed it for ya.

  57. @Dan Hayes
    Harry Baldwin:

    Until you brought it to my attention I was unaware of Brooks's Canadian origins. He along with David Frum joins the list of completely undesirable Canadian exports.

    Until you brought it to my attention I was unaware of Brooks’s Canadian origins. He along with David Frum joins the list of completely undesirable Canadian exports.

    Interesting, isn’t it, how two Canadian Jews ascribe to themselves the title of “American Conservatives” and see fit to lecture us on what the True Meaning of our nation really is.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    They aren't the only ones. You can include Krauthammer.
    , @guest
    He didn't call himself conservative, I don't think, but one illegal immigrant Jew from Canada I actually enjoy, Saul Bellow, was fairly neoconnish for having been a Trotskyite leftist who started Noticing things in the 60s. He was hardcore into the lecturing business, but the lectures I've read are always for highfalutin' audiences. Lefty name-dropping and "I'm so confused" intellectualizing. So not much telling us what we should think we are.

    His version of America I get from the novels, which are about what you'd expect, given his background. That's just the way people are. Maybe they should hire less to tell us about ourselves.

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    He doesn’t claim to be conservative, but don’t forget Mort Zuckerman, owner and publisher of anti-gun, anti-Trump NYDN.
    , @Pericles

    two Canadian Jews ascribe to themselves the title of “American Conservatives”
     
    It does seem fitting, for some reason.
  58. @Opinionator
    I can't understand how people like Brooks think.


    Simple: Is it good for the Jews?

    I can’t understand how people like Brooks think.

    Simple: Is it good for the Jews?

    No, it’s not even that anymore. They just hate white people. Whenever you read nonsense like Brooks’ just ask yourself: would someone who hates white people say these things? Invariably the answer is yes.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    I'll take your comment into consideration.

    But is it possible they see White people as bad for the Jews? Therefore, they direct hatred toward...
  59. @Svigor

    She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. …
     
    Wow.

    Wow.

    Yeah… when you read Washington’s Farewell Address and John Q.’s foreign policy statements (not to mention the Preamble to the Constitution: “…to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity”) it’s pretty powerful stuff. I might add that the Federalist Papers are chock full of references about the dangers of foreign influence, too (hence the “natural born citizen” requirement for the presidency, the Emoluments Clause, etc.)

    The Founders were hardcore nationalists, not open-borders pie-in-the-sky globalists.

    Of course, that’s why they must be denounced as racist, slave-holding bigots by all the “good people” of today.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Great job by Steve pulling a lot of this stuff together for us. We can repay him (in part) by disseminating the knowledge more broadly.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "The Founders were hardcore nationalists, not open-borders pie-in-the-sky globalists.

    Of course, that’s why they must be denounced as racist, slave-holding bigots by all the “good people” of today."

    Or retconned into being gay, black caribbeans.
  60. Our various immigration laws from 1795-1965, if Brooks bothered to read them, would inform him that he is wrong. Congress – of the same generation that gave us the Declaration, the Revolution, and the Constitution – gave us naturalization exclusively for ‘free white people.’ In 1882, just 17 years after freeing the slaves and 4 years before we received the Statue of Liberty, Congress overwhelmingly (by 202-37 in the House) excluded Chinese immigrants from these shores. And in 1924, just 6 years after helping make Europe and the world safe for democracy, we drastically cut immigration. The same FDR who helped the world defeat the Third Reich showed zero compunction about excluding Jewish refugees or throwing Japanese-Americans into concentration camps.

    America has always had a very pragmatic streak about us on issues like immigration that has mostly served us well. It’s insane to pretend otherwise.

  61. @Broski
    Brooks doesn't believe that "more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all." He believes that when the Haven Monahans, and their Irish, Italian, etc. cousins are less than half the country it will be impossible for another Holocaust to occur and his people will be able to sleep at night.

    Of course, to him, the well being of the 200 million founding stock Americans is much less important than that of the 5 million Jews in the country. Tikkun Olam!

    Fear of Holocaust is only one half of the equation. The other half is fear of assimilation.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Fear of Holocaust is only one half of the equation. The other half is fear of assimilation.
     
    That's a good point. And probably a valid fear. A couple of generations from now how many American Jews will actually be Jewish in any meaningful sense? Of course if Jewishness does disappear from America you could argue that secular Jews who have abandoned their traditions and their religion and their culture will be mostly to blame.

    Assimilation means cultural suicide.
  62. @Dr. X

    Wow.
     
    Yeah... when you read Washington's Farewell Address and John Q.'s foreign policy statements (not to mention the Preamble to the Constitution: "...to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity") it's pretty powerful stuff. I might add that the Federalist Papers are chock full of references about the dangers of foreign influence, too (hence the "natural born citizen" requirement for the presidency, the Emoluments Clause, etc.)

    The Founders were hardcore nationalists, not open-borders pie-in-the-sky globalists.

    Of course, that's why they must be denounced as racist, slave-holding bigots by all the "good people" of today.

    Great job by Steve pulling a lot of this stuff together for us. We can repay him (in part) by disseminating the knowledge more broadly.

  63. @Peterike
    I can’t understand how people like Brooks think.

    Simple: Is it good for the Jews?

    No, it's not even that anymore. They just hate white people. Whenever you read nonsense like Brooks' just ask yourself: would someone who hates white people say these things? Invariably the answer is yes.

    I’ll take your comment into consideration.

    But is it possible they see White people as bad for the Jews? Therefore, they direct hatred toward…

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    There can be both practical, ‘utilitarian’ reasons and emotional motives for behavior. Jews have had a long-running winning streak in white America, yet many prominent, consequential Jews seem emotionally, irrationally spiteful towards whites. This spite has gone nuclear in the wake of The Trumpening, causing new deplorable Noticing goys to be minted every day.

    The irony: All of this Jewish spite overriding the practical and reasonable could theoretically end very Bad For The Jews.
  64. @Dr. X

    Until you brought it to my attention I was unaware of Brooks’s Canadian origins. He along with David Frum joins the list of completely undesirable Canadian exports.
     
    Interesting, isn't it, how two Canadian Jews ascribe to themselves the title of "American Conservatives" and see fit to lecture us on what the True Meaning of our nation really is.

    They aren’t the only ones. You can include Krauthammer.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Opinator:

    Another Canadian educated low-life. Until you pointed it out, I was unaware that Krauthammer arose out of the northern neocon Petri dish.
    , @Dr. X
    While we're on the subject of Canadian Jews... here's an interesting story!

