RSS
From the New York Times:
The Philosophical Assault on Trumpism
David Brooks OCT. 3, 2017… The only way to beat Trump is to beat him philosophically. …
The Trump story is that good honest Americans are being screwed by aliens. Regular Americans are being oppressed by a snobbish elite that rigs the game in its favor. White Americans are being invaded by immigrants who take their wealth and divide their culture. Normal Americans are threatened by an Islamic radicalism that murders their children.
This is a tribal story. The tribe needs a strong warrior in a hostile world. We need to build walls to keep out illegals, erect barriers to hold off foreign threats, wage endless war on the globalist elites.
Somebody is going to have to arise to point out that this is a deeply wrong and un-American story. The whole point of America is that we are not a tribe. We are a universal nation, founded on universal principles, attracting talented people from across the globe, active across the world on behalf of all people who seek democracy and dignity.
That might come as a surprise to, say, John Quincy Adams:
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.
But what would John Quincy Adams know about the point of America compared to Emma Lazarus? We must have faith in the Lazarene Creed. Brooks goes on:
… Today, the main enemy is not aliens; it’s division — between rich and poor, white and black, educated and less educated, right and left. Where there is division there are fences. Mobility is retarded and the frontier is destroyed. Trumpist populists want to widen the divisions and rearrange the fences. They want to turn us into an old, settled and fearful nation.
But we are an old, settled nation. We’re not going to invade Mexican territory again like it’s 1846.
Who finds this kind of rhetoric persuasive?
I guess lots of people do … But it sounds like self-parody. Perhaps Brooks is denouncing “the tribe” to see if anybody in the NYT comments even gets the joke?
There’s something deeply ironic about the fact that he says the shills need to beat Trump “philosophically”, but the only philosophical argument they can apparently come up with is actually “‘Murrica.”.
A member of a tribal people complaining about others becoming tribal is a bit rich.
Any way, what the Hell are so-called ‘universal principles’?
In certain lands, right here right now, it is a fundamental moral precept to throw homosexuals off the roofs of tall buildings.
In another land, I won’t bother mentioning by name, not only are practising homosexuals are ‘elevated’ to being the ‘moral superiors’ of heterosexuals, but it is easier for kids to access video footage of the most extreme homosexual thinkable than it is for the said minors to purchase a pack of cigarettes, which in yet another land are freely sold to adult and child alike.
If there is such an animal as ‘universal principles’, surely it is for those of a scientific bent it is the theories of Charles Darwin, at least in the sense in which it has ‘shaped’ the apparent limited ‘universe’ of our experience.
When you get down to it, the ‘principles’ of Darwinism are quite ‘nasty’ to the ‘liberal’ mind, not to mention ‘exclusionary’ and ‘discriminatory’.
That must be why the founding fathers passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 saying that only white people could become naturalised US citizens! To show their non-tribalism and universalism!
I wonder if Brooks actually believes this drivel
Verbose, Adams. Have there been any American politicians capable of being terse? Apart from old “you lose”?
Still, Adams was wiser than Brooks, who is clearly a chump.
Not really.
Paul Johnson suggested that Andrew Jackson and the Duke of Wellington were pretty close to being identical except in culture (they were both tall skinny hard asses). But the Duke was funnier: "Publish and be damned."
Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt were another similar pair, but Churchill was funnier.
Disraeli was funnier than whoever was his American counterpart (Judah P. Benjamin?).
But Lincoln was funnier than Gladstone, but maybe Gladstone should be compared to Woodrow Wilson?Replies: @black sea, @syonredux
Evidently Brooks doesn’t know what “frontier” means. Well, something’s retarded around here anyway…
You could have saved yourself the effort if you stopped reading at the word “philosophically”. “Philosophy” belongs on the list of linguistic markers of manipulative, nonsensical crapola along with “ethically” and “out of principle”. It’s the word you use when you think you’ve created an exceptionally sly disguise for your own tribal loves and hatreds.
The agenda must be pushed.
Brooks is not a very strong pusher.
Speaking of parody, David Brook’s columns are a lot more tolerable if you imagine them being read in the fake Merchant voice popular on The Right Stuff Radio.
“The whole point of America is that we are not a tribe, goy.”
It also makes it easier to translate. “You, goyim, are not a tribe. We Chosen are a tribe.”
The NYT sez “Tribalism for me, but not for thee” Part MCVIXIIXIVIVI.
Brooks’ argument is purely verbal, and thus is persuasive only to people who live too much in the world of ideas and not enough in the physical reality of the space they inhabit.
Or the spaces the rest of us inhabit.
Thoughts like his are good for sitting on the toilet like Rodin’s Thinker, but they have nothing to do with the world you go back to after you flush.
https://twitter.com/ItsTheEOTWAWKI/status/915183572067155968
It doesn’t sound like he’s trying to persuade. Instead he’s trying to support a fashionable shibboleth while undermining a passé shibboleth (i.e., “Good fences make good neighbors”).
TRUMP POPULISTS want to widen divisions?
I see Brooks’ paymasters pay him well to overlook 50 years of identity politics.
Assimilation and the entire melting pot creed was long about melding many populations into one. E pluribus unum. Unity out of division. Then the Left sacked it 50 years ago in favor of identity politics, widening divisions to play divide et impera and import the new minorities into the Democrat Party.
And the consequences of that are TRUMP’S fault? Projection much, David?
Indeed.
For those who follow world history, it is worth noting that Harvard was founded while the Taj Mahal was still being built and about fifteen years before Oliver Cromwell’s rise to power in England.
Somebody is going to have to arise to point out that this is a deeply wrong and un-American story. The whole point of America is that we are not a tribe.
Manifest Destiny seemed pretty tribal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
Fences are great. David Brooks is retarded.
Ironic he writes this tripe from the platform of the biggest booster of identity politics in 'Merica.Replies: @Tracy
“The whole point of America is that we are not a tribe. We are a universal nation, founded on universal principles,…”
What exactly does he mean by we? Sounds a lot like he’s saying do what we say, not what we do.
OT: WaPo editorializes on “white men” turning into “lone wolves” — a blatantly racist article.
Can you imagine the Post writing an article about the Tennessee church shooter asking why “Negro bucks become savages”?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/10/02/when-white-men-turn-into-lone-wolves/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.26e13514808d
“Where there is [a sub]division there are fences.”
Eight foot tall masonry ones. And gates with guards. Now you deplorables stay on your side of the wall surrounding my gated, golf-course community and oh yes, don’t forget get to yield to golf carts crossing the adjacent public thoroughfares.
When Brooks uses the term “tribe” like this, non-ironically, it calls to mind Dalrymple’s definition of propaganda. The purpose of a Jew like Brooks telling the rest of us we can’t have tribes is pure humiliation.
Says the man whose son fought for the Israeli Defense Force.
Seems the notion of tribe is alive and well in the Brooks family. And why wouldn’t it be. Also, it sure makes life in the jungle a lot easier if you convince the other species to declaw themselves while you sharpen your claws.
And they’re wrong to believe this because of what exactly?
How does mass immigration – both high (H1B) and low (Mexico, Central America, etc.) – help working and middle-class whites?
How does seeing your neighborhood go from being populated by whites whom you share ethnicity, culture and language to being majority Hispanic whom share very little help working and middle-class whites?
How does having your wages kept low by continuous immigration/competition help working and middle-class whites?
How does having the value of your citizenship (and your vote) devalued every day help working and middle-class whites?
Like, I don’t know, Israel. You remember Israel, right David. It’s the country that your son fought to defend his (and your) tribe. Oh that’s right, America is different. We’re a “universal” nation – except, of course, that we weren’t. You and your tribe pushed that notion to the benefit of . . . your tribe.
No, Trumpist populists are acknowleding the divisions and attempting create fences.
Well done, David, you just won a huge majority of the non-Jewish white vote. Outside of the last part, you’d also do well in the home-in-your-heart Israel.
Baby boomer Jew David Brooks knows the jig is up on the evil WASP / Jew ruling class of the American Empire. David Brooks comically uses “we” when talking about the colonizing, settling and pioneering of America. What a laugh. I have ancestors who colonized, settled and pioneered America. David Brooks has ancestors who started complaining about Christians as soon as they got off the boat.
David Brooks is a Jew who hates the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. David Brooks knows that the United States was created by people from England, with the Swedes, Dutch, French, Germans and other European Christian people contributing. David Brooks is a putrid example of the hostile Jews who infest the WASP / Jew ruling class of the United States.
David Brooks pushes nation-wrecking mass immigration. David Brooks pushes unnecessary overseas wars that kill European Christian soldiers for no purpose but to protect Israel. David Brooks pushes globalization and sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams that pauperize American workers.
But that’s true, unfortunately, and Brooks works as a propagandist for the new Slave Power.
This is great! The neoconservative opposition to Trumpism appears to be even more mild than their past “wars” against LGBT rights and political correctness. I know, perhaps a campaign to adopt Somali refugees will win over hearts and minds!
David Brooks really is just the absolute worst.
New York Times’ columnist David Brooks has declared war on White Core America. David Brooks is a baby boomer Jew who is attempting to continue the re-conceptualization of the United States as a “proposition nation” and/or a “universal nation.”
David Brooks will not win in this battle to sell us a fake America while his people steal the real one. Sam Huntington and David Hackett Fischer have written books that put the lie to this smarmy rodent David Brooks’s failing attempts to re-conceptualize the United States.
Huntington’s “Who Are We” and Fischer’s “Albion’s Seed” tell the real story of the colonization, settling and pioneering of America. Huntington rightly said that the British Protestant people are the true rightful inheritors to the claim of who started the United States. Fischer’s book says that different parts of Britain colonized, settled and pioneered America, and their cultural legacy still clearly defines the regions that they call home.
David Brooks is an evil baby boomer who must be confronted with his continued attempts to steal away the true origins of the United States. The evil baby boomer David Brooks must be stopped by true White Core American patriots who love the United States..
Agreed. And I admire the chutzpah. We can learn from the tribals.
And the London Tube was built before the American Civil War
What exactly does he mean by we? Sounds a lot like he’s saying do what we say, not what we do.Replies: @Moses, @Michael Rolls
“Fellow White People”
I wonder if Brooks actually believes this drivelReplies: @Barnard, @Bill
I think most of them do believe it, even though there is no historical basis for it. White guilt has been drummed into school children for at least three generations now. Part of it may come from an incredible sense of arrogance, “look how great we are, we can take this Somali or Guatemalan and turn his children into doctors and lawyers.”
I thought Steve Sailer was bullshitting when he said that David Brooks reads his stuff. I no longer think that. There are many key words that regularly appear in Brooks’s propaganda slop that also happen to appear in Sailer’s writings — and also the writings of some commenters. David Brooks’s specialty is to twist the words of others around to suit his purposes. The WASP / Jew ruling class is set to topple like the Tower of Babel and David Brooks senses it.
David Brooks’s word thievery:
ALIENS
RIGS
WHITE AMERICANS
CORE
CULTURAL COHESION
The Republican Party presidential primary voters in New Hampshire told the “proposition nation” shysters to go to hell. The candidates who were trying to sell the “universal nation” nonsense were crushed by White Core American champion Donald Trump. Trumpism is bigger than Trump. Trumpism is White Core America telling the WASP / Jew ruling class of the American Empire to go to hell.
David Brooks Backed The Bush/Neo-Conservative Iraq War Debacle From The Get-Go.
David Brooks Wanted American Soldiers To Fight And Die For The Benefit Of Israel.
David Brooks Is An Evil Baby Boomer Jew.
Yes, it appears that having no shame is a very useful tool. But then, shame and guilt should be reserved for interactions with your own people. When dealing with other tribes, “whatever works” should be the mantra.
I think most WASP SWPL types do believe it. Among influential Jews, I’d suspect that many don’t, or, at least, they are able to compartmentalize better than their WASP neighbors.
Did you see Colbert try to cheer up TNC by reminding him that whites will soon be a minority?
Has TNC ever faced an adversarial interviewer? Somebody who would go after him the way Charlie Rose went after Steve Bannon on 60 Minutes? Is there anybody in the MSM today who would even dare to try such a thing? Now that would make for some interesting viewing.Replies: @Alfa158
First of all, it irritates me to no end the way David Brooks just “assumes the sale” with his definition of America, as if anyone who disagrees with his universalist notions is just some bigoted rube who should be dismissed, scorned, or crushed out of existence, while people like him are the “real Americans” who “get it.” What right does he have to appropriate the American name and title? To the extent that I consider myself an American (and I’ve had a lifelong struggle with the concept), I utterly resent being described in Brooks’ terms. Whatever else I am or aspire to be, it certainly isn’t that.
Secondly, The kind of SJ-Warriorism implicit in Brooks’ definition is grotesque and unhinged. Brooks describes a busybody America that trapeses about the world, bursting upon the scene in some enormous, bullet-spraying clown car, destroying age-old institutions, harvesting all wealth, leaving behind only waste and wreckage, and then congratulating itself on all the good it’s done spreading its “universal principles.” In Brooks’ view, the Americans are a mercenary army of cucked giants who slavishly do the chaotic bidding of their maniacal giantesses. Not only is this not un-tribal behavior as Brooks would have you believe, it is the behavior of the very worst kind of tribe in existence—a tribe of locusts, a tribe of termites. This is responsible for the hatred and bitter feelings that the American name now inspires wherever on the globe it is uttered.
It is Mr. Brooks who needs to be beaten “philosophically.” It is his ideas that must be revealed for the shallow, threadbare, philistine self-justifications that they are. No real philosopher would have anything to do with Brooks’ America. Like the saints in Heaven rejecting an impenitent sinner, he would simply turn his back to it and let his contempt be his final commentary.