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/montreals-first-jewish-mayor-convicted-of-fraud-and-corruption/
  65. Brooks was born in Canada bu ony lived there a short time when his father was completing his Ph.D. a tthe University of Toronto. A bit like Ted Cruz in his “Canadianness’. Frum is a different story.

  66. @ChrisZ
    This is a fantastic idea, JDB.

    In fact, I can imagine a number of plaques inscribed with the words of American patriots on the subject of liberty. We'll never be rid of the Lazarus poem, but it could be drown out in a larger chorus of more rational statements.

    (Of course, I suppose it's too late to undertake such a project now. We'd have weirdos in masks protesting the selections -- demanding "inclusivity", "balance", and all their other euphemisms for [email protected] Besides, what does the Adams family have to do with America anyway?)
  67. @honesthughgrant

    it’s interesting that Brooks, and those of his ilk, are committed to what amounts to laissez-faire immigration, in the confident belief that more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all.
     
    I think Brooks believes open borders will lead to a better life for HIM and people of his ilk. I don't believe for a second that "he believes it will lead to a better life for all".

    Why? Because Brooks is not stupid - quite the opposite.

    Why? Because Brooks is not stupid – quite the opposite.

    I’m glad you said that. It touches upon something I noticed a few years ago and have never really had the chance to work into a conversation. Even though David Brooks is wrong about nearly everything he says and is about as conservative as a purple terrycloth bathrobe, he cannot be ignored. He seems to have a real talent for interpreting the mindset of the top ten percent; and, since these are the people largely responsible for setting cultural trends and steering society in accordance therewith, the topics David Brooks discusses have a strange way of becoming relevant despite being completely out of phase with reality. He is the herald of whatever social schemes the elites are about unleash upon the masses, although you might have do some Kremlinology to get at the core of it. In the mind of this tense, deluded, but well-connect Jew, all the cross-currents of elite preoccupation intersect.

  68. Anonymous [AKA "TF"] says:

    If anybody anywhere wants to move to America, you can’t stop them because it would be racist, you racist.

    If you put this on a tee shirt, 95% of the people in the progressive east coast US city in which I live would not be able to figure what to make of this statement. Is it satire? Which team is this person on?

    That’s kind of a joke. I think it’s probably closer to 65%. However, if you changed it slightly to:

    If anybody anywhere wants to move to America, you can’t stop them because you are racist.

    Then I am sure 99% of them would compliment the wearer. Not even joking.

  69. @Opinionator
    They aren't the only ones. You can include Krauthammer.

    Opinator:

    Another Canadian educated low-life. Until you pointed it out, I was unaware that Krauthammer arose out of the northern neocon Petri dish.

  70. The Founders were hardcore nationalists, not open-borders pie-in-the-sky globalists.

    I was just awed by the prose:

    The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power.

    Sheesh.

    The nationalism is good too, though. 🙂

    Fear of Holocaust is only one half of the equation. The other half is fear of assimilation.

    To use one of Steve’s analogies, it dilutes the value of the stock.

    P.S., imperial diadem, Eye of Soros, what’s the diff? We need a painting of the Statue of Liberty as the Tower of Barad-Dur, with the flaming Eye of Soros erupting from her forehead. Statue of Barad-Dur.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    To use one of Steve’s analogies, it dilutes the value of the stock.

    It waters down the appeal of the (founding) stock.

    , @wiseguy
    P.S., imperial diadem, Eye of Soros, what’s the diff? We need a painting of the Statue of Liberty as the Tower of Barad-Dur, with the flaming Eye of Soros erupting from her forehead. Statue of Barad-Dur.

    Can that and Trump Tower be the "Two Towers?"
  71. Here’s George Orwell’s definition of ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriotism’. By comparison David Brooks’ usage is positively Orwellian.

    By “nationalism” I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled “good” or “bad…”Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By “patriotism” I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power.

  72. @JerseyGuy
    I grew up in a right-of-center town. Technically upper middle class, although we had plenty of plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. Town was (and mostly still is) around 75% Republican. No one, and I mean, NO ONE, ever thought of America in the David Brooks describes. Hearing his description is utterly bizarre.

    My senior class in high school was about 88% white, with the remainder Asians, Indians, Blacks and Hispanics. No one really intellectualized immigration but everyone seemed to be pretty happy with the arrangement, with a few Asian worker bees, Indian accountants, Hispanic payroll clerks. Yes, yes, I know the reasons why America doesn't need immigrants outside of a few geniuses, but honestly I couldn't really complain with the arrangement.

    David Brooks' argument is utterly bizarre and ludicrous. Do people understand that there are 7.5 billion people on Earth?

    No one, and I mean, NO ONE, ever thought of America in the David Brooks describes. Hearing his description is utterly bizarre.

    Not really. It’s the run-of-the-mill bigotry our ruling class uses to rationalize, increasingly only to themselves, their illegitimate power and influence.

  73. Brooks is right about one thing: the U.S. is in a war of national identity and Trump is the closest thing that the U.S. has to the ethno-nationalist European parties. Brooks is on the other side.

    I presently live in Moscow–after residing in Paris and London, it is so nice to see white people like me in overwhelming numbers. Got to go down and see that statue of John Quincy Adams.

  74. Platonic essence? No, he’s just a garden-variety cliche-spouter. I wouldn’t be surprised if he peruses iSteve and iSteve-like sites, but he wouldn’t need to. You can pick up these cliches anywhere. They’re “in the air,” as the saying goes.

    The reason Brooks has so many of them, and in such a boiled-down, essential form, is that he’s a superficial hack.

    • Agree: Forbes
  75. For the longest time, it always seemed that one of the main constituencies of the NYT was the petit intelligentsia in this country.

    It was a mark of their sophistication that despite living in Minnesota or similar Siberia, they really were world-class people because they subscribed to and read the NYT.

    Does the NYT still have this type of following? I can’t even imagine getting intellectual satisfaction out of anything they publish any more, it is all just polemics now.

  76. It’s always amusing – and instructive – to see a Canadian (well, sort of) with a son who served in the Israeli army lecture us about “who we are”. In what way, exactly, are YOU part of WE, Mr. Brooks?

    Brooks is actually more phony and disingenuous than Thomas Friedman is.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Friedman is from Minnesota. Basically Canada.
  77. @Dr. X

    Wow.
     
    Yeah... when you read Washington's Farewell Address and John Q.'s foreign policy statements (not to mention the Preamble to the Constitution: "...to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity") it's pretty powerful stuff. I might add that the Federalist Papers are chock full of references about the dangers of foreign influence, too (hence the "natural born citizen" requirement for the presidency, the Emoluments Clause, etc.)