I don't read much Brooks anymore, but used to regularly. I liked his sociological commentary, which had a hard-headed Norman Podhoretz quality. Post Trump, I can barely stomach him.
It's not as if Trump has been so anti-Israel or anything. Brooks was never the SJW he now presents as. What happened?
Brooks seems to have gone loco over the mainstream meme that Trump is a racist. I call bull shit.Replies: @Flip
David Brooks belongs to a people who happily refer to themselves as “the Tribe.” He’s so tribal that his first wife, presumably with his encouragement, or at least knowing it would make him happy, not only converted to Judaism but changed her first name to a Jewish name (from Jane to Sarah). His son apparently believed that dying for a “universal nation” wasn’t worth it – who in hell wants to die for a Middle Eastern Bazaar, or for the Nation of Walmart? – so he hightailed it to Israel to risk his life on behalf of – get this – the Tribe.
Finally, where did David Brooks read that we were founded as a universal nation? Sources please. In 1795 Congress, of the same generation as those who wrote the Constitution, passed a law limiting naturalization to free white people. In 1882, just one year before Lazarus wrote her wretched refuse of poetry, Congress (a very large number of whom were Union Army veterans) overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Chinese Exclusion Act. In 1924 Congress, shortly after we helped liberate Europe the first time, passed a law favoring immigration from countries that formed the founding stock of America. We have at least 170 years of history, 1795-1965, showing exactly what kind of nation our people and leaders believed us to be, a time period which includes all of the glorious dying on behalf of all of the glorious causes people like to praise us for – liberating the slaves, liberating Europe (twice) and defeating the Nazis. Those people might have had a thing or two to say about what they were dying for that is worth listening to. Now when Leftists talk about the few surviving members of that generation all they can say is that they hope they die soon so that this country can move even further to the Left.
Finally, if a universal nation is what we are, and allowing in massive numbers of illegal immigrants is part of being a universal nation, then why do so many polticians feel the need to lie about their position to win election? Ted Kennedy felt the need to lie about his motives at least as recently as 1986. Orrin Hatch, Jeff Flake, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio – among many, many others – all felt the need to lie about their motives within the last decade. Every proposed amnesty bill, even until the last one in 2013, is revealed to be built on nothing but lies. Funny that so many lies have to be told to get this “universal nation” to do what universal nation’s are supposed to do. You would think a universal nation of universal people would be more easily convinced. But in Oregon, famed home of Antifa and of anti-Trump riots galore, where Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 11%, the voters just three years ago voted overwhelmingly (66-34) against their obligatory Universal People duties to give drivers licenses to fellow Universal Peoplez (Undocumented Division).
I guess the real problem with Universal Peoplism is that Universal Peoplism has never really been tried. Perhaps just to be safe we should try it out in a small country, one near the junction of three continents and several major religions. I have a country in mind. I’m pretty sure David Brooks is familiar with it.
What exactly are universal principles? Were these “universal” principles held by the Mongols, the Turks, Soviet Communism, Maoist China, Imperial Japan, the Arabs etc?
Steve, you’re scaring me. I’m afraid Lazarene Creed is going to be the one that finally goes viral. It will catch on because people won’t get the joke and think it’s real.
e.g. “If you’re against immigration then you’re violating the Lazarene Creed, the founding principle of America!”
Next, we’ll be required to recite the Lazarene Oath to register to vote, swear in to office, or pledge allegiance to the flag.
I think Brooks’ vision might be tenable had his purported conservative movement ever been successful in actually conserving anything, rather than making a series of strategic defeats amounting to total failure.
He’s failed at his purported task his whole life. Most relevant, he’s failed to constrain the emergence of a Leviathan welfare state.
We could perhaps be a proposition nation with lax immigration laws were we not simultaneously an immense welfare state. At least there’d be an assurance that the immigrant is supporting himself and his, and if he couldn’t he’d go back home.
Our national memory about immigration suffers from a survivorship bias – people have warm memories of great-grandpop Fiorello coming to Ellis Island on a boat with thirty cents to his name and parlaying that into a thriving business and a large family home on Long Island where they used to play as kids and had their first taste of purloined home-made dago red wine. What they don’t remember is all of the others like great-grandpop who couldn’t make it in America and either went back to Calabria or lie buried in a potter’s field somewhere, having died penniless and childless.
Brooks’ proposition nation can only be viewed at this late date as a recipe for the turning of the entire Union into California without the weather – his immigrants will only ever force the state to be bigger in size and scope and more intrusive. He either knows this and is sinister in his motives, or doesn’t know this and is a demonstrable fool.
Not even a proposition nation can have lax immigration laws. The whole idea is that someone actually has to buy into the proposition, is refused entry and possibly even kicked out (even if native born) if he does not. And of course you have to ask where the "proposition" they're supposed to believe in is written? Not anywhere, that I can see.Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
In certain lands, right here right now, it is a fundamental moral precept to throw homosexuals off the roofs of tall buildings.
In another land, I won't bother mentioning by name, not only are practising homosexuals are 'elevated' to being the 'moral superiors' of heterosexuals, but it is easier for kids to access video footage of the most extreme homosexual thinkable than it is for the said minors to purchase a pack of cigarettes, which in yet another land are freely sold to adult and child alike.
If there is such an animal as 'universal principles', surely it is for those of a scientific bent it is the theories of Charles Darwin, at least in the sense in which it has 'shaped' the apparent limited 'universe' of our experience.
When you get down to it, the 'principles' of Darwinism are quite 'nasty' to the 'liberal' mind, not to mention 'exclusionary' and 'discriminatory'.Replies: @Colleen Pater, @Anonymous, @Olorin
Universalism are the absurd ideas like “all men are created equal”, when in fact they are evolved differently and not even two of the same family have equal ability. Brothers in christ, is another absurdity, along with the entire irrational, self abnegating,anti truth anti life theology adopted from jews. From these evolved democracy and communism and multiculturalism and globalism pretty much in that order except christianity should come first before liberalism.
David Brooks has no right nor standing to call me “un-american”. I consider him to be un-american.
I hope the irony (effrontery, really) of this tribesman decrying tribalism begins to dawn on more people.
For all the talk about “churn” and “creative destruction” and “Progress!” our public thinkers sure are backward-looking. It’s always 1965, or 1939, or 1789.
David Brooks is 56 years old, which is old enough to remember when the US was 85% white and 12% black and everyone else was a radar blip. As a wealthy, assimilated Ashkenazim, that’s the mental space a young-old man like Brooks occupies. Like a fish, he’s never learned that water exists or (more likely) he’s deliberately obtuse. Brooks has done very well by the worldview shaped in his formative years so that’s where he’s mentally stuck. As reality intrudes–as debt piles up and the demographics change irrevocably–he doubles down on his idealism. This is delusion, and delusion equals damage. Brooks and his crowd are no different than the Byzantines calling their few islands and strip of coastline an “Empire” even as the Ottomans’ ships fill the harbor and they start pitching their tents at your walls.
I don’t know if anyone finds it persuasive coming from Brooks, but school children have had the universal equality of man drummed into their heads for decades. It is easier to believe if you have little to no contact with diversity. As more and more people are dealing with the negative consequences of diversity first hand, they have turned into a moral crusade, calling people who oppose it racists and bigots. This has gone hand in hand with many Christian leaders teaching Christians to intentionally misread Matthew 25:35. Thinking that “I was a stranger and you took me in,” means you have to allow permanent residence to anyone that wants to move into your country is a recent phenomenon. The ruling class is isolated from diversity and any social problems it causes, so they get the benefits of cheap labor without suffering from many of the problems.
One of the under-reported aspects of the immigration issue is how deep seeded the animosity is between upper, middle and working class whites. These groups have truly come to despise each other and part of the way the upper class holds on to power is by pitting the other two against each other. I think promoting victimhood among the working class along with denigrating manual labor is simply another stage in that plan. Many of working class people have become unemployable, backing middle class management types into a corner where they have to either try to manage the working class flunkie with a poor work ethic and tons of personal problems that impact work, or turn to immigrant labor and live with the social problems that creates in their communities. The upper class ownership pays them to take care these issues and rarely has to deal with them directly.
In certain lands, right here right now, it is a fundamental moral precept to throw homosexuals off the roofs of tall buildings.
In another land, I won't bother mentioning by name, not only are practising homosexuals are 'elevated' to being the 'moral superiors' of heterosexuals, but it is easier for kids to access video footage of the most extreme homosexual thinkable than it is for the said minors to purchase a pack of cigarettes, which in yet another land are freely sold to adult and child alike.
If there is such an animal as 'universal principles', surely it is for those of a scientific bent it is the theories of Charles Darwin, at least in the sense in which it has 'shaped' the apparent limited 'universe' of our experience.
When you get down to it, the 'principles' of Darwinism are quite 'nasty' to the 'liberal' mind, not to mention 'exclusionary' and 'discriminatory'.Replies: @Colleen Pater, @Anonymous, @Olorin
Charles Darwin – genuinely a very humane and sensitive man, who amongst really gives a damn about an insect’s life? – once remarked that the peculiar and distinct breeding habits of the ichneumon genus of wasps convinced him of atheism.
The female finds a host and lays an egg on, near, or inside the host's body. Upon hatching, the larval ichneumon feeds either externally or internally, killing the host when it is ready to pupate. Despite looking formidable, the ovipositor does not deliver a sting like many wasps or bees. It can be used by the wasps to bore into and lay eggs inside rotten wood.
Some members use many different insects as hosts; others are very specific in host choice. Various ichneumons are used commercially as biological control agents in controlling horticultural pests such as flies or beetles.
An example is the parasitic wasp Ichneumon eumerus, which parasitizes the butterfly Phengaris rebeli. The adult wasp locates the P. rebeli by searching for Myrmica ants' nests, the nests that the P. rebeli parasitize as larvae in order to get nutrition. They only enter the Myrmica ants' nests which contain the P. rebeli caterpillar.
Once inside, they oviposit their eggs directly inside the bodies of these caterpillars and manage to escape the nest as they release a chemical that causes the worker ants to fight each other rather than the intruder wasp. Once the wasps' eggs hatch from the caterpillar's body, the offspring consume the dead caterpillar.
I've been reading a book about oceans creatures to my daughter. There's whole sections on symbiosis where big fish allow little fish to clean their teeth. These little cleaner fish are not particularly different from dinner. Yet they spend all sorts of time in their mouth and swim away, surprisingly uneaten.
Why and how does the big fish, with a brain the size of 3 brain cells (approximately), not eat the cleaner fish? How is it that certain bright colors are a universal warning of poisonous animals? Why is so universal that other non-poisonous animals can take on their colors as survival strategy? Why do the thousands of chemical reactions that must happen simultaneously to when type always work? The list is endless.
Atheists forget to wonder, and that includes Charles Darwin, unfortunately, who was right there on the front lines of all that is wondrous.
Finally, where did David Brooks read that we were founded as a universal nation? Sources please. In 1795 Congress, of the same generation as those who wrote the Constitution, passed a law limiting naturalization to free white people. In 1882, just one year before Lazarus wrote her wretched refuse of poetry, Congress (a very large number of whom were Union Army veterans) overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Chinese Exclusion Act. In 1924 Congress, shortly after we helped liberate Europe the first time, passed a law favoring immigration from countries that formed the founding stock of America. We have at least 170 years of history, 1795-1965, showing exactly what kind of nation our people and leaders believed us to be, a time period which includes all of the glorious dying on behalf of all of the glorious causes people like to praise us for - liberating the slaves, liberating Europe (twice) and defeating the Nazis. Those people might have had a thing or two to say about what they were dying for that is worth listening to. Now when Leftists talk about the few surviving members of that generation all they can say is that they hope they die soon so that this country can move even further to the Left.
Finally, if a universal nation is what we are, and allowing in massive numbers of illegal immigrants is part of being a universal nation, then why do so many polticians feel the need to lie about their position to win election? Ted Kennedy felt the need to lie about his motives at least as recently as 1986. Orrin Hatch, Jeff Flake, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio - among many, many others - all felt the need to lie about their motives within the last decade. Every proposed amnesty bill, even until the last one in 2013, is revealed to be built on nothing but lies. Funny that so many lies have to be told to get this "universal nation" to do what universal nation's are supposed to do. You would think a universal nation of universal people would be more easily convinced. But in Oregon, famed home of Antifa and of anti-Trump riots galore, where Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 11%, the voters just three years ago voted overwhelmingly (66-34) against their obligatory Universal People duties to give drivers licenses to fellow Universal Peoplez (Undocumented Division).
I guess the real problem with Universal Peoplism is that Universal Peoplism has never really been tried. Perhaps just to be safe we should try it out in a small country, one near the junction of three continents and several major religions. I have a country in mind. I'm pretty sure David Brooks is familiar with it.Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
And the shelves of civil rights laws enforced by nuclear-armed bureaucrats to get us to do what is supposedly as natural as breathing.
Being a universal example is not the same thing as being a universal nation. And just because our system of government is based upon a universal principle doesn’t mean that anyone who subscribes to that principle is automatically eligible for citizenship.
There is something faintly “continental” about this confusion between the abstract and the concrete, using that word in the sense we use it when we distinguish between English and continental philosophy. It is foreign to the American political tradition in the same way that Marxism was, especially in its Trotskyite version that was so popular among Ashkenazi immigrants and their children last century, from whom Brooks is descended. I would describe it as an Eastern European intellectual import.
Let’s review both the positions that Brooks attributes to backward thinkers vs. the position that Brooks holds out as truth:
The positions Brooks suggest are irrational:
That’s true. Good Americans are having their lives screwed by the federal government’s and employers’ preference for alien workers and alien culture.
That’s true. See David Brooks.
That’s true. Look at the increasing cultural division since the Immigration Act of 1965. Many of the political protests in California involve people waving Mexican flags. That’s cultural division.
That threat is not nearly as significant as many people believe, but it’s true that Muslim radicals have murdered Americans in America.
Life is tribal. Rather than see himself as part of the white tribe, Brooks sees himself as part of the educated tribe and he looks down on the uneducated tribe.
That’s true. That’s specifically why white Liberals champion strong. explicitly racial leaders for other races.
Agreed.
The position Brooks suggests is rational:
The United States’ founding documents completely counter this narrative. The US Constitution did not extend full rights to either black people or Native Americans in the United States specifically because they were not members of the tribe who created the United States and for whom the United States was created for — white people. The founders made this explicitly clear in the new nation’s first immigration police, the Naturalization Act of 1790, when they limited immigration to “free white men of good character”.
It's also the case that in the topsy-turvy cultiMarx world that Brooks either didn't stop by his various acts of conserving - or to which he subscribes - Muslims are a protected, mascot class with rights to make ever increasing demands on the rest of us. The newspaper he "writes" for wouldn't publish newsworthy Mohammed cartoons, complying with a de facto prohibition against blasphemy according to Islamic law backed by credible threats of violence from 1-2% of the U.S. population. Has Brooks even contemplated what the NYT would desist from publishing with Muslims at 5% or 8% of the U.S. population? Hint: Slim doesn't pay him to do that.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @tyrone
Football is so divided: Raiders and Patriots, Redskins and Cowboys… football is a universal sport, even if the rest of the world does not know it yet… We need to strive to a Universal stadium and a uniform melted in a pot to include all mascots, developing a sort of hydra monster of identity and then we will play universal football with no teams… except us, the owners
“We need to build walls to keep out illegals,”
Why not? Israel stole somebody else’s land then built walls to keep their victims off of it. Ask David Brook’s son. He’d know all about it seeing as though this American patriot – who totally doesn’t come from a tribal family – served in that country’s military.
“wage endless war on the globalist elites.”
What has this maroon been smoking? It’s his tribe that’s been waging the wars and thirsting for more wars: Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran (up next!), Pakistan and Africa (drone wars), pivot to Asia, Ukraine, Russian Cold War they’ve started, etc.
Max Boot, William Krystal, Charles Krauthammer, Douglass Feith…it’s not the corn boys from Iowa waging the endless wars.
The “global elite” that has been actively waging war, cutting taxes on themselves, and lowering your wages through mass immigration (while making sure none of their kids go to school with them), now tries to portray themselves as the poor whittle victims of the people they oppress.
They cry in pain as they strike you.
“What is 2,011km long, lasts 82 days and takes 20,093 shots? Golf’s longest hole”
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/behind-the-lines/2017/oct/03/longest-hole-golf-ever-mongolia
I don’t think it’s a “real” golf hole … they teed off in one place and finished 1500 miles away.
But Steve, your favorite “tribe” very much practices what it preaches, at least in the US. It refuses to hunker down by, say, shunning outmarriage or avoiding political fragmentation, or fighting demographic decline or worrying about Muslim immigration.
Despite the rhetoric, the argument really isn’t whether America should or should not be a tribe. It’s whether America should be an OPEN tribe or whether it’s time to hunker down. That depends on how well the model works for different factions and what power they have.
I’m skeptical that all this rhetoric counts for anything at all. Republican free trade rhetoric did nothing to stop the complete collapse of support for free trade agreements among its base.
And that’s exactly why The Spawn of Brooks was raised to join IDF, instead of United States Colors of Benetton Army.
bored identity apologizes for reprllent noticing, but it is Every.Single.Time. – over and over again.
He's failed at his purported task his whole life. Most relevant, he's failed to constrain the emergence of a Leviathan welfare state.
We could perhaps be a proposition nation with lax immigration laws were we not simultaneously an immense welfare state. At least there'd be an assurance that the immigrant is supporting himself and his, and if he couldn't he'd go back home.
Our national memory about immigration suffers from a survivorship bias - people have warm memories of great-grandpop Fiorello coming to Ellis Island on a boat with thirty cents to his name and parlaying that into a thriving business and a large family home on Long Island where they used to play as kids and had their first taste of purloined home-made dago red wine. What they don't remember is all of the others like great-grandpop who couldn't make it in America and either went back to Calabria or lie buried in a potter's field somewhere, having died penniless and childless.
Brooks' proposition nation can only be viewed at this late date as a recipe for the turning of the entire Union into California without the weather - his immigrants will only ever force the state to be bigger in size and scope and more intrusive. He either knows this and is sinister in his motives, or doesn't know this and is a demonstrable fool.Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Wilkey
His ship “cuckservatism” is sinking. Seems like he’s going down with it.
The positions Brooks suggest are irrational:That's true. Good Americans are having their lives screwed by the federal government's and employers' preference for alien workers and alien culture.That's true. See David Brooks.That's true. Look at the increasing cultural division since the Immigration Act of 1965. Many of the political protests in California involve people waving Mexican flags. That's cultural division.That threat is not nearly as significant as many people believe, but it's true that Muslim radicals have murdered Americans in America.Life is tribal. Rather than see himself as part of the white tribe, Brooks sees himself as part of the educated tribe and he looks down on the uneducated tribe.That's true. That's specifically why white Liberals champion strong. explicitly racial leaders for other races.Agreed.
The position Brooks suggests is rational:The United States' founding documents completely counter this narrative. The US Constitution did not extend full rights to either black people or Native Americans in the United States specifically because they were not members of the tribe who created the United States and for whom the United States was created for -- white people. The founders made this explicitly clear in the new nation's first immigration police, the Naturalization Act of 1790, when they limited immigration to "free white men of good character".Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
I think the issue here is that a tiny, numerically insignificant proportion of our overall population of citizens and residents kill our children at alarming rates, and Brooks wants to augment their numbers which will inevitably increase the number of dead children at the hands of Muslims.
It’s also the case that in the topsy-turvy cultiMarx world that Brooks either didn’t stop by his various acts of conserving – or to which he subscribes – Muslims are a protected, mascot class with rights to make ever increasing demands on the rest of us. The newspaper he “writes” for wouldn’t publish newsworthy Mohammed cartoons, complying with a de facto prohibition against blasphemy according to Islamic law backed by credible threats of violence from 1-2% of the U.S. population. Has Brooks even contemplated what the NYT would desist from publishing with Muslims at 5% or 8% of the U.S. population? Hint: Slim doesn’t pay him to do that.
What exactly does he mean by we? Sounds a lot like he’s saying do what we say, not what we do.Replies: @Moses, @Michael Rolls
we = fellow white people
That reminds me of the speech from this semester of Rick and Morty
Still, Adams was wiser than Brooks, who is clearly a chump.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @james wilson, @syonredux, @Antlitz Grollheim
Have there been any American politicians capable of being terse?
Not really.
Paul Johnson suggested that Andrew Jackson and the Duke of Wellington were pretty close to being identical except in culture (they were both tall skinny hard asses). But the Duke was funnier: “Publish and be damned.”
Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt were another similar pair, but Churchill was funnier.
Disraeli was funnier than whoever was his American counterpart (Judah P. Benjamin?).
But Lincoln was funnier than Gladstone, but maybe Gladstone should be compared to Woodrow Wilson?
I tip my chat to Mr Brooks’ chutzpah.
It's also the case that in the topsy-turvy cultiMarx world that Brooks either didn't stop by his various acts of conserving - or to which he subscribes - Muslims are a protected, mascot class with rights to make ever increasing demands on the rest of us. The newspaper he "writes" for wouldn't publish newsworthy Mohammed cartoons, complying with a de facto prohibition against blasphemy according to Islamic law backed by credible threats of violence from 1-2% of the U.S. population. Has Brooks even contemplated what the NYT would desist from publishing with Muslims at 5% or 8% of the U.S. population? Hint: Slim doesn't pay him to do that.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @tyrone
Back home in Lebanon, Carlos Slim’s cousin-in-law Bashir Gemayel didn’t put up with much Muslim impudence.
It’s total unknown in America that Slim’s clan was, literally, Fascist.
National Socialism Hmmm Nationalism, take care of your own people first. Control the capitalists and don't let them import foreign workers when our own workers aren't working. Control crime by alleviating poverty, unemployment and strict enforcement of the laws. Socialism, spread the goodies around, keep workers employed, provide good public transit, infrastructure so business and commerce can thrive, harbors, roads, bridges etc lots of parks, swimming pools, give a lot of state support to capitalism and large and small business. Pay child benefit so married mothers don't have to work which keeps the men employed and the kids under control.
Sounds good to me. I don't believe in God, but I support all forms of Christianity, especially the descendants of ancient Christians who have managed to survive in a hostile Muslim world for 1,500 years.It's also unknown in America that FDR's New Deal program was based on what Facist Mussolini did in the 1920's. I personally like Facist In Unity There Is Strength rather than multicultural America with every group fighting every other group for affirmative action privileges. Except Whites of course who are legally relegated to the status of untouchables.
It seems to have been revealed to be a front for the international capital class (one of whom owns his employer) but I don’t think Brooks is in danger of any real deprivation, because he can re-imagine himself as some fussy, over-starched anachronism (to the extent he isn’t just that already). George Will is nearly eighty.
We are a universal nation, founded on universal principles, attracting talented people from across the globe, active across the world on behalf of all people who seek democracy and dignity.
Then, can we stop favoring Zionist Israel over Palestinians?
Can we stop having Politicians suck up to AIPAC and say Israel and only Israel is the best and dearest ally of the US?
And why did Brooks’ son serve in IDF? Why didn’t he take turns volunteering for all the militaries of the world? He should do a stint with Hamas too.
Robert Pogue Harrison has a great book, “The Dominion of the Dead,” where he explores how the moral/political legitimacy of nations begins first with the ritual interment of the dead–think Abraham buying Sarah’s tomb in Hebron–because, Harrison argues, there is an identity between dead ancestors and those generations yet to be born (e.g. Anchises’ famous “coming attractions” speech in Book VI of the Aeneid). The electric arc between those two poles is the energy that drives a coherent culture.
In the Great Gnostification that is the current dispensation, though, so many of our countrymen have sought out a different dialectic to give their lives structure (both corpses and newborns being irredeemably icky.) “Leapfrogging loyalties” serves to glorify the Self and thus requires an alien Other, the more improbable and monstrous the better.
What they are full of is Pho/Bahn Mi restaurants and Taco trucks. A series of disconnected, sensory experiences where meaning is determined by how "authentic" the food is because it was prepared by a real live Vietnamese or Mexican.
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
Publius- (John Jay), The Federalist #2, 1787.
Steve,
Are you suggesting that Jewish people born in Canada whose first name’s are David are not reliable arbiters of what America is, what the American people think and what conservatism means? Where will this end? First they came for David Brooks, and I did not speak out because I am not a NYT columnist. Then they came for David Frum, and I did not speak out because I am not an idiot. Then they came for David Steinberg, and I did not speak out because I didn’t realize he was still working (or, even alive).
I’m not sure where this is going, but the point is: just be nice and do what they say (except for David Steinberg) because they have your best interests at heart.
In the Great Gnostification that is the current dispensation, though, so many of our countrymen have sought out a different dialectic to give their lives structure (both corpses and newborns being irredeemably icky.) "Leapfrogging loyalties" serves to glorify the Self and thus requires an alien Other, the more improbable and monstrous the better.Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @The Last Real Calvinist
I often make the point that the hipster/yuppie gentrified neighborhoods aren’t really proper neighborhoods, and you can tell this because there aren’t many funeral parlors remaining or strollers being wheeled about. (And the Churches where they’d be baptized and have their Mass of Christian burial are being closed as well). I suppose you have to be born somewhere else, and you’ll be left to die in some other out of the way place. No need for reminders of where we came from and where we’re all going – sooner than we expect for most.
What they are full of is Pho/Bahn Mi restaurants and Taco trucks. A series of disconnected, sensory experiences where meaning is determined by how “authentic” the food is because it was prepared by a real live Vietnamese or Mexican.
It's also the case that in the topsy-turvy cultiMarx world that Brooks either didn't stop by his various acts of conserving - or to which he subscribes - Muslims are a protected, mascot class with rights to make ever increasing demands on the rest of us. The newspaper he "writes" for wouldn't publish newsworthy Mohammed cartoons, complying with a de facto prohibition against blasphemy according to Islamic law backed by credible threats of violence from 1-2% of the U.S. population. Has Brooks even contemplated what the NYT would desist from publishing with Muslims at 5% or 8% of the U.S. population? Hint: Slim doesn't pay him to do that.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @tyrone
why don’t people like brooks ever talk about muslim eschatology were jews are extirpated, sorta like nazism.Keep bending over brooksy boy it won’t help your end …….in the end
We are a universal nation, founded on universal principles, attracting talented people from across the globe, active across the world on behalf of all people who seek democracy and dignity.
‘Universal’ is a big word. Generally, it means imposing one’s ideas upon everyone. Islam and Catholicism are universal. It doesn’t mean they represent everyone but that they try to impose their tenets on everyone. Same with communism. So, calling something ‘universal’ doesn’t mean that all the world agrees to its goodness.
Also, universal ideas can travel. People don’t have to come to America to adopt American ways, just like one doesn’t have to live in Vatican to be a catholic or live in Mecca to be a Muslim. And during the Cold War, one didn’t need to live in Moscow to be a communist. One could try to spread communism in one’s own nation… like in China or Cuba. If American ideals are truly universal and applicable to all, there is no need to arrive in American Soil. Fixing the universality of American ideas to American soil is a total contradiction.