    The Founders were hardcore nationalists, not open-borders pie-in-the-sky globalists.

    Of course, that's why they must be denounced as racist, slave-holding bigots by all the "good people" of today.

    “The Founders were hardcore nationalists, not open-borders pie-in-the-sky globalists.

    Of course, that’s why they must be denounced as racist, slave-holding bigots by all the “good people” of today.”

    Or retconned into being gay, black caribbeans.

  78. @wiseguy
    The Anschluss comment is particularly bizarre. It sounds like he doesn't even know what the Anschluss was.

    Does he think it was the Nazi equivalent to the march on Rome? It's the only way for his hyperbolic comparison to make sense, because Trump's election was an internal uprising, not the annexation of territory. Obviously.

    And can Brooks really be against the annexation of neighboring countries in principle? One could easily imagine him cheering the integration of Mexico by Emperor Jeb! into the Third Bush Reich.

    The Anschluss comment is particularly bizarre. It sounds like he doesn’t even know what the Anschluss was.

    It makes no sense at all. If Trump was an actual dictator, the nearest equivalent of an Anschluss would be engineering an annexation of Canada. Or maybe the English-speaking provinces only, with Quebec becoming a Vichy puppet republic. That would have made for a more entertaining Brooks fantasy than this one.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Trump will anschluss Scotland for its golf courses.
  79. @Broski
    Frum was long odious, but about five years ago he wrote a piece more or less endorsing HBD, if I recall correctly.

    “Frum was long odious, but about five years ago he wrote a piece more or less endorsing HBD, if I recall correctly.”

    And then went right back to being odious.

    His book The 70s was pretty good. He should have stopped there.

  80. @Svigor

    The Founders were hardcore nationalists, not open-borders pie-in-the-sky globalists.
     
    I was just awed by the prose:

    The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power.
     
    Sheesh.

    The nationalism is good too, though. :)


    Fear of Holocaust is only one half of the equation. The other half is fear of assimilation.
     
    To use one of Steve's analogies, it dilutes the value of the stock.

    P.S., imperial diadem, Eye of Soros, what's the diff? We need a painting of the Statue of Liberty as the Tower of Barad-Dur, with the flaming Eye of Soros erupting from her forehead. Statue of Barad-Dur.

    To use one of Steve’s analogies, it dilutes the value of the stock.

    It waters down the appeal of the (founding) stock.

  81. @Mr. Anon
    It's always amusing - and instructive - to see a Canadian (well, sort of) with a son who served in the Israeli army lecture us about "who we are". In what way, exactly, are YOU part of WE, Mr. Brooks?

    Brooks is actually more phony and disingenuous than Thomas Friedman is.

    Friedman is from Minnesota. Basically Canada.

  82. @CJ
    The Anschluss comment is particularly bizarre. It sounds like he doesn’t even know what the Anschluss was.

    It makes no sense at all. If Trump was an actual dictator, the nearest equivalent of an Anschluss would be engineering an annexation of Canada. Or maybe the English-speaking provinces only, with Quebec becoming a Vichy puppet republic. That would have made for a more entertaining Brooks fantasy than this one.

    Trump will anschluss Scotland for its golf courses.

  83. “Anschluss” … I thought Trump and Bannon were Russians, not Germans. It’s hard to keep up …

    Cossacks … Brownshirts … what’s the difference? 😉

  84. @Dave Pinsen
    Assume, for the sake of argument, that America is a proposition nation, and was founded as such. If you wanted it to stay dedicated to that proposition, wouldn't indiscriminate, mass immigration threaten it? Wouldn't you want to select somehow for immigrants who shared the sentiments of Lincoln and Lazarus? How is letting in every Somali or Afghan with a pulse consistent with that?

    The elite view doesn't even make sense on its own terms.

    He says America is at the vanguard of the human march of progress (this from a supposed “conservative”). The proposition upon which our Proposition Nation was founded is progress! Therefore, it’s always progressing. Whatever Brooks and people like Brooks say it is, that’s what is the true, essential American…thingy. Said thingy we must spread abroad, so that all humanity may enjoy thinginess.

    Just in case you were wondering if you get to be one of the people who decides what the ever-changing proposition gets to be, don’t bother. Because whatever you’d come up with would be regress, not progress. Only special people know what constitutes progress, and only they may read from the secret book of American history.

  85. @WowJustWow
    Even Scott Adams buys into this line of thinking. In trying to come up with an honest and rational cost-benefit analysis of immigration, the main benefits he can think up are "to maintain the rights of non-Americans to immigrate here and to preserve the national character of the United States as a nation of immigrants." http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156672488391/the-odds-of-being-killed-by-an-immigrant

    So a "national character" is something that can only be preserved by constantly changing it. It's an interesting terminological reversal, along with the recent appropriation of "un-American" by the left as a way to shut down debate. See, if we stopped admitting immigrants to America, the next generation of Americans would be entirely the children of existing Americans, which would be un-American.

    We are an un-nation: the nation whose national purpose is not to be a nation. Like a zombie, which is both dead and not dead.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Not we. We have a nation. Brooks doesn't doesn't think he lives in it - he lives in the empire that imagines it superseded that nation.

    We may find out soonish how right he and his are.
  86. @Frau Katze
    Reading the comments at NYT, I notice this NYT "pick" (over 2600 votes) using liberal cliche in existence:

    As a liberal and proud to say so, I take exception to your assertion that we're 'not comfortable with patriotism.'

    I'm a 30 year veteran of the armed forces, and my definition of patriotism includes protesting against those who would denigrate multiculturalism, because that's who we are.

    I wore the uniform for half my life defending a country that makes no exceptions, but includes all; a country that doesn't build walls but tears them down; a country that refuses to operate on fear, but conquers disease, demands female equality, recognizes LGBT people as equal partners under the law and puts men on the moon.

    The true myth is that only conservatives hold the keys to American greatness.

    These days they hold the tattered remnants of a sham America that never existed, and deserves to disappear, the white, straight, christian male entitlement myth that has worn out its welcome.
     

    “that never existed, and deserves to disappear”

    I like my self-contradictions as fast and obvious as possible, too. (I realize they probably mean the phony idea needs to disappear, but they’re the ones who wrote it like that.)

  87. @Svigor

    The true American myth is dynamic and universal
     
    Dynamic and universal. The variable, and the constant.

    There is a stinking river of idealism running through neoconservatism and mainstream leftism alike. All the reasonably intelligent people who in other times and places would spend their days going to church and worrying about what God wants them to do are now deeply concerned about the essential properties of abstract Americanism.