Also, if US is about plundering talented people from all over the world, it means stealing the best from other nations. That sounds like a particularist stealing of the best. How is that helping the world? It is grabbing the best for America in massive brain drain for the world. So much for universalism. Would it be good for Israel is India took all the best Jewish minds in Israel and left only the dummies? Is it good to Puerto-Ricanize the world? If US is a universalist nation, then it should be missionary-like demographically. If Brooks believes in Americanism for everyone, he should move to some Third World nation to spread the ‘dignity’ of Americanism.
If a people seek democracy and dignity, they should try to attain them in their own nations. Running away from one’s own people, culture, and land to have it easy in the richest most powerful nation in the world is not dignified. Imagine a man who runs from his own poor and troubled family and joins another family by marrying a rich woman to have it good. How dignified is that?
Also, democracy is hardly rare these days. Okay, we get it. In the 19th century and even much of 20th century, democracy was pretty rare. US was one of the few democratic nations, at least for whites. But why would anyone need to come to US for democracy? Mexico is democratic last time I heard. Venezuela got its current leaders through elections. Let them deal with the consequences. Brazil is democratic. India brags that it is the biggest democracy in the world. Most African nations regard themselves as democratic. Btw, we have Jewish elites saying the Deep State should pull every dirty trick to nullify Trumpism that won democratically. So much for ‘dignity’.
Anyway, Brooks gives the game away. He talks of the coming together of ‘talent’. He’s talking of cerebral tribalism or cerebralism. If US elites focus on pulling in all the talent from the world, it will create a tribalism of cognitivism, of course with favors for blacks. This is Elysiumism. In the end, it isn’t universalism but elitism. A healthy nation is one where the leaders &elites focus on their own people. And US was like that under Cleveland and FDR and Eisenhower. But as US focuses on attracting TALENT from the world, the US elites care more about forming a closed society of ‘talent’ while neglecting the masses.
Even among non-whites, those who reach the top soon become closer to Jewish and Anglo elites while snubbing their own kind. Sadiq Khan in London doesn’t care about white masses or Muslim masses(though he pretends to). Like Zakaria, he only cares about the Elysium Club.
A nation cannot be ‘universal’. Every nation is one nation among many in the world. Also, ‘universal’ means that nation’s ideas are the ONLY ones for the entire world and peoples.
Also, even the world taken as a whole isn’t universal. Indeed, we avoid wars because different nations agree to respect each other’s differences.
Trump ran to be president of the US. Only Americans could vote. Americans elect the American president. So, why should American president serve the talented around the world than his own people? If US must serve the entire world, can the US at least tax the world?
A nation needs unity-ism than universalism. A democracy is where the people matter, and that means people of the nation. Elites exist to lead and guide the people, not to neglect the people they already have by shoving them into the dark corners of the closet while shopping for new ones.
Also, nationalism is not tribalism, which is small and local. US can never be tribal since it’s too big. Nationalism is goldilocks middle between petty tribalism and hubris-laden universalism, which invariably turns into imperialism.
US is a strange case of ‘universalism’ serving ‘tribalism’.
Every group in the US is forced to support Zionism and Israel, Israel, and Israel and worship the god of shoah. Notice the Mall has the Holocaust Museum but nothing for any other great world tragedy.
So, Brooks really means Jewish identity and interests are the only acceptable tribalism in the US, and all other tribes must accept the universalism where the shared faith is reverence for Jews.
America is a Universal Nation where the #1 universal creed among the various goy groups is Jews are great and Israel is good.
I’ll save everyone the trouble:
The female finds a host and lays an egg on, near, or inside the host’s body. Upon hatching, the larval ichneumon feeds either externally or internally, killing the host when it is ready to pupate. Despite looking formidable, the ovipositor does not deliver a sting like many wasps or bees. It can be used by the wasps to bore into and lay eggs inside rotten wood.
Some members use many different insects as hosts; others are very specific in host choice. Various ichneumons are used commercially as biological control agents in controlling horticultural pests such as flies or beetles.
An example is the parasitic wasp Ichneumon eumerus, which parasitizes the butterfly Phengaris rebeli. The adult wasp locates the P. rebeli by searching for Myrmica ants’ nests, the nests that the P. rebeli parasitize as larvae in order to get nutrition. They only enter the Myrmica ants’ nests which contain the P. rebeli caterpillar.
Once inside, they oviposit their eggs directly inside the bodies of these caterpillars and manage to escape the nest as they release a chemical that causes the worker ants to fight each other rather than the intruder wasp. Once the wasps’ eggs hatch from the caterpillar’s body, the offspring consume the dead caterpillar.
Like the border fence his son defends for his and dad’s own tribe’s armed forces.Where is that again?
Ironic he writes this tripe from the platform of the biggest booster of identity politics in ‘Merica.
(((Brooks’))) son is in the Israeli “Defense” Force. If you think he believes what he peddles to the goyim, I have seaside land in Kansasto sell you.
Err, we seem to pointedly import quite a few people with no talent and a penchant for making their environs worse.
And mass importation in the name of talent is a poor long term strategy. We should raise up and train our own talent.
Here is a very iSteve story, India deporting back true refugees who happen to be Muslim and Burmese. Just look at what Indian Govt is saying to their own Supreme Court:
http://www.firstpost.com/india/rohingya-deportation-case-illegal-immigrants-cant-claim-fundamental-rights-not-even-those-available-to-non-citizens-govt-tells-sc-4106505.html
Every time a extremely liberal south asian talking head is blabbering about America and immigratio, throw this story at em.
Not really.
Paul Johnson suggested that Andrew Jackson and the Duke of Wellington were pretty close to being identical except in culture (they were both tall skinny hard asses). But the Duke was funnier: "Publish and be damned."
Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt were another similar pair, but Churchill was funnier.
Disraeli was funnier than whoever was his American counterpart (Judah P. Benjamin?).
But Lincoln was funnier than Gladstone, but maybe Gladstone should be compared to Woodrow Wilson?Replies: @black sea, @syonredux
If you don’t say anything, you won’t be called on to repeat it.
I have never been hurt by what I have not said.
You can’t know too much, but you can say too much.
No man ever listened himself out of a job.
Calvin “Silent Cal” Coolidge
America no longer exists although core Americans certainly do. All we have left is the tribe as our political nation has vanished. We are now just wayfaring strangers on this continent of chain store and Internet dreams.
David Brooks is a ‘conservative’. But what is trying to conserve? Is the real problem that what he is trying to conserve — Jewish interests and power — seem at odds with what white gentiles are trying to conserve?
After all, conservatism is about roots, and a people cut off from their roots are nothing. White Americans must indeed be proud Americans, but they also need to know where they came from. White race existed for 10,000s of yrs before there ever was America, which is only 240 yrs as a republic. Indeed, if the New World didn’t exist and if America had never come into existence, the white race and culture would still exist.
White identity pre-exists even European civilization. It is the product of biology and evolution and climate. So, white Americans need all three: biological-racial consciousness, a sense of how they were forged as a race in the European continent even before there was European history and high civilization. Indeed, it was evolution that formed those very traits among white people that made European civilization possible. So, biology precedes culture. If evolution had given whites different genetic traits, would they have created European civilization? Not likely. If evolution had made whites look, feel, and act like African bushmen, there wouldn’t have been Hellenic civilization and Germanic mythology and culture.
Also, European civilization existed for thousands of yrs prior to rise of America. If anything, America is essentially just an extension of European peoples, cultures, and civilization. The language & literature, architecture, political theories, and sense of history and roots all go back to Europe. Founding Fathers would have been lost without their deep connection to Mother Europe. They sought political independence, not cultural or historical independence. America didn’t grow from American soil. Rather, it was a tree that was transplanted from Europe to America. America is not an indigenous creation but an import from Europe. It’s like a Mars Colony wouldn’t truly be Martian but Earthian transported to Mars. Therefore, Earthlings who colonize Mars would have no meaningful identity IF they ignored their ancestral connection to Mother Earth.
America is both a great blessing and a great curse. It gave opportunity and freedom to many peoples around the wold. But it also turned them amnesiac almost overnight to their rich history and ancestry. Attracted to American liberty and materialism, many Americans just turned their backs on their ethnic kin and even grew to hold them in contempt. Also, as American history isn’t deep — US is still a young nation — , it is never enough to be an American. The only people with relatively deep roots in America are Anglos and maybe blacks with slave ancestry. There are many Americans of immigrant background whose history in America go back only a few decades… or few yrs. When Anglos were dominant, other groups tried to respect and assimilate to Anglo narrative. But with Jewish takeover of the US, the new American Formula is amnesia. America is a blank slate where all Americans must just think in terms of ‘muh constitution’, ‘muh burger and fries’, and ‘muh wars for israel’. Also, this immigration-centric view of America says Americans-yet-to-be are more American than Americans who already are. It’s like a shopoholic woman is bored with clothes she already has and just looks to clothes to buy in the future. Americanism has been consumerized.
America liberated many peoples but also turned them into traitors. It made Anglos turn against their mother country. It made Italian-Americans fight Italians in WWI. It made German-Americans fight Germans in WWI and WWII. It made Russian-Americans go against Russia during the Cold War. It made Muslim-Americans support US wars on Muslim nations under Bush and Obama. It made Chinese-Americans side with US against their own kin and brethren. The ONLY exception is Jews. Jews would never support a US that is anti-Jewish or anti-Israel.
Anyway, what is the source of Jewish Power? Jews claim to love America, but they never forget their identitarian tribal roots. Indeed, American Jews feel more in common with Jews in Russia, Hungary, Britain, France, and Israel than with gentile Americans such as white working class, Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, and etc. Sure, Jews work with gentiles in every profession, but away from work, they maintain their Jewish identity and interests that are so much deeper than Americanism. Jewish history goes back 3500 yrs while Core Jewish-American history is 120 yrs old, with large numbers of Jews arriving only in the late 19th century. The thing is Jews try to juggle both: Jewish identity and American citizenship.
And that is the way it should be. Take THE GODFATHER. Young Michael tries to be just a good patriotic American. But he realizes he is his father’s son, and when he makes ‘aliyah’ to Sicily, he feels a connection with his culture and roots. So, even though he lives and works as an American, he is something MORE. He is also part of a culture that is much deeper. Today, why is Italian-American culture so worthless and trashy? Because Italian-Americans have forgotten their roots and only care about pop culture. It’s Jersey Shore.
Even though AVALON by Barry Levinson isn’t a great movie, it illustrates the importance of roots and culture… and how those things are ultimately threatened by the homogenizing impact of TV and Pop Americana.
It’s not a case of either/or. White Americans should be American. But their identities can be multi-layered. Americanism can be layered with Europeanism. Americanism forges a bond between white Americans and non-white Americans. (Pan)Europeanism sustains a bond among all whites in US, Canada, Australia, and Europe and Latin America.
And ethnicism connects each white ethnic group to his particular tribal history. A white man can have all three in balance.
At any rate, would Jews be as powerful IF they only chose to think of themselves as American and not as Jewish with deep roots and powerful connections to Jews around the world?
If one were to meet two Lithuanian-Americans, whom would deserve more respect? One who is patriotic and American but also has a deep sense of Lithuanian heritage, history, and knows the language OR one who is entirely American but knows or cares almost nothing of what it means to be Lithuanian? This occurred to me in college when I met this Lithuanian guy who was American as apple pie but also so knowledgeable about his mother nation and culture. It deserved respect.
Now, there’s gonna be tensions between these various identities: ethnic, european, and American, but tension, if managed right, is good. Tension makes people feel alive. It forces them to be creative in trying to maintain a balance among the ideas and identities that are, at once, contradictory and complementary.
The New Right must be about accepting the tensions and conflicts of existence. It’s not the Happy Meal conservatives of cucks like Ben Sasse who have easy answers for everything.
Thing is, what is the answer? Who can the Alt-Right turn to for help? Where is the solution to be found? And, if there is an answer, is it or is it not too late to try and implement it? Seems to be the only way things mentioned in the comment that can be even halfway achieved (a return to US's historical WASP centered roots), is if the Wall is built.
Supposedly, Ann Coulter occasionally tweets the number of days since Jan. 20, 2017 that the Wall has not yet been started on construction.
Oh, that reminds me....
Hi, Ann!
Remember, Brooks is a pseudo-sophisticate who, after an interview with candidate Obama in 2008, gushed over the combination of his blackness and the “crease in his slacks.” Also, he slobbered over Ta-Nehisi Coates’s book, Between the World and Me,by asking himself if he, “as a white man has the moral standing to question any part of it?” http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2015/08/thomas-jefferson-and-grievance-mongers.html
See also: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/09/where-is-refuge-in-post-obama-america.html
The problem is white male christians
Only when they are out of power can humanity move forward
Brook’s arguments seem to be just an opportunity to present bogus faux intellectual arguments which give the tribe cover for policies that are destructive with justifications that make no sense.
“Today, the main enemy is not aliens; it’s division — between rich and poor, white and black, educated and less educated, right and left.”
The left always projects. No ideological group divides like the leftist wing of a certain tribe we are supposed to never criticize.
“Where there is division there are fences.”
I wonder how many people who read Brooks in the Hamptons or Connecticut don’t have fences? How many in NYC don’t have either doorman or security doors?
“Mobility is retarded and the frontier is destroyed.”
Obama’s obsessive increase in regulations hurt mobility horizontally. The massive importation of workers hurts vertically.
What frontier is left? Even cheaper wages? An even more desperate workforce?
” Trumpist populists want to widen the divisions and rearrange the fences.”
Widening the divisions is the left projecting. How can identity politics and the coalition of the fringes not widen the divisions?
“They want to turn us into an old, settled and fearful nation.”
As Steve points out, old and settled is what we are. Fearful is the left projecting. While the Trumpists might fear certain things like cultural genocide, it is the left that needs safe spaces and online censors to make sure they are never criticized.