    America culminates history? Get back in the ground, Hegel.

  88. @Dr. X

    Until you brought it to my attention I was unaware of Brooks’s Canadian origins. He along with David Frum joins the list of completely undesirable Canadian exports.
     
    Interesting, isn't it, how two Canadian Jews ascribe to themselves the title of "American Conservatives" and see fit to lecture us on what the True Meaning of our nation really is.

    He didn’t call himself conservative, I don’t think, but one illegal immigrant Jew from Canada I actually enjoy, Saul Bellow, was fairly neoconnish for having been a Trotskyite leftist who started Noticing things in the 60s. He was hardcore into the lecturing business, but the lectures I’ve read are always for highfalutin’ audiences. Lefty name-dropping and “I’m so confused” intellectualizing. So not much telling us what we should think we are.

    His version of America I get from the novels, which are about what you’d expect, given his background. That’s just the way people are. Maybe they should hire less to tell us about ourselves.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    Another Jewish Canuck writer (though not immigrant to US) of note is Mordecai Richler, who has been banned from the Canadian canon for not being PC...

    ...and in laughing at his own people (and himself), opening the door to...wait for it...Anti Semitism.

    A little younger than Bellow, also from Montreal.

    Some of you probably read The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz...though I think my favorite of his works was Solomon Gursky Was Here.

    In it he loosely fictionalized the Bronfman family (Seagram hooch cabal). He writes Jews into the history of Canada in a way that can only be read as ridiculous.

    I always felt he was skewering his Tribesmen's habit of demanding their them-centric version of all things, especially ones they had nothing to do with (cf. our host's current topic), be sanctified as Holy Writ.

    The scenes documenting Ephraim Gursky's conversion of the Eskimos to Judaism are hilarious. He convinces them they're one of the Twelve Tribes. High holidays are a problem when you live in a place where "fasting till nightfall" means "several months from now."

    That sort of attention to detail is what I used to read Richler for, though I doubt I could stomach it in lo these rapidly diminishing years of my own mortality. But he was a good accompaniment for my Return To Vonnegut years.

    IIRC Seagram's hit the skids in the '90s as the younger Bronfmans liquidated the company and its diverse industrial holdings to get into the Entertainment biz.

    I wish some enterprising and open minded somebody would write a satiric novel like Richler's on the opiate-peddling Sackler family. Turning all of America's doctors into opiate pushers--and getting admitted into the Medical Advertising Hall of Fame for it--is an accomplishment begging for pH 1 or less satire.

    Come to think of it, that calls for a more Vonnegutesque treatment.

    , @Mr. Anon
    "He didn’t call himself conservative, I don’t think, but one illegal immigrant Jew from Canada I actually enjoy, Saul Bellow, was fairly neoconnish for having been a Trotskyite leftist who started Noticing things in the 60s."

    You do realize, do you not, that "Trotskyite leftist who started noticing things in the 60s" is pretty much the archetype and definition of "neo-con". It is far from unusual.
    , @guest
    By the way, to refresh my memory I went to Bellow's Wikipedia page, and as you might imagine he's not very Canadian, either. I just brought that up to have a little fun calling him an illegal immigrant. His parents were Lithuanian Jews who emigrated from St. Petersburg to Quebec a mere two years before he was born. He moved to America when he was 9, which would be plenty enough to call him Canadian had his family Canadian roots, but they didn't. As it is, it's a stretch.

    He's more American than he is Canadian, even disregarding the "nation of immigrants" nonsense. (Canada isn't a nation of immigrants, either.) Yet Wikipedia refers to him prominently as a Canadian/American author. Under nationality, they really should put "deracinated Russian-y Jew."

  89. Rare color photo of Abraham Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address (slightly retouched)

    Well, that was a shot of Orcadian that the drapes and my sinuses didn’t need.

    We need to re-lyricize all the songs from FotR.

    Or maybe it’s not necessary:

    Yes, now I have everything.
    Not only everything.

    I have a little bit more.

    Besides having everything,

    I know what everything’s for.

  90. @guest
    He didn't call himself conservative, I don't think, but one illegal immigrant Jew from Canada I actually enjoy, Saul Bellow, was fairly neoconnish for having been a Trotskyite leftist who started Noticing things in the 60s. He was hardcore into the lecturing business, but the lectures I've read are always for highfalutin' audiences. Lefty name-dropping and "I'm so confused" intellectualizing. So not much telling us what we should think we are.

    His version of America I get from the novels, which are about what you'd expect, given his background. That's just the way people are. Maybe they should hire less to tell us about ourselves.

    Another Jewish Canuck writer (though not immigrant to US) of note is Mordecai Richler, who has been banned from the Canadian canon for not being PC…

    …and in laughing at his own people (and himself), opening the door to…wait for it…Anti Semitism.

    A little younger than Bellow, also from Montreal.

    Some of you probably read The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz…though I think my favorite of his works was Solomon Gursky Was Here.

    In it he loosely fictionalized the Bronfman family (Seagram hooch cabal). He writes Jews into the history of Canada in a way that can only be read as ridiculous.

    I always felt he was skewering his Tribesmen’s habit of demanding their them-centric version of all things, especially ones they had nothing to do with (cf. our host’s current topic), be sanctified as Holy Writ.

    The scenes documenting Ephraim Gursky’s conversion of the Eskimos to Judaism are hilarious. He convinces them they’re one of the Twelve Tribes. High holidays are a problem when you live in a place where “fasting till nightfall” means “several months from now.”

    That sort of attention to detail is what I used to read Richler for, though I doubt I could stomach it in lo these rapidly diminishing years of my own mortality. But he was a good accompaniment for my Return To Vonnegut years.

    IIRC Seagram’s hit the skids in the ’90s as the younger Bronfmans liquidated the company and its diverse industrial holdings to get into the Entertainment biz.

    I wish some enterprising and open minded somebody would write a satiric novel like Richler’s on the opiate-peddling Sackler family. Turning all of America’s doctors into opiate pushers–and getting admitted into the Medical Advertising Hall of Fame for it–is an accomplishment begging for pH 1 or less satire.

    Come to think of it, that calls for a more Vonnegutesque treatment.

    • Replies: @guest
    I haven't read any Richler, but I did see the movie Barney's Version, based on one of his books. It came off partly like a parody of a Bellow novel to me, and as I recall the main character can be seen reading Bellow's The Dean's December in one scene. But it was also serious and a little depressing.
  91. @Dr. X

    Until you brought it to my attention I was unaware of Brooks’s Canadian origins. He along with David Frum joins the list of completely undesirable Canadian exports.
     