In certain lands, right here right now, it is a fundamental moral precept to throw homosexuals off the roofs of tall buildings.
In another land, I won't bother mentioning by name, not only are practising homosexuals are 'elevated' to being the 'moral superiors' of heterosexuals, but it is easier for kids to access video footage of the most extreme homosexual thinkable than it is for the said minors to purchase a pack of cigarettes, which in yet another land are freely sold to adult and child alike.
If there is such an animal as 'universal principles', surely it is for those of a scientific bent it is the theories of Charles Darwin, at least in the sense in which it has 'shaped' the apparent limited 'universe' of our experience.
When you get down to it, the 'principles' of Darwinism are quite 'nasty' to the 'liberal' mind, not to mention 'exclusionary' and 'discriminatory'.Replies: @Colleen Pater, @Anonymous, @Olorin
I found our host’s old iSteve blog in the early Aughts after typing into AltaVista the words
liberals are the real creationists
So I concur.
One of the convenient things about The Church of Latter-Day Bolshevism is that it is a carnival faith. Carnival in the sense of the old European festivals that invert everything.
If they say something is elevated and wonderful, you can bet it is deviant, horrible, and psyche-eroding. If they say something is terrible and erasure-worthy, you can bet it is what good people have practiced and believed for countless generations.
It also is a religion of projection. We often observe here at our host’s salon that when they say “diversity” they mean complete and total victory over any difference. Further, they mean forced conversion of all people into fungible cogs in a global shekel mill–or corpses on the battlefield of economics or in the social “sciences”-run gulag of drugs and despair.
Plus their loyalties are pledged according to the MQ–the melanin quotient: the darker the human, the more worthy they are, and vice versa.
That more melanin roughly corresponds to the number of people in a population shouldn’t be lost on any of us.
That is, when your orthodox CLDB practitioner observes that the future is brown, what they’re really saying is they well see that future, they are terrified of it, and furious that some white guy doesn’t save them from it. (And woe betide any white guy who tries, because that exposes their actual deep-seated but massively repressed understandings. This, IMO, is the nuts and rods of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
It is this tectonically grinding ecclesiastical/psychological mess, and the energy it takes to domesticate it, that leads to eruptions of their tension and their anxiety.
I have sat in rooms with CLDBs who will argue against the simplest, most basic rules or laws that science has discovered. Population genetics is certainly near the top of that list.
I’ve listened to leftists openly discuss, with confidence, that Darwin could not possibly have been right about evolution through natural selection because he was a FWM…then turn around and declare NDG Tyson a Science Werks Bitchez genius. It boggles the mind.
But when one realizes that since the 19-teens, and more intensely in the past half century, they have been trained in and adopted the Jewish family structure’s prime directive of rebelling against one’s own family in the most obnoxious terms, it gets clearer. They discharge this thermonuclear emotional repression energy not at those who behave in ways they know are bad and wrong…but at the people they are most genetically close to. I.e., family.
Obviously I’m talking about whites who hate whites, not, e.g., Jews who hate whites or blacks who hate whites. I’m talking about the race traitors whose sole basic credo is “Do it to Julia, not to me.”
And a lot of this wasteful emotional neurosis in our own people could be emptied out if guys like David Brooks had the genetic capacity to sit in a room, listen to the Still Small Inner Voice (genuinely), and answer the question of why his dong, like an arrow-shaped rare earth magnet on a string, always points to the North. I.e., shiksas.
Easier still just to ignore him.
The whole neoliberal argument is that the only values the West has is not having any values. Thus those who claim to have Western values are anti-Western because they hold values. This is completely dishonest idiocy. Also self-contradictory.
Most of the elites who advance this don’t believe it – they advance this to keep the borders open and keep white people defenseless. Defense is Anti-American! they shout. The Africans who openly hate America on TV are true Americans for exercising their rights, they tell you, right next to the op-ed calling to curb your rights.
I don’t buy it. If too many whites buy into this spinelessness, they will face the consequences. They’re already doing so.
They mostly just call you an expletive laced name and withdraw from the conversation, or muse about their $10,000 (additional) semester spent in a posh neighborhood of million dollar plus flats in a city constituting the bones of some defunct European colonial power (London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Florence - they're all interchangeable) and how Europe (the parts they could never afford) are better than the U.S. (where they can afford).Replies: @Allen
Still, Adams was wiser than Brooks, who is clearly a chump.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @james wilson, @syonredux, @Antlitz Grollheim
“Have there been any American politicians capable of being terse?” Grant, if that counts. Nixon, privately.
It is good Brooks makes this argument – this is an argument we can win handily – if we are willing to argue – if we are willing to make the argument that we are an old nation, that we are a people, that we are sovereign, that the most important “enemy” is not “division”, it’s our actual adversaries, including the elites of Latin America who export problems to us. We win that argument easily if we make it. But only if we make it. Once the Right starts talking in the language of Brooks, about “division” and “racism”, even disagreeing, we lose. Talk about the Wall, we win.
When one of them makes this “ARE AMERICAN VALUES” argument, I always put it to them to explain how these alleged universal American values differ from British, German, French, or Belgian values.
They mostly just call you an expletive laced name and withdraw from the conversation, or muse about their $10,000 (additional) semester spent in a posh neighborhood of million dollar plus flats in a city constituting the bones of some defunct European colonial power (London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Florence – they’re all interchangeable) and how Europe (the parts they could never afford) are better than the U.S. (where they can afford).
If only we had realized this back in the 18th century we could have saved the trouble of that silly American revolution.
Every group in the US is forced to support Zionism and Israel, Israel, and Israel and worship the god of shoah. Notice the Mall has the Holocaust Museum but nothing for any other great world tragedy.
So, Brooks really means Jewish identity and interests are the only acceptable tribalism in the US, and all other tribes must accept the universalism where the shared faith is reverence for Jews.
America is a Universal Nation where the #1 universal creed among the various goy groups is Jews are great and Israel is good.Replies: @anonguy
The Holocaust Museum is not on the Mall.
Still, Adams was wiser than Brooks, who is clearly a chump.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @james wilson, @syonredux, @Antlitz Grollheim
Lincoln springs to mind.
Jews who refuse to acknowledge the British Protestant or European Christian origins of the United States should have their opinions disregarded on everything else. David Brooks is deliberately refusing to acknowledge the fact that English people were the ones primarily responsible for creating the United States. David Brooks is a Jew who wants White Core Americans to disavow the blood of their ancestors who created the United States. David Brooks is a vile shyster, but he is not the only one.
The Neo-Conservatives also want to disregard the real blood and soil creation of the United States. The Neo-Conservatives are the ones who incorrectly state that the United States is a “proposition nation” or a “universal nation.” The Neo-Conservatives are Jew Trotskyites.
Former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey was allowed by Paul Gigot and Rupert Murdoch to write two opinion articles in the Wall Street Journal that claimed that the United States was not founded by any one particular people. Mukasey is a putrid shyster who doesn’t have the balls to attack White Core Americans directly, so he falsely says that the United States was not founded by people of the same blood. I remember being extremely pissed off by this dirtbag Mukasey attacking my ancestors in such a way.
Michael Mukasey and Eric Holder are vile scum who should never have been anywhere near to the office of Attorney General. Thankfully, we have Attorney General Jeff Sessions now.
Still, Adams was wiser than Brooks, who is clearly a chump.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @james wilson, @syonredux, @Antlitz Grollheim
terseness does not befit a democracy
That’s very good. The question is: can you hack and subvert this process, or does it have such inertia that the only way out is to accelerate it?
Not really.
Paul Johnson suggested that Andrew Jackson and the Duke of Wellington were pretty close to being identical except in culture (they were both tall skinny hard asses). But the Duke was funnier: "Publish and be damned."
Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt were another similar pair, but Churchill was funnier.
Disraeli was funnier than whoever was his American counterpart (Judah P. Benjamin?).
But Lincoln was funnier than Gladstone, but maybe Gladstone should be compared to Woodrow Wilson?Replies: @black sea, @syonredux
TR was a pretty good phrase-maker:”Malefactors of great wealth,””bully pulpit,” “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” etc. And then there’s my personal favorite quote of his: (upon seeing the Badlands) ” “when one is in the Bad Lands he feels as if they somehow look just exactly as Poe’s tales and poems sound.”
A lot of bitching here from the goyim…
“Everyone else has to be universalized… but why not the Jews?”
Ummmm… because we are the Chosen People and you are not?
Don’t bitch to us. Bitch to God.
>>attracting talented people from across the globe, active across the world on behalf of all people who seek democracy and dignity.
There you have it, in a nutshell, invade the world, invite the world. Trump 2020, or better yet Bannon 2020.
MMM, seems that Mr Brooks didn’t get the memo. According to all the goodthinkers out there, the core American idea is “mass immigration and the immigrant experience.”
Which is why it’s useful to have an occasional injection of pessimism and despair. You know, to keep things in a proper equilibrium. To counteract all the Whitman and Jefferson, take a couple of stiff jolts of Adams (your choice as to vintage:John, John Quincy, or Henry)
Would Jonathan Edwards have been keen on welcoming Catholics…..
And Dr Franklin had aspirations towards keeping Anglo-America as White as possible:
“Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind”
As for Lincoln……
“Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes”, 1862
Uh, Dave, does anyone on the Left these days believe in “cultural cohesion?” According to what I’ve read, “cultural cohesion” equals maintaining the evil, White, cis-het patriarchy……
Dave, Dave, Dave, still living in ’50s America, when it was a Black and White country. Get with the times, dear fellow. Now we have millions of Latinx…not to mention Muslims…..
What about Statuary Reform, Dave? Don’t know if you’ve been reading the papers lately, but that’s a hot topic nowadays….
MMM, well, that’s going to rule out about 90% of the immigrants that we’ve been getting from Latinx America….
OK, Dave, let’s see you get up on a stage and denounce AIPAC, The National Council of La Raza/UnidosUS, affirmative action programs for POC, etc…..
He didn't welcome any other kind of Protestant except for his sect. Baptists, Quakers, Prespyterians etc were hunted down and kicked out of his "Shining city on a hill"
I wonder what Brooks would say if you asked him if Israel is an universal nation…
"Everyone else has to be universalized... but why not the Jews?"
Ummmm... because we are the Chosen People and you are not?
Don't bitch to us. Bitch to God.Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Tracy
Dear Lord, please bless and keep your Chosen People . . . far away from me.
Other people see God when they see nature, including getting that the parasitic creates are allowed/created by God and may have some overall use.
I’ve been reading a book about oceans creatures to my daughter. There’s whole sections on symbiosis where big fish allow little fish to clean their teeth. These little cleaner fish are not particularly different from dinner. Yet they spend all sorts of time in their mouth and swim away, surprisingly uneaten.
Why and how does the big fish, with a brain the size of 3 brain cells (approximately), not eat the cleaner fish? How is it that certain bright colors are a universal warning of poisonous animals? Why is so universal that other non-poisonous animals can take on their colors as survival strategy? Why do the thousands of chemical reactions that must happen simultaneously to when type always work? The list is endless.
Atheists forget to wonder, and that includes Charles Darwin, unfortunately, who was right there on the front lines of all that is wondrous.
'Universal' is a big word. Generally, it means imposing one's ideas upon everyone. Islam and Catholicism are universal. It doesn't mean they represent everyone but that they try to impose their tenets on everyone. Same with communism. So, calling something 'universal' doesn't mean that all the world agrees to its goodness.
Also, universal ideas can travel. People don't have to come to America to adopt American ways, just like one doesn't have to live in Vatican to be a catholic or live in Mecca to be a Muslim. And during the Cold War, one didn't need to live in Moscow to be a communist. One could try to spread communism in one's own nation... like in China or Cuba. If American ideals are truly universal and applicable to all, there is no need to arrive in American Soil. Fixing the universality of American ideas to American soil is a total contradiction.
Also, if US is about plundering talented people from all over the world, it means stealing the best from other nations. That sounds like a particularist stealing of the best. How is that helping the world? It is grabbing the best for America in massive brain drain for the world. So much for universalism. Would it be good for Israel is India took all the best Jewish minds in Israel and left only the dummies? Is it good to Puerto-Ricanize the world? If US is a universalist nation, then it should be missionary-like demographically. If Brooks believes in Americanism for everyone, he should move to some Third World nation to spread the 'dignity' of Americanism.
If a people seek democracy and dignity, they should try to attain them in their own nations. Running away from one's own people, culture, and land to have it easy in the richest most powerful nation in the world is not dignified. Imagine a man who runs from his own poor and troubled family and joins another family by marrying a rich woman to have it good. How dignified is that?
Also, democracy is hardly rare these days. Okay, we get it. In the 19th century and even much of 20th century, democracy was pretty rare. US was one of the few democratic nations, at least for whites. But why would anyone need to come to US for democracy? Mexico is democratic last time I heard. Venezuela got its current leaders through elections. Let them deal with the consequences. Brazil is democratic. India brags that it is the biggest democracy in the world. Most African nations regard themselves as democratic. Btw, we have Jewish elites saying the Deep State should pull every dirty trick to nullify Trumpism that won democratically. So much for 'dignity'.
Anyway, Brooks gives the game away. He talks of the coming together of 'talent'. He's talking of cerebral tribalism or cerebralism. If US elites focus on pulling in all the talent from the world, it will create a tribalism of cognitivism, of course with favors for blacks. This is Elysiumism. In the end, it isn't universalism but elitism. A healthy nation is one where the leaders &elites focus on their own people. And US was like that under Cleveland and FDR and Eisenhower. But as US focuses on attracting TALENT from the world, the US elites care more about forming a closed society of 'talent' while neglecting the masses.
Even among non-whites, those who reach the top soon become closer to Jewish and Anglo elites while snubbing their own kind. Sadiq Khan in London doesn't care about white masses or Muslim masses(though he pretends to). Like Zakaria, he only cares about the Elysium Club.
A nation cannot be 'universal'. Every nation is one nation among many in the world. Also, 'universal' means that nation's ideas are the ONLY ones for the entire world and peoples.
Also, even the world taken as a whole isn't universal. Indeed, we avoid wars because different nations agree to respect each other's differences.
Trump ran to be president of the US. Only Americans could vote. Americans elect the American president. So, why should American president serve the talented around the world than his own people? If US must serve the entire world, can the US at least tax the world?
A nation needs unity-ism than universalism. A democracy is where the people matter, and that means people of the nation. Elites exist to lead and guide the people, not to neglect the people they already have by shoving them into the dark corners of the closet while shopping for new ones.
Also, nationalism is not tribalism, which is small and local. US can never be tribal since it's too big. Nationalism is goldilocks middle between petty tribalism and hubris-laden universalism, which invariably turns into imperialism.Replies: @AM
.
When was the last time any Catholic tried to impose their Catholicism on you? As in drag you to Mass or say Rosary under penalty of death? Where are those radicalized Christians? Oh that’s right, we call them Monks. They’ll build monestaries, schools, and hospitals. So authoritarian and imposing.
At worst, in Catholicism you’ve got people pleading with you to stop killing babies and try to stay married.
One of the massive problems in the West today is “All religion is bad because it tells people what to do”. Yeah, Catholicism tells you there is a better way to live and it applies to everyone. So sorry to have trampled on the party where nobody can tell that what you’re doing is less than optimal.
Meanwhile, Islam means “submission”. There used to be all sorts of voluntary Christians in the Middle East, along with several communities of Jews. They’re almost all gone because Islam wore them down. They don’t build universities and the had import the idea of hospital. Apostasty is death in Islamic counties.
In other words, to equivocate between the religion of free will and “Jesus let him walk away” and Islam shows an appalling ignorance of the difference between the two at best.
Right. What you’re looking for the Protestant framework of the US, that if it treats Catholicism and Judaism as merely different Protestant denominations, works great. But it has to impose a universalism on people. You can’t have a nationalism where people just like each just cause. In real life, people don’t like even their siblings. Without a call to “love your neighbor” and a common set of values (Christianity) it’s tribalism at very best and every man for himself in most probable case.
“Universal nation” is a contradiction in terms, unless you mean actual unified government of the world.
He's failed at his purported task his whole life. Most relevant, he's failed to constrain the emergence of a Leviathan welfare state.
We could perhaps be a proposition nation with lax immigration laws were we not simultaneously an immense welfare state. At least there'd be an assurance that the immigrant is supporting himself and his, and if he couldn't he'd go back home.
Our national memory about immigration suffers from a survivorship bias - people have warm memories of great-grandpop Fiorello coming to Ellis Island on a boat with thirty cents to his name and parlaying that into a thriving business and a large family home on Long Island where they used to play as kids and had their first taste of purloined home-made dago red wine. What they don't remember is all of the others like great-grandpop who couldn't make it in America and either went back to Calabria or lie buried in a potter's field somewhere, having died penniless and childless.
Brooks' proposition nation can only be viewed at this late date as a recipe for the turning of the entire Union into California without the weather - his immigrants will only ever force the state to be bigger in size and scope and more intrusive. He either knows this and is sinister in his motives, or doesn't know this and is a demonstrable fool.Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Wilkey
“We could perhaps be a proposition nation with lax immigration laws”
Not even a proposition nation can have lax immigration laws. The whole idea is that someone actually has to buy into the proposition, is refused entry and possibly even kicked out (even if native born) if he does not. And of course you have to ask where the “proposition” they’re supposed to believe in is written? Not anywhere, that I can see.
Steve’s version of America as an Anglo-Saxon, de fact Protestant nation was true from 1600s to the mid-1800s.
But Brook’s version . . .
The whole point of America is that we are not a tribe. We are a universal nation, founded on universal principles, attracting talented people from across the globe, active across the world on behalf of all people who seek democracy and dignity.
seems true from mid-1800s onward (and particularly true by the late 1800s). Ellis Island’s progeny re-worked the American story forever: from “a proposition nation for free descendants of Englishmen” to “a proposition nation” full stop. Be real, i-Steve’ers, how many of you can trace all or even most of your ancestry to Virginia circa 1690?
However, as David Goldman constantly points out, the new American story presumed that new immigrants to our proposition nation gave up their old tribe and its baggage. There’s no room for tribal identities, after all, in a proposition nation. (Teddy Roosevelt’s “hyphenated-American” speech is, in my mind, the best articulation of this new American story.) Without arguing about the extent to which different groups did or did not abandon the old ways and adopt the new ones, this adoption at least was the stated and understood ideal.
The trouble with the Lazarene Creed, as I see it, is that it asks nothing of immigrants. It no longer believes in the proposition nation as an identity-free space (in its ideal formation); instead, it envisions a never-ending amalgamation of disparate identities expressed in fullness without moderation or modulation.
The far-left version of the Lazerene Creed goes even further. It jettisons the ideal of America qua proposition nation as nothing but Anglo Protestant identity politics from the very beginning, an identity politics hidden beneath a veneer of “propositions” really meant to keep the black man down. There never was a proposition nation; it was just white identity politics all along, and Italians and Slavs bought into the nonsense because they were Anglo-looking enough not to see the propositions they adopted for what they were: white supremacy.
Of course, I’m assuming Steve largely agrees with this far-left version, that America’s propositions were indeed, from 1600s to 1900s, an expression of Anglo Protestant identity. He sees that expression as a positive force; the far-left sees it as an evil force to be torn down. Both agree on the facts.
Brooks is a tool, but I think he’s a tool who recognizes that—even if the proposition nation stuff was always a fiction—it seems like the only way to avoid Left and Right singularities.
I’m still riding the neologistic high from “Lazarene Creed.”
The best part about David Brooks is that he’s the NYT’s “Conservative.” If that isn’t a lie intended to humiliate, what is?
David Brooks is far too wordy. All of this boils down to a visual meme you can find on Twitter:
Cute white kid: “Rabbi, why must the USA take in refugees?”
Sidelocked Rabbi: “Because USA is land of immigrants.”
Cute White kid: “Rabbi, why doesn’t Israel take in refugees?”
Sidelocked Rabbi: “Why are you antisemitic?”
Sure, but that can be said of a lot of things. E.g., “look how great we are; we must evict the other, for he offers nothing.” The arrogance is tangential. One might even say it is a fig leaf for weakness and surrender (to the Lazarene Creed).
Jews are exceedingly good at compartmentalizing things when their own interests are involved. That whole smart & inquisitive thing? It disappears entirely.
This. The lockstep US establishment support for Zionists and Israel puts the lie to a great many of its supposed values. The take-home lesson is that the altright need only get swole AF, and the US establishment will treat their racist selves to dinner at the Four Seasons, just like it does the Zionists.
The fact that his wife converted to Judaism and changed her name to a Jewish one is pretty telling, too. You’d never guess, based on the front he puts up on TV.
The more the Russian election interference story focuses on Facebook and Twitter, they more ridiculous it gets.
“analysts”
You’d need to be patient, wait until the end, and remember your question. Because he’d be talking about how diverse Israel is (somehow Askhenazim/Sephardim/Mizrahim = diverse, but Irish/German/Italian/Pole/Serb/etc/etc/etc does not), the security consideration (as if the Chinese or Latinos blow up Jewish pizza parlors), the shoah (which is way more important than any Jew-enabled genocide in USSR), etc. Then he’d just look at you as if he answered your question, which he did not.
He’d also use flattery: “USA is wonderful city on a hill, Israel is just plain old country. Who wants some shabby plain old country? Do you have any idea what a burden it is, to be Chosen?” Etc.
If they do, he’ll suffer a fall farther and a fate worse than Giraldi.
https://youtu.be/X-xssa4BHuIReplies: @Vinteuil, @Anonymous
Wow – and it was Colbert who called Trump “Putin’s cock-holster.” That interview is the moral equivalent of fellatio.
Has TNC ever faced an adversarial interviewer? Somebody who would go after him the way Charlie Rose went after Steve Bannon on 60 Minutes? Is there anybody in the MSM today who would even dare to try such a thing? Now that would make for some interesting viewing.
Honestly, no offense intended, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. In what way is Brooks’ vision for the future anything other than a spectacular success right now for himself and the people he represents? They have won completely.
Why not? Israel stole somebody else's land then built walls to keep their victims off of it. Ask David Brook's son. He'd know all about it seeing as though this American patriot - who totally doesn't come from a tribal family - served in that country's military.
"wage endless war on the globalist elites."
What has this maroon been smoking? It's his tribe that's been waging the wars and thirsting for more wars: Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran (up next!), Pakistan and Africa (drone wars), pivot to Asia, Ukraine, Russian Cold War they've started, etc.
Max Boot, William Krystal, Charles Krauthammer, Douglass Feith...it's not the corn boys from Iowa waging the endless wars.
The "global elite" that has been actively waging war, cutting taxes on themselves, and lowering your wages through mass immigration (while making sure none of their kids go to school with them), now tries to portray themselves as the poor whittle victims of the people they oppress.
They cry in pain as they strike you.Replies: @silviosilver, @Autochthon
That’s far and away the least ziocon influenced on that list. Unsurprisingly, it’s the only the one on the list there are actually sound long-term strategic reasons for.
As Maronite phalangistes, Slim’s familty are all basically honorary Zionists. These were the ones who arranged the Sabra and Shatila massacres for Arik Sharon back in 1982.
There you have it, in a nutshell, invade the world, invite the world. Trump 2020, or better yet Bannon 2020.Replies: @Anonymous
And once enough of these democracy-seekers that vote 70, 80, 90% for a single party are home dry we can dispense with this whole democracy charade.
The alt-right engages in talk of tribes as well, and it’s all very metaphorical, I know. But let me hasten to remind everyone that there’s a middle ground between tribes and universal oneness. It’s called civilization. I’d like to get back to it, m’kay?
David Brooks: If I use adjectives like “diverse”, “dynamic” and “hopeful” to describe the worldview of the republican donor class, and scare words to describe the other side it will sound convincing, right?
Perhaps Brooks is denouncing “the tribe” to see if anybody in the NYT comments even gets the joke?”
Yea—no.
Doesn’t Brooks have a son serving in the Israeli military? And David Frum as well?
Brooks doesn’t seem as though he makes, cracks, or gets humor about much of anything, least of all the current state of America’s immigration policy.
Did anyone ever bother to ask why a Holocaust Museum was even built in the US to begin with?
The Tsarnaev brothers should have blown THAT up!
They mostly just call you an expletive laced name and withdraw from the conversation, or muse about their $10,000 (additional) semester spent in a posh neighborhood of million dollar plus flats in a city constituting the bones of some defunct European colonial power (London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Florence - they're all interchangeable) and how Europe (the parts they could never afford) are better than the U.S. (where they can afford).Replies: @Allen
Yep, it gets more than a little suspicious to discover that “diversity” “inclusion” and “multi-culturalism” are the unique and defining values of America, Britain, and continental Europe.
If only we had realized this back in the 18th century we could have saved the trouble of that silly American revolution.
David Brooks doesn’t believe a single word of this hack piece. It’s just a living for him!
Besides, he’s too dumb to have any real ideas.
After all, conservatism is about roots, and a people cut off from their roots are nothing. White Americans must indeed be proud Americans, but they also need to know where they came from. White race existed for 10,000s of yrs before there ever was America, which is only 240 yrs as a republic. Indeed, if the New World didn't exist and if America had never come into existence, the white race and culture would still exist.
White identity pre-exists even European civilization. It is the product of biology and evolution and climate. So, white Americans need all three: biological-racial consciousness, a sense of how they were forged as a race in the European continent even before there was European history and high civilization. Indeed, it was evolution that formed those very traits among white people that made European civilization possible. So, biology precedes culture. If evolution had given whites different genetic traits, would they have created European civilization? Not likely. If evolution had made whites look, feel, and act like African bushmen, there wouldn't have been Hellenic civilization and Germanic mythology and culture.
Also, European civilization existed for thousands of yrs prior to rise of America. If anything, America is essentially just an extension of European peoples, cultures, and civilization. The language & literature, architecture, political theories, and sense of history and roots all go back to Europe. Founding Fathers would have been lost without their deep connection to Mother Europe. They sought political independence, not cultural or historical independence. America didn't grow from American soil. Rather, it was a tree that was transplanted from Europe to America. America is not an indigenous creation but an import from Europe. It's like a Mars Colony wouldn't truly be Martian but Earthian transported to Mars. Therefore, Earthlings who colonize Mars would have no meaningful identity IF they ignored their ancestral connection to Mother Earth.
America is both a great blessing and a great curse. It gave opportunity and freedom to many peoples around the wold. But it also turned them amnesiac almost overnight to their rich history and ancestry. Attracted to American liberty and materialism, many Americans just turned their backs on their ethnic kin and even grew to hold them in contempt. Also, as American history isn't deep -- US is still a young nation -- , it is never enough to be an American. The only people with relatively deep roots in America are Anglos and maybe blacks with slave ancestry. There are many Americans of immigrant background whose history in America go back only a few decades... or few yrs. When Anglos were dominant, other groups tried to respect and assimilate to Anglo narrative. But with Jewish takeover of the US, the new American Formula is amnesia. America is a blank slate where all Americans must just think in terms of 'muh constitution', 'muh burger and fries', and 'muh wars for israel'. Also, this immigration-centric view of America says Americans-yet-to-be are more American than Americans who already are. It's like a shopoholic woman is bored with clothes she already has and just looks to clothes to buy in the future. Americanism has been consumerized.