    Interesting, isn't it, how two Canadian Jews ascribe to themselves the title of "American Conservatives" and see fit to lecture us on what the True Meaning of our nation really is.

    He doesn’t claim to be conservative, but don’t forget Mort Zuckerman, owner and publisher of anti-gun, anti-Trump NYDN.

  92. @Opinionator
    I'll take your comment into consideration.

    But is it possible they see White people as bad for the Jews? Therefore, they direct hatred toward...

    There can be both practical, ‘utilitarian’ reasons and emotional motives for behavior. Jews have had a long-running winning streak in white America, yet many prominent, consequential Jews seem emotionally, irrationally spiteful towards whites. This spite has gone nuclear in the wake of The Trumpening, causing new deplorable Noticing goys to be minted every day.

    The irony: All of this Jewish spite overriding the practical and reasonable could theoretically end very Bad For The Jews.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Jews have had a long-running winning streak in white America, yet many prominent, consequential Jews seem emotionally, irrationally spiteful towards whites.
     
    Yet?

    What do you think spurred the winning?
  93. @JerseyGuy
    "but we are really fighting the national myths spread by Trump, Bannon, Putin, Le Pen and Farage."

    I'm surprised he never mentioned Shinzo Abe or Hwang Kyo-ahn, Prime Minister of South Korea. Interesting how it always has to be a Western Country. Also, national myths of Le Pen and Farage huh? The myths like France and Britain are actual countries with actual history?

    Let’s not mention the heady myths swirling in former Palestine. Those are the sort that are worth preserving.

  94. @Dr. X

    Until you brought it to my attention I was unaware of Brooks’s Canadian origins. He along with David Frum joins the list of completely undesirable Canadian exports.
     
    Interesting, isn't it, how two Canadian Jews ascribe to themselves the title of "American Conservatives" and see fit to lecture us on what the True Meaning of our nation really is.

    two Canadian Jews ascribe to themselves the title of “American Conservatives”

    It does seem fitting, for some reason.

  95. Approaching the ‘story’ of America from a different angle I would suggest that the great influx of immigrants in the 19th century was not the result of any noble mission to bring in the ‘wretched refuse’ but a pragmatic effort to-

    A. Make up for the loss of manpower owing to the Civil War and the end of slavery, with freed blacks being far less productive than slaves.

    B. The industrialization of the American economy.

    C. The need to get on with Manifest Destiny and populate the American plains and west.

  96. It seems this national identity muddle can be accounted to Federal government overreach from the limits placed on it in the Constitution.

    In the American federation of states (a.k.a. the United States), it is the job of Congress to make the laws and the job of the Executive to enforce the laws … end of discussion.

    Nowhere in the Constitution is there a charter for the Executive or the Judiciary to exercise the powers to impose “values” on the citizenry in a Program of National Reconstruction based on personalized ideologies regarding “who we are”.

    Most of the advocacy for open borders, massive immigration, and relativism with respect to gender and social relations is based on “values”, not law.

    Indeed, the overriding objective of the Obama administration seems to have been to punish the American citizenry for their “values” on race, social relations, and immigration with an overreaching program to use the police powers of the state to change those “values” … or suffer the consequences. Trump is the mandate from the majority of states within the federation to end the Program of National Reconstruction.

  97. @guest
    We are an un-nation: the nation whose national purpose is not to be a nation. Like a zombie, which is both dead and not dead.

    Not we. We have a nation. Brooks doesn’t doesn’t think he lives in it – he lives in the empire that imagines it superseded that nation.

    We may find out soonish how right he and his are.

  98. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    There can be both practical, ‘utilitarian’ reasons and emotional motives for behavior. Jews have had a long-running winning streak in white America, yet many prominent, consequential Jews seem emotionally, irrationally spiteful towards whites. This spite has gone nuclear in the wake of The Trumpening, causing new deplorable Noticing goys to be minted every day.

    The irony: All of this Jewish spite overriding the practical and reasonable could theoretically end very Bad For The Jews.

    Jews have had a long-running winning streak in white America, yet many prominent, consequential Jews seem emotionally, irrationally spiteful towards whites.

    Yet?

    What do you think spurred the winning?

  99. @WowJustWow
    Even Scott Adams buys into this line of thinking. In trying to come up with an honest and rational cost-benefit analysis of immigration, the main benefits he can think up are "to maintain the rights of non-Americans to immigrate here and to preserve the national character of the United States as a nation of immigrants." http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156672488391/the-odds-of-being-killed-by-an-immigrant

    So a "national character" is something that can only be preserved by constantly changing it. It's an interesting terminological reversal, along with the recent appropriation of "un-American" by the left as a way to shut down debate. See, if we stopped admitting immigrants to America, the next generation of Americans would be entirely the children of existing Americans, which would be un-American.

    to preserve the national character of the United States as a nation of immigrants

    Even if one grants this national character the zealots are messing up the how, which has traditionally been alternating eras of open and shut borders.

    We need an immigration pause to get the elites assimilated.

  100. @Opinionator
    They aren't the only ones. You can include Krauthammer.

    While we’re on the subject of Canadian Jews… here’s an interesting story!

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/montreals-first-jewish-mayor-convicted-of-fraud-and-corruption/

  101. @guest
    He didn't call himself conservative, I don't think, but one illegal immigrant Jew from Canada I actually enjoy, Saul Bellow, was fairly neoconnish for having been a Trotskyite leftist who started Noticing things in the 60s. He was hardcore into the lecturing business, but the lectures I've read are always for highfalutin' audiences. Lefty name-dropping and "I'm so confused" intellectualizing. So not much telling us what we should think we are.

    His version of America I get from the novels, which are about what you'd expect, given his background. That's just the way people are. Maybe they should hire less to tell us about ourselves.

    “He didn’t call himself conservative, I don’t think, but one illegal immigrant Jew from Canada I actually enjoy, Saul Bellow, was fairly neoconnish for having been a Trotskyite leftist who started Noticing things in the 60s.”

    You do realize, do you not, that “Trotskyite leftist who started noticing things in the 60s” is pretty much the archetype and definition of “neo-con”. It is far from unusual.

    • Replies: @guest
    Yes, I do realize that. Which is why I'm fine with calling him a neoconservative. He taught at the University of Chicago and wrote a roman-a-clef about Allan Bloom ("Ravelstein"), for the love of Jehovah.

    What I said was I don't think he called himself a conservative. I try to distinguish between neocons and cons, even if it's ultimately pointless.

  102. @jimbojones
    One wonders if Brooks ever wrote anything that either made sense or was at least readable from a literally point of view. Old Pravda would have hired him without a second thought.