America liberated many peoples but also turned them into traitors. It made Anglos turn against their mother country. It made Italian-Americans fight Italians in WWI. It made German-Americans fight Germans in WWI and WWII. It made Russian-Americans go against Russia during the Cold War. It made Muslim-Americans support US wars on Muslim nations under Bush and Obama. It made Chinese-Americans side with US against their own kin and brethren. The ONLY exception is Jews. Jews would never support a US that is anti-Jewish or anti-Israel.
Anyway, what is the source of Jewish Power? Jews claim to love America, but they never forget their identitarian tribal roots. Indeed, American Jews feel more in common with Jews in Russia, Hungary, Britain, France, and Israel than with gentile Americans such as white working class, Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, and etc. Sure, Jews work with gentiles in every profession, but away from work, they maintain their Jewish identity and interests that are so much deeper than Americanism. Jewish history goes back 3500 yrs while Core Jewish-American history is 120 yrs old, with large numbers of Jews arriving only in the late 19th century. The thing is Jews try to juggle both: Jewish identity and American citizenship.
And that is the way it should be. Take THE GODFATHER. Young Michael tries to be just a good patriotic American. But he realizes he is his father's son, and when he makes 'aliyah' to Sicily, he feels a connection with his culture and roots. So, even though he lives and works as an American, he is something MORE. He is also part of a culture that is much deeper. Today, why is Italian-American culture so worthless and trashy? Because Italian-Americans have forgotten their roots and only care about pop culture. It's Jersey Shore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-I4VIR5yGg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7KDJy9jO1Q
Even though AVALON by Barry Levinson isn't a great movie, it illustrates the importance of roots and culture... and how those things are ultimately threatened by the homogenizing impact of TV and Pop Americana.
It's not a case of either/or. White Americans should be American. But their identities can be multi-layered. Americanism can be layered with Europeanism. Americanism forges a bond between white Americans and non-white Americans. (Pan)Europeanism sustains a bond among all whites in US, Canada, Australia, and Europe and Latin America.
And ethnicism connects each white ethnic group to his particular tribal history. A white man can have all three in balance.
At any rate, would Jews be as powerful IF they only chose to think of themselves as American and not as Jewish with deep roots and powerful connections to Jews around the world?
If one were to meet two Lithuanian-Americans, whom would deserve more respect? One who is patriotic and American but also has a deep sense of Lithuanian heritage, history, and knows the language OR one who is entirely American but knows or cares almost nothing of what it means to be Lithuanian? This occurred to me in college when I met this Lithuanian guy who was American as apple pie but also so knowledgeable about his mother nation and culture. It deserved respect.
Now, there's gonna be tensions between these various identities: ethnic, european, and American, but tension, if managed right, is good. Tension makes people feel alive. It forces them to be creative in trying to maintain a balance among the ideas and identities that are, at once, contradictory and complementary.
The New Right must be about accepting the tensions and conflicts of existence. It's not the Happy Meal conservatives of cucks like Ben Sasse who have easy answers for everything.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
One of the best iSteve comments of the year. Clear, concise, lucid, and chock full of common sense. One is truly better for having read it and saddened by the idea that America’s proud foundation built upon the backs of WASP tribe, culture, and achievements is slowly coming to an end.
Thing is, what is the answer? Who can the Alt-Right turn to for help? Where is the solution to be found? And, if there is an answer, is it or is it not too late to try and implement it? Seems to be the only way things mentioned in the comment that can be even halfway achieved (a return to US’s historical WASP centered roots), is if the Wall is built.
Supposedly, Ann Coulter occasionally tweets the number of days since Jan. 20, 2017 that the Wall has not yet been started on construction.
Oh, that reminds me….
Hi, Ann!
Secondly, The kind of SJ-Warriorism implicit in Brooks' definition is grotesque and unhinged. Brooks describes a busybody America that trapeses about the world, bursting upon the scene in some enormous, bullet-spraying clown car, destroying age-old institutions, harvesting all wealth, leaving behind only waste and wreckage, and then congratulating itself on all the good it's done spreading its "universal principles." In Brooks' view, the Americans are a mercenary army of cucked giants who slavishly do the chaotic bidding of their maniacal giantesses. Not only is this not un-tribal behavior as Brooks would have you believe, it is the behavior of the very worst kind of tribe in existence---a tribe of locusts, a tribe of termites. This is responsible for the hatred and bitter feelings that the American name now inspires wherever on the globe it is uttered.
It is Mr. Brooks who needs to be beaten "philosophically." It is his ideas that must be revealed for the shallow, threadbare, philistine self-justifications that they are. No real philosopher would have anything to do with Brooks' America. Like the saints in Heaven rejecting an impenitent sinner, he would simply turn his back to it and let his contempt be his final commentary.Replies: @Redman
Extremely well stated.
I don’t read much Brooks anymore, but used to regularly. I liked his sociological commentary, which had a hard-headed Norman Podhoretz quality. Post Trump, I can barely stomach him.
It’s not as if Trump has been so anti-Israel or anything. Brooks was never the SJW he now presents as. What happened?
Brooks seems to have gone loco over the mainstream meme that Trump is a racist. I call bull shit.
Palestinian denounces Palestinian elites as shills for globalism. Sounds familiar.
https://www.facebook.com/unwatch/videos/10154800858516561/
Shouldn’t that be “mentally challenged”?
And doesn’t “frontier” also mean “border”?
Let’s hope not. We might win even more territory. And its inhabitants. May God help us then.
Emma sure seemed to like Germans: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/lazarus-emma
But her fellow Jews evidently needed “improvement”:
In 1883, she formed the Society for the Improvement and Colonization of East European Jews, but it later collapsed in 1884.
(Isn’t “later” and “in 1884” redundant?)
Fine comment. CLDB = keeper concept.
“It’s total unknown in America that Slim’s clan was, literally, Fascist.”
National Socialism Hmmm Nationalism, take care of your own people first. Control the capitalists and don’t let them import foreign workers when our own workers aren’t working. Control crime by alleviating poverty, unemployment and strict enforcement of the laws. Socialism, spread the goodies around, keep workers employed, provide good public transit, infrastructure so business and commerce can thrive, harbors, roads, bridges etc lots of parks, swimming pools, give a lot of state support to capitalism and large and small business. Pay child benefit so married mothers don’t have to work which keeps the men employed and the kids under control.
Sounds good to me. I don’t believe in God, but I support all forms of Christianity, especially the descendants of ancient Christians who have managed to survive in a hostile Muslim world for 1,500 years.
It’s also unknown in America that FDR’s New Deal program was based on what Facist Mussolini did in the 1920’s. I personally like Facist In Unity There Is Strength rather than multicultural America with every group fighting every other group for affirmative action privileges. Except Whites of course who are legally relegated to the status of untouchables.
The Falange and Israelis were allies against Muslims back then. MENA Christians have to do what they have to do to survive. American Christians should do the same instead of allowing the very word Christmas to disappear.
Speaking of, it’s long been my practice to do all Christmas and regular shopping except for food in August and September. Then I don’t have to buy a thing except for fresh food during the December Consumption season. So f*** all the stores that make their profit from Christmas shopping but refuse to use the name because of pressure from ADL AJC etc
“Would Jonathan Edwards have been keen on welcoming Catholics…..”
He didn’t welcome any other kind of Protestant except for his sect. Baptists, Quakers, Prespyterians etc were hunted down and kicked out of his “Shining city on a hill”
In the Great Gnostification that is the current dispensation, though, so many of our countrymen have sought out a different dialectic to give their lives structure (both corpses and newborns being irredeemably icky.) "Leapfrogging loyalties" serves to glorify the Self and thus requires an alien Other, the more improbable and monstrous the better.Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @The Last Real Calvinist
A very insightful comment. Thanks.
Has TNC ever faced an adversarial interviewer? Somebody who would go after him the way Charlie Rose went after Steve Bannon on 60 Minutes? Is there anybody in the MSM today who would even dare to try such a thing? Now that would make for some interesting viewing.Replies: @Alfa158
No chance Tennessee would speak to an interviewer or audience that doesn’t adore him. Even if he was about to stumble into such a situation, his corner-man Jeff Goldberg would steer him away.
I actually think Brooks is right on this point, but unfortunately for him the consequence to be drawn from that is exactly the opposite of his. It’s not Trump who polarized the electorate, Trump was the one who capitalized on the polarization that had already occurred.
And nowhere is that more evident than with respect to immigration. I’m more favorably disposed toward immigration that most of you here, at least in the abstract. The growth story that the economists and the business interests tell is actually true in that regard. But, we need to choose them better, and we need to assimilate them better, we need to make sure they are not putting downward pressure on native wage rates. Optimally all three. But none of this is likely to materialize any time soon. Therefore, in the world that actually exists, there is no alternative other than to mobilize against immigration with as much strength as we can muster.
We know, from long experience, that the immigration proponents are going to lie to us, corrupt our political process, and corrupt our system of laws in every way possible unless we are constantly vigilant against such things, and maybe even then. This, more than anything else, has created the this poisonous environment that Brooks complains about. There’s no possibility of coming to an honest agreement between us because we can’t even talk to each other to hash it out. Everything they say is just some underhanded trick or maneuver to mislead us into supporting or acquiescing or ignoring further immigration.
So here’s a radical plan: how about Brooks, the WSJ, Paul Ryan, John McCain, Jeb, W, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. (and Luis Gutierrez for that matter), how about all of them quit lying, quit trying to outmaneuver immigration restrictionists, and agree to the restrictionist agenda for some length of time. And by doing so, thereby earning some credibility to the point where we can talk apples-to-apples with each other.
And in an alternate universe, if somehow those people had done that some time ago, things would be much different. I suspect that this group of people could get the trade policy they want, the economic policy they want, and maybe at some decent interval a fair amount of the immigration policy they want. And, our political culture would be much less poisonous than it is, which is for me at least as important as those other things. Again, David Brooks is not wrong about that.
https://youtu.be/X-xssa4BHuIReplies: @Vinteuil, @Anonymous
Ta looks really tall.
so weird, and, agree with all of you. When I moved to Brooklyn in the late 6o’s from overseas, I found all the students at my schools, incredibly tribalized. I did not fit in at all – and no one, even the teachers, knew where Finland was. I was desperately trying to fit in somewhere at 9.
When 3 years later, I moved to (my parents moved) Jersey…we were down to just 3 tribes: old money, but cordial people; middle class (included carpenters, electricians, HVAC, plumbers, mechanics..mingling with the smart people from Bell Labs (Bell Labs pay was cheapskate!); blue collar -worked the town/owned businesses like gas stations (later became, very, very rich!) But, what I can say is” Tribe means so many things for so many diverse people.…Brooks should be ashamed to be so one dimensional. What he fails to understand is: ambition of immigrants. Immigrants I knew wanted to present value creation in whatever field they represented. Everyone was propelled to be rich…and strive for that. He feels like it is ok for immigrants to be dependent on govt help.
Pretty close.
Small business rotting in the fields
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/28/small-business-administration-linda-mcmahon-denver-startup-week/
Is it good or bad for his tribe that your tribe is confused about these things? Once you understand that people like Brooks literally do not care at all whether what they say is true, it all makes sense.
Another irony is that Brooks made his name playing with the exact themes he is denouncing. Bobos in Paradise is a brutal denunciation of our overlords (or at least of their upper servants).
Or the spaces the rest of us inhabit.
Thoughts like his are good for sitting on the toilet like Rodin’s Thinker, but they have nothing to do with the world you go back to after you flush.
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/8/9/a/d/1374027484173661141the-thinker-hi.pngReplies: @Bill
Back in the 1970s, this error or manipulation or whatever you want to call it was called the map-territory error—i.e. mistaking the map for the territory. I’ve always thought that “map-territory error” was a really useful bit of terminology, clarifying thought wonderfully. It has fallen mostly out of use though.
I wonder if Brooks actually believes this drivelReplies: @Barnard, @Bill
The only reason to care what he believes is if you subscribe to a moral system which emphasizes internal mental states. Drop that, and it doesn’t really matter what he believes.
Nah , they didn’t arrange them for Sharon. They arranged them for themselves.
The Taj has done less harm to the world than Harvard though.
And nowhere is that more evident than with respect to immigration. I'm more favorably disposed toward immigration that most of you here, at least in the abstract. The growth story that the economists and the business interests tell is actually true in that regard. But, we need to choose them better, and we need to assimilate them better, we need to make sure they are not putting downward pressure on native wage rates. Optimally all three. But none of this is likely to materialize any time soon. Therefore, in the world that actually exists, there is no alternative other than to mobilize against immigration with as much strength as we can muster.
We know, from long experience, that the immigration proponents are going to lie to us, corrupt our political process, and corrupt our system of laws in every way possible unless we are constantly vigilant against such things, and maybe even then. This, more than anything else, has created the this poisonous environment that Brooks complains about. There's no possibility of coming to an honest agreement between us because we can't even talk to each other to hash it out. Everything they say is just some underhanded trick or maneuver to mislead us into supporting or acquiescing or ignoring further immigration.
So here's a radical plan: how about Brooks, the WSJ, Paul Ryan, John McCain, Jeb, W, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. (and Luis Gutierrez for that matter), how about all of them quit lying, quit trying to outmaneuver immigration restrictionists, and agree to the restrictionist agenda for some length of time. And by doing so, thereby earning some credibility to the point where we can talk apples-to-apples with each other.