    Bobos in Paradise is quite good. It’s interesting to think about why he was able to write that book.

  103. anon • Disclaimer says:

    In that story, America is placed at the vanguard of the great human march of progress. America is the grateful inheritor of other people’s gifts. It has a spiritual connection to all people in all places, but also an exceptional role. America culminates history. It advances a way of life and a democratic model that will provide people everywhere with dignity. The things Americans do are not for themselves only, but for all mankind.

    The United States for many years did not maintain racial quotas for immigrants, a fact that Hitler viewed with great admiration, as he himself wrote in Mein Kampf? Liberal thinkers are creating a fantasy America, which existed only in their beautiful minds, and want to impose such fantasy as if it were true. They want to rewrite the story, like Orwell’s Truth Ministry.

  104. @WowJustWow
    Even Scott Adams buys into this line of thinking. In trying to come up with an honest and rational cost-benefit analysis of immigration, the main benefits he can think up are "to maintain the rights of non-Americans to immigrate here and to preserve the national character of the United States as a nation of immigrants." http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156672488391/the-odds-of-being-killed-by-an-immigrant

    So a "national character" is something that can only be preserved by constantly changing it. It's an interesting terminological reversal, along with the recent appropriation of "un-American" by the left as a way to shut down debate. See, if we stopped admitting immigrants to America, the next generation of Americans would be entirely the children of existing Americans, which would be un-American.

    Adams’ observations are usually simple, straightforward and spot-on. In this instance his argument (the odds of, and fear of, getting killed by an immigrant) is dishonest. He posits that the fear is that Muslim immigrants will transition from assimilation to conquest. Meanwhile there is no evidence of assimilation–of immigrants of any sort, much less Muslim. It’s been diversity and multiculturalism, all-the-time, for two generations. Assimilation died long ago.

  105. ” ‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World.” (Washington’s Farewell Address)

    But what the hell did HE (or Quincy Adams) know anyway?

    C’mon Steve, get with the program! Who ya gonna listen to: George Washington & John Quincy Adams? Or David Brooks?

  106. The true American myth is dynamic and universal — embracing strangers and seizing possibilities.

    Yeah, I mean look at how boring and undynamic native-born Americans are: Edgar Allan Poe, Howard Hawks, the Wright Brothers, Josiah Willard Gibbs, Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain, William James, Claude Shannon, Edwin Hubble, Frank Lloyd Wright, …..

    What a bunch of lifeless, uncreative schlubs…..

  107. @Svigor

    The Founders were hardcore nationalists, not open-borders pie-in-the-sky globalists.
     
    I was just awed by the prose:

    The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power.
     
    Sheesh.

    The nationalism is good too, though. :)


    Fear of Holocaust is only one half of the equation. The other half is fear of assimilation.
     
    To use one of Steve's analogies, it dilutes the value of the stock.

    P.S., imperial diadem, Eye of Soros, what's the diff? We need a painting of the Statue of Liberty as the Tower of Barad-Dur, with the flaming Eye of Soros erupting from her forehead. Statue of Barad-Dur.

    P.S., imperial diadem, Eye of Soros, what’s the diff? We need a painting of the Statue of Liberty as the Tower of Barad-Dur, with the flaming Eye of Soros erupting from her forehead. Statue of Barad-Dur.

    Can that and Trump Tower be the “Two Towers?”

  108. @Olorin
    Another Jewish Canuck writer (though not immigrant to US) of note is Mordecai Richler, who has been banned from the Canadian canon for not being PC...

    ...and in laughing at his own people (and himself), opening the door to...wait for it...Anti Semitism.

    A little younger than Bellow, also from Montreal.

    Some of you probably read The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz...though I think my favorite of his works was Solomon Gursky Was Here.

    In it he loosely fictionalized the Bronfman family (Seagram hooch cabal). He writes Jews into the history of Canada in a way that can only be read as ridiculous.

    I always felt he was skewering his Tribesmen's habit of demanding their them-centric version of all things, especially ones they had nothing to do with (cf. our host's current topic), be sanctified as Holy Writ.

    The scenes documenting Ephraim Gursky's conversion of the Eskimos to Judaism are hilarious. He convinces them they're one of the Twelve Tribes. High holidays are a problem when you live in a place where "fasting till nightfall" means "several months from now."

    That sort of attention to detail is what I used to read Richler for, though I doubt I could stomach it in lo these rapidly diminishing years of my own mortality. But he was a good accompaniment for my Return To Vonnegut years.

    IIRC Seagram's hit the skids in the '90s as the younger Bronfmans liquidated the company and its diverse industrial holdings to get into the Entertainment biz.

    I wish some enterprising and open minded somebody would write a satiric novel like Richler's on the opiate-peddling Sackler family. Turning all of America's doctors into opiate pushers--and getting admitted into the Medical Advertising Hall of Fame for it--is an accomplishment begging for pH 1 or less satire.

    Come to think of it, that calls for a more Vonnegutesque treatment.

    I haven’t read any Richler, but I did see the movie Barney’s Version, based on one of his books. It came off partly like a parody of a Bellow novel to me, and as I recall the main character can be seen reading Bellow’s The Dean’s December in one scene. But it was also serious and a little depressing.

  109. @guest
    He didn't call himself conservative, I don't think, but one illegal immigrant Jew from Canada I actually enjoy, Saul Bellow, was fairly neoconnish for having been a Trotskyite leftist who started Noticing things in the 60s. He was hardcore into the lecturing business, but the lectures I've read are always for highfalutin' audiences. Lefty name-dropping and "I'm so confused" intellectualizing. So not much telling us what we should think we are.

    His version of America I get from the novels, which are about what you'd expect, given his background. That's just the way people are. Maybe they should hire less to tell us about ourselves.

    By the way, to refresh my memory I went to Bellow’s Wikipedia page, and as you might imagine he’s not very Canadian, either. I just brought that up to have a little fun calling him an illegal immigrant. His parents were Lithuanian Jews who emigrated from St. Petersburg to Quebec a mere two years before he was born. He moved to America when he was 9, which would be plenty enough to call him Canadian had his family Canadian roots, but they didn’t. As it is, it’s a stretch.