And in an alternate universe, if somehow those people had done that some time ago, things would be much different. I suspect that this group of people could get the trade policy they want, the economic policy they want, and maybe at some decent interval a fair amount of the immigration policy they want. And, our political culture would be much less poisonous than it is, which is for me at least as important as those other things. Again, David Brooks is not wrong about that.Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
You know everything I’m about to say but I wanted to rant on this particular idea: assimilation means out-marriage. Period. Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry into the baggage of a Muslim family (most of whom would flatly prohibit it). Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry squat Aztecs. Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry into dysfunctional Somalian clans. For that matter, whites and the descendants of their former slaves are not going to marry each other. Yes I know there are exceptions. Yes I know Imam and Salma Hayek exist. Yes I know the Amish are hardworking and tidy. But they are exceptional. All these groups in general will only ever be insular sub-nations within the host nation. Most will resent their out-group status and use the liberal universalism of their hosts against them.
And what’s the best outcome in any event–America as the graveyard of traditional cultures. Like someone else pointed out, Italians come here and are no longer Italian, Greeks are no longer Greek, French, Germans, Koreans, even our English cousins, just melt into the homogenized blob anti-culture. “Diversity” actually results in less diversity. Of course, this is only for deracinated Anglo-Europeans. David Brooks’ tribe (and others) get to carry their nation with them wherever they go.
Finally, note where Brooks’ permanent Year-Zero-universalism ends up: not only must this already populous nation endlessly import ever more exotic peoples, it must force-feed its vision down the throats of every other nation out there. We invade the world precisely because we invite the world.
Empire is a recurrent delusion, and things will just have to run their course.
There have been particular quirks of English culture that create situations where slightly different communities can live within their ranks. But history shows no great intermingling of Indian and English peoples. They borrowed ideas back and forth, but it's not like a great Indo-English nation arose.
This great global empire ideology was always bound to failure.
Does that include an Englishman marrying a French lady, or just your standard "Anglo-European hitches up with a Muslim" family? Because marrying outside of one's ethnic group in Europe "back in the good old days" was generally a high-class maneuver rather than standard low-class fare.
"Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry into the baggage of a Muslim family (most of whom would flatly prohibit it). Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry squat Aztecs. Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry into dysfunctional Somalian clans."
You're right, people will choose to marry within outside their race or ethnic group, with the understanding that even today there will be tacit disapproval, at best, or outright outrage, at worst.
"All these groups in general will only ever be insular sub-nations within the host nation."
The share of new marriages between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from each other increased to 15.1% in 2010, according to Pew Research. I would surmise that number has remained constant or increased within the past 7 years.
From a January 8, 2013 article, Pew Research says "More than a third (35%) of adults say they have an immediate family member or close relative who is married to someone of a different race. And nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) say they “would be fine” if a family member were to marry someone outside their own racial or ethnic group."
So your claim that "most will resent their out-group status", under this statistical umbrella, is not entirely accurate.
"And what’s the best outcome in any event–America as the graveyard of traditional cultures. Like someone else pointed out, Italians come here and are no longer Italian, Greeks are no longer Greek, French, Germans, Koreans, even our English cousins, just melt into the homogenized blob anti-culture."
No, just melt into the American culture. Ever since Europeans set their jackboots upon the Americans, specifically the Thirteen Colonies, intermarriage was inevitable.
“Diversity” actually results in less diversity. Of course, this is only for deracinated Anglo-Europeans."
You mean like how the Britons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Romans, Danes, and Normas were deracinated in similar fashion as they got all tangled and twisted to create the English people, that bastion of Western Civilization?
"Finally, note where Brooks’ permanent Year-Zero-universalism ends up: not only must this already populous nation endlessly import ever more exotic peoples, it must force-feed its vision down the throats of every other nation out there. We invade the world precisely because we invite the world."
[Laughs] Europeans were "exotic peoples" when they came over in droves to the Americas. They, in turn, "imported" more of their fellow "strange creatures". If anyone is to blame for this alleged mess, blame them for making mammon their God and siring future generations who heeded the call for fame and fortune against little brown and red and yellow creatures. But, then again, it is genetic. Europeans are world renowned for their euphoric rapacity.
"Empire is a recurrent delusion, and things will just have to run their course."
It's a different type of empire that has been created today compared to the empires built by the marauders and plunderers and colonists of yore. Our technologies, our entertainment avenues, our medical advancements, and, of course, our "free stuff" in the form of employment benefits and government handouts...all meant to curb the bloodthirsty appetites of the masses and dindunuffins. We are living in extreme comfort compared to our ancestors, and are only too happy to oblige to remain on the sofa, eat fried chicken, and watch reruns of He Haw. Only a massive economic maelstrom that the world has never witness will create this domino effect to collapse our current empire structure. Until that moment occurs, enjoy the ride, right? Although, I am quite certain our global masters have contingency plans encased in glass. Do you have the hammer to break it when the zombie stomping occurs?
I do...Replies: @David Davenport
One of the weirdest vignettes in the Old Testament (and there are many) is the story of the Tower of Babel. God clearly likes diversity and people going about their business.
There have been particular quirks of English culture that create situations where slightly different communities can live within their ranks. But history shows no great intermingling of Indian and English peoples. They borrowed ideas back and forth, but it’s not like a great Indo-English nation arose.
This great global empire ideology was always bound to failure.
Not even a proposition nation can have lax immigration laws. The whole idea is that someone actually has to buy into the proposition, is refused entry and possibly even kicked out (even if native born) if he does not. And of course you have to ask where the "proposition" they're supposed to believe in is written? Not anywhere, that I can see.Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
I agree with this of course but it makes a better rhetorical punch to show that Brooks has been wrong about everything and broke the country already so that he shall not be allowed to continue breaking it.
Assimilation is their biggest risk. There’s an awful lot of marrying out going on, and many of the descendants won’t regard themselves as Jews.
I don't read much Brooks anymore, but used to regularly. I liked his sociological commentary, which had a hard-headed Norman Podhoretz quality. Post Trump, I can barely stomach him.
It's not as if Trump has been so anti-Israel or anything. Brooks was never the SJW he now presents as. What happened?
Brooks seems to have gone loco over the mainstream meme that Trump is a racist. I call bull shit.Replies: @Flip
He needs to fit in at the increasingly leftist NY Times.
Why not? Israel stole somebody else's land then built walls to keep their victims off of it. Ask David Brook's son. He'd know all about it seeing as though this American patriot - who totally doesn't come from a tribal family - served in that country's military.
"wage endless war on the globalist elites."
What has this maroon been smoking? It's his tribe that's been waging the wars and thirsting for more wars: Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran (up next!), Pakistan and Africa (drone wars), pivot to Asia, Ukraine, Russian Cold War they've started, etc.
Max Boot, William Krystal, Charles Krauthammer, Douglass Feith...it's not the corn boys from Iowa waging the endless wars.
The "global elite" that has been actively waging war, cutting taxes on themselves, and lowering your wages through mass immigration (while making sure none of their kids go to school with them), now tries to portray themselves as the poor whittle victims of the people they oppress.
They cry in pain as they strike you.Replies: @silviosilver, @Autochthon
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan are all in Asia; deep within it, by any definition at all – none even borders Africa or Europe. I imagine one may pivot from Libya to Asia, but it is unclear why Ukraine (completely within Europe) immediately follows the phrase exhorting one to do so.
I think I understand your underlying point (Jewry have encouraged pointless American adventures in many nations) but this paragraph is bizarrely composed.
More matter, with less art, please.
There’s another fellow who posts otherwise insightful observations (most recently about American identity growing upon a substrate of European identity) but whose writing reads like that of a recently unfrozen caveman in remedial English classes. Why do you guys write thus? It undermines your points and makes reading your contributions annoying and distracting. Typographical errors we all make, but some of these things are genuinely far beyond that kind of minor matter.
I’m not writing this to be a self-righteous or pedantic jerk; I really want to see improved writing from people I perceive to be insightful.
“Brothers in Christ” is not an absurdity when understood in the traditional Catholic way — a way that doesn’t involve shoving disparate people together on earth, devaluing piety, “leap-frogging loyalites,” etc.
Im a reluctant atheist and until maybe a decade ago a pretty staunch cultural catholic. I have decades of catholic education.Im not an anti christian per se. It simply isnt possible to pick and choose the periods and parts of christianity we liked and insist no true christian. The fundamental basis of christianity is to the left of marx.Now I cant argue about elements of faith nor should you because those who will use christianity against whites don't believe those elements, you have to look at what it teaches from a secular perspective. It teaches all humans are gods children and are therefore owed not simply what we would give our own biological brother but christians are taught to go beyond this for even stranger to give our lives. worse yet ths springs from the outright irrationality of the entire theology which essentially posits the world is a second order illusion and the real world is post death, that the rules reason would proscribe in this world are actually the opposite of how we ought to behave for a positive judgement in the eternal other world. In short christianity negates self and reality from a secular reality based perspective. The only way this is not the case is if you actually believe all the assertions you have to take on faith.And frankly if you really believe all that then theirs really no reason to have any political ethnic temporal interests at all just do your christian duty and trust god.Replies: @AM
Ironic he writes this tripe from the platform of the biggest booster of identity politics in 'Merica.Replies: @Tracy
Yeah, that border — the one U.S. taxpayers paid for.
"Everyone else has to be universalized... but why not the Jews?"
Ummmm... because we are the Chosen People and you are not?
Don't bitch to us. Bitch to God.Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Tracy
I think you forgot about the New Testament.
There are atheist alt-righters who makes claims that Christianity is the same as Judaism, call themselves a European”, and insist the Christians of the alt-right who got over the “ick” factor controlled opposition.
I’m starting think it’s the all projection.
What is an atheist who claims “I’m a European” but globalist who doesn’t agree with current batch of globalist policies?
There’s no such thing as a “European”. That’s a 1/2 continent on map. EU wants everyone to call and think of themselves European. They’ve got these the atheists for sure. No country, no faith, no ethnicity, just “from” somewhere on a big blob on a map. Perfect! The disagreement is how big the non-border of the non-country is, rather than the concept.
Globalists have no real working knowledge of what makes Christianity special and so equivocate it with Islam. (Sadly, that includes current Catholic leadership.) All they know is that Christianity was some sort of icky set of ideas we’ve progressed passed.
What would be the difference between incorrectly equivocating Christianity with Islam versus incorrectly equivocating with Judaism? Nothing but preference. Christianity still comes out as something to be discarded or worked against. Every militant atheist I’ve encountered clearly felt were more advanced than those Christian clods.
Anyway, it seems to me that those that cannot at least sympathize with Christianity are going to end up caucusing with the globalists when it counts. It’s all chaotic right now. A place like iSteve is attracting Catholics and secular Jews and militant atheists and socialists and the whole spectrum. Very cool and I think it’s a compliment to Mr. Sailer himself. But I don’t see how it lasts. The alt-right atheists are currently are marginalized because they’re not in lock step with the current policies/culture of the globalists, not because they fundamentally disagree with it.
I get your point, but disagree that there's "no such thing as 'European'". "European" is a low resolution sort of adjective, but it's still a thing. To my mind, if we're attacked as "Europeans" or "white people," we have to respond as such, but I agree with you that those terms don't mean much outside of Leftist identity politicking, a game it seems we're forced to either play or lose.Replies: @Colleen Pater
Of course, the same could be said of Oxford and Cambridge…….
“You know everything I’m about to say but I wanted to rant on this particular idea: assimilation means out-marriage. Period.”
Does that include an Englishman marrying a French lady, or just your standard “Anglo-European hitches up with a Muslim” family? Because marrying outside of one’s ethnic group in Europe “back in the good old days” was generally a high-class maneuver rather than standard low-class fare.
“Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry into the baggage of a Muslim family (most of whom would flatly prohibit it). Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry squat Aztecs. Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry into dysfunctional Somalian clans.”
You’re right, people will choose to marry within outside their race or ethnic group, with the understanding that even today there will be tacit disapproval, at best, or outright outrage, at worst.
“All these groups in general will only ever be insular sub-nations within the host nation.”
The share of new marriages between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from each other increased to 15.1% in 2010, according to Pew Research. I would surmise that number has remained constant or increased within the past 7 years.
From a January 8, 2013 article, Pew Research says “More than a third (35%) of adults say they have an immediate family member or close relative who is married to someone of a different race. And nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) say they “would be fine” if a family member were to marry someone outside their own racial or ethnic group.”
So your claim that “most will resent their out-group status”, under this statistical umbrella, is not entirely accurate.
“And what’s the best outcome in any event–America as the graveyard of traditional cultures. Like someone else pointed out, Italians come here and are no longer Italian, Greeks are no longer Greek, French, Germans, Koreans, even our English cousins, just melt into the homogenized blob anti-culture.”
No, just melt into the American culture. Ever since Europeans set their jackboots upon the Americans, specifically the Thirteen Colonies, intermarriage was inevitable.
“Diversity” actually results in less diversity. Of course, this is only for deracinated Anglo-Europeans.”
You mean like how the Britons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Romans, Danes, and Normas were deracinated in similar fashion as they got all tangled and twisted to create the English people, that bastion of Western Civilization?
“Finally, note where Brooks’ permanent Year-Zero-universalism ends up: not only must this already populous nation endlessly import ever more exotic peoples, it must force-feed its vision down the throats of every other nation out there. We invade the world precisely because we invite the world.”
[Laughs] Europeans were “exotic peoples” when they came over in droves to the Americas. They, in turn, “imported” more of their fellow “strange creatures”. If anyone is to blame for this alleged mess, blame them for making mammon their God and siring future generations who heeded the call for fame and fortune against little brown and red and yellow creatures. But, then again, it is genetic. Europeans are world renowned for their euphoric rapacity.
“Empire is a recurrent delusion, and things will just have to run their course.”
It