    He’s more American than he is Canadian, even disregarding the “nation of immigrants” nonsense. (Canada isn’t a nation of immigrants, either.) Yet Wikipedia refers to him prominently as a Canadian/American author. Under nationality, they really should put “deracinated Russian-y Jew.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Bellow strongly associated himself with Chicago. I saw him in the Stuart Brent bookstore once looking like a civic institution. My rule of thumb is where you went to junior high school and high school are most determinant of regional identity.
  110. @guest
    By the way, to refresh my memory I went to Bellow's Wikipedia page, and as you might imagine he's not very Canadian, either. I just brought that up to have a little fun calling him an illegal immigrant. His parents were Lithuanian Jews who emigrated from St. Petersburg to Quebec a mere two years before he was born. He moved to America when he was 9, which would be plenty enough to call him Canadian had his family Canadian roots, but they didn't. As it is, it's a stretch.

    He's more American than he is Canadian, even disregarding the "nation of immigrants" nonsense. (Canada isn't a nation of immigrants, either.) Yet Wikipedia refers to him prominently as a Canadian/American author. Under nationality, they really should put "deracinated Russian-y Jew."

    Bellow strongly associated himself with Chicago. I saw him in the Stuart Brent bookstore once looking like a civic institution. My rule of thumb is where you went to junior high school and high school are most determinant of regional identity.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Bellow strongly associated himself with Chicago. I saw him in the Stuart Brent bookstore once looking like a civic institution. My rule of thumb is where you went to junior high school and high school are most determinant of regional identity.

     

    Saul Bellow on what coming to America used to mean:


    "The country took us over. It was a country then, not a collection of “cultures.”"
  111. @Steve Sailer
    Bellow strongly associated himself with Chicago. I saw him in the Stuart Brent bookstore once looking like a civic institution. My rule of thumb is where you went to junior high school and high school are most determinant of regional identity.

    Bellow strongly associated himself with Chicago. I saw him in the Stuart Brent bookstore once looking like a civic institution. My rule of thumb is where you went to junior high school and high school are most determinant of regional identity.

    Saul Bellow on what coming to America used to mean:

    “The country took us over. It was a country then, not a collection of “cultures.””

  112. @Svigor

    She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. …
     
    Wow.

    I’ve always liked Henry Adams’ account of his grandfather in The Education of Henry Adams:

    All the more singular it seemed afterwards to him that his first serious contact with the President [John Quincy Adams] should have been a struggle of will, in which the old man almost necessarily defeated the boy, but instead of leaving, as usual in such defeats, a lifelong sting, left rather an impression of as fair treatment as could be expected from a natural enemy. The boy met seldom with such restraint. He could not have been much more than six years old at the time,—seven at the utmost—and his mother had taken him to Quincy for a long stay with the President during the summer. What became of the rest of the family he quite forgot; but he distinctly remembered standing at the house door one summer-morning in a passionate outburst of rebellion against going to school. Naturally his mother was the immediate victim of his rage; that is what mothers are for, and boys also; but in this case the boy had his mother at unfair disadvantage, for she was a guest, and had no means of enforcing obedience. Henry showed a certain tactical ability by refusing to start, and he met all efforts at compulsion by successful, though too vehement protest. He was in fair way to win, and was holding his own, with sufficient energy, at the bottom of the long staircase which led up to the door of the President’s library, when the door opened, and the old man slowly came down. Putting on his hat, he took the boy’s hand without a word, and walked with him, paralysed by awe, up the road to the town. After the first moments of consternation at this interference in a domestic dispute, the boy reflected that an old gentleman close on eighty would never trouble himself to walk near a mile on a hot summer morning over a shadeless road to take a boy to school, and that it would be strange if a lad imbued with the passion of freedom could not find a corner to dodge around, somewhere before reaching the school-door. Then and always, the boy insisted that this reasoning justified his apparent submission; but the old man did not stop, and the boy saw all his strategical points turned, one after another, until he found himself seated inside the school, and obviously the centre of curious if not malevolent criticism. Not till then did the President release his hand and depart.

    The point was that this act, contrary to the inalienable rights of boys, and nullifying the social compact, ought to have made him dislike his grandfather for life. He could not recall that it had this effect even for a moment. With a certain maturity of mind, the child must have recognised that the President, though a tool of tyranny, had done his disreputable work with a certain intelligence. He had shown no temper, no irritation, no personal feeling, and had made no display of force. Above all, he had held his tongue. During their long walk he had said nothing; he had uttered no syllable of revolting cant about the duty of obedience and the wickedness of resistance to law; he had shown no concern in the matter; hardly even a consciousness of the boy’s existence. Probably his mind at that moment was actually troubling itself little about his grandson’s iniquities, and much about the iniquities of President Polk, but the boy could scarcely at that age feel the whole satisfaction of thinking that President Polk was to be the vicarious victim of his own sins, and he gave his grandfather credit for intelligent silence. For this forbearance he felt instinctive respect.

  113. @Mr. Anon
    "He didn’t call himself conservative, I don’t think, but one illegal immigrant Jew from Canada I actually enjoy, Saul Bellow, was fairly neoconnish for having been a Trotskyite leftist who started Noticing things in the 60s."

    You do realize, do you not, that "Trotskyite leftist who started noticing things in the 60s" is pretty much the archetype and definition of "neo-con". It is far from unusual.

    Yes, I do realize that. Which is why I’m fine with calling him a neoconservative. He taught at the University of Chicago and wrote a roman-a-clef about Allan Bloom (“Ravelstein”), for the love of Jehovah.

    What I said was I don’t think he called himself a conservative. I try to distinguish between neocons and cons, even if it’s ultimately pointless.

  114. @SPMoore8
    I don't know how many different ways there are to say this, but America in 2017 is not America in 1887, and we don't have the space or the jobs or the resources for millions of grateful impoverished immigrants to come here and live 12 in a room on the Lower East Side.

    It's interesting that Brooks, and those of his ilk, are committed to what amounts to laissez-faire immigration, in the confident belief that more people will lead to more innovation which will lead to a better life for all. I mean, I expect the Pope to say that kind of stuff. Not secular journalists or anyone who wants to be taken seriously.

    The USA is finite. The country belongs to the people who are here, before it belongs to the world. Get a growing economy, raise the standard of living and purpose for the people who are here, and then -- only then -- can we talk about letting more people in, subject to some kind of rational appraisal about how many people we want living here.

    No intelligent person would counsel another person to just do stuff on a random basis, with no purpose, and no long term plan. So why is everyone insisting that the USA should just let stuff happen, with no regard to possible or even likely outcomes?

    “12 in a room on the Lower East Side.”

    Now we’ve got illegal Chinese indentured servants living 25 to a 1,000 sq ft rowhouse in the squalid 7sq mile Chinatown formerly known as San Francisco.

    The census says only about 40 percent Chinese. But as we old timers know, Chinese and other Asians don’t fill out government forms such as census until the 4th generation. West of Van Ness to the ocean, the entire town is Chinese, many of whom are illegal and all in violation of various health and building codes.

  115. People like Brooks complaining “that’s not who ae are” remind me of Hitler condemning ‘Germany to rape by the Russians because the Germans were not strong enough to conquer the world.

    Not a nickle’s worth of difference between what Hitler did to Germany and liberals are doing to this country. We are not “good” enough to suit them so, “be damned!”

    Every bit as delusional.

    • Replies: @guest
    I do hold Hitler responsible for the devastation, disgrace, and trifurcation of Germany's people. But he wasn't trying to conquer the world; he was trying to conquer central and eastern Europe. And there is an outside chance Stalin was planning to get him first.
  116. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What Brooks is saying is silly, but the average reader is not historically literate enough to know.

    People like Brooks have actually been very successful in redefining what America is. Many take this line of thinking as the gospel truth — it’s what they get on TV and movies and what is pounded into their heads at school. For all intents and purposes it might as well be true at this point.

    The only thing wrong with Brook’s upbeat vision is the fact that it is completely unworkable, and will end up a smouldering train wreck . Other than that it’s a grand idea!

    • Replies: @guest
    One almost wonders if Brooks believes it himself. I mean, he can't be that stupid, but he sounds so sincere. Maybe it's like George Costanza said, "It's not a lie if you believe it."
  117. @Opinionator
    Fear of Holocaust is only one half of the equation. The other half is fear of assimilation.

    Fear of Holocaust is only one half of the equation. The other half is fear of assimilation.

    That’s a good point. And probably a valid fear. A couple of generations from now how many American Jews will actually be Jewish in any meaningful sense? Of course if Jewishness does disappear from America you could argue that secular Jews who have abandoned their traditions and their religion and their culture will be mostly to blame.

    Assimilation means cultural suicide.

  118. @another fred
    People like Brooks complaining "that's not who ae are" remind me of Hitler condemning 'Germany to rape by the Russians because the Germans were not strong enough to conquer the world.

    Not a nickle's worth of difference between what Hitler did to Germany and liberals are doing to this country. We are not "good" enough to suit them so, "be damned!"

    Every bit as delusional.

    I do hold Hitler responsible for the devastation, disgrace, and trifurcation of Germany’s people. But he wasn’t trying to conquer the world; he was trying to conquer central and eastern Europe. And there is an outside chance Stalin was planning to get him first.

  119. @anonymous
    What Brooks is saying is silly, but the average reader is not historically literate enough to know.

    People like Brooks have actually been very successful in redefining what America is. Many take this line of thinking as the gospel truth -- it's what they get on TV and movies and what is pounded into their heads at school. For all intents and purposes it might as well be true at this point.

    The only thing wrong with Brook's upbeat vision is the fact that it is completely unworkable, and will end up a smouldering train wreck . Other than that it's a grand idea!

    One almost wonders if Brooks believes it himself. I mean, he can’t be that stupid, but he sounds so sincere. Maybe it’s like George Costanza said, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”

  120. Their myth is an alien myth, frankly a Russian myth. It holds, as Russian reactionaries hold, that deep in the heartland are the pure folk who embody the pure soul of the country — who endure the suffering and make the bread. But the pure peasant soul is threatened.

    So unlike New Yorkers who have a myth identifying the purpose and meaning of America with their own experiences, it’s not OK for people in flyover country to associate American history with their own lives and experiences?

  121. The Russian myth that Trump and Bannon have injected into the national bloodstream is static and insular. It is about building walls, staying put. Their country is bound by its nostalgia, not its common future.

    And didn’t the Brooks’ family show their indefatigable dedication to open boarders, free trade, and the shared common destiny of all the people of the world when they sent their son to be a “Lone Soldier” in the Israeli military. Brooks:

    But every Israeli parent understands this is what the circumstances require. Beyond that, I think children need to take risks after they leave university, and that they need to do something difficult that involves going beyond their personal limits. Serving in the I.D.F. embodies all of these elements. I couldn’t advise others to do it without acknowledging it’s true for my own family.

    Wow, just wow. An Israeli is lecturing Americans on what it means to be a true American, which is what Israeli David Brooks is.

  122. @Jim Don Bob
    These words should be on the Statue of Liberty:

    "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

    Amen!

  123. New York Times columnist David Brooks is an evil baby boomer dingbat. David Brooks will not recognize the ancestral origins of the founding stock of the United Sates because the Jews are not in it.

    Brooks recasts the settling and founding of the USA as an ideological construct instead of a blood and soil structural development. David Brooks and his ilk can then use the power of the corporate propaganda apparatus to pound that ideological construct into the heads of the dolts who don’t know any better.

    Here are 2 books to read to counter Brooks’ ideological description of the formation and identity of the USA:

    Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways In America — by David Hackett Fischer

    Who Are We? The Challenges To America’s National Identity — by Samuel Huntington

  124. @Glossy
    We are in the midst of a great war of national identity. We thought we were in an ideological battle against radical Islam, but we are really fighting the national myths spread by Trump, Bannon, Putin, Le Pen and Farage.

    I wish the Chinese weren't so passive. If they opened a third front, globalism would be done.

    I wish the Chinese weren’t so passive. If they opened a third front, globalism would be done.

    It’s not in the Chinese interest.

    “Globalism”–certainly in David Brooks form–isn’t going to win. Brooks’s desired “Open Borders” will inevitably destroy the US–its liberty, its economy, its propositions. Brooks is just too pumped full of his Jewish globalist ideology and to PC about race to even mentally engage with the very fact that what people value about the US is the product of a particular people.

    For the Chinese it’s all gravy. They aren’t giving up their Chinese nationalism. They aren’t going to destroy themselves with Open Borders. In another generation the West will be struggling with “diversity”–Merkel’s “youth” will have spawned millions of full or half-blood foreign “Germans”; Muslim contention will be continual; Western productivity growth will be nill as Europeans die replaced by young Afro\Middle-Eastern “workers”, as US whites die replaced by “Hispanics” and Africans. China will be a generation further advanced, with a population far more capable of technological dominance than the dystopia in the West.

    I don’t like it. I think it will be a far less free, pleasant and prosperous world than if the US, the West had kept it’s head screwed on straight. But alas we have ridiculous propagandists like Brooks so obsessed with their own ethnic narrative they insist on burning the joint down.

  125. @Opinionator
    Adams is pretty cucked out actually.

    It’s more that he’s a nihilist, Donnie.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Distinction without a difference?
  126. @Desiderius
    It's more that he's a nihilist, Donnie.

    Distinction without a difference?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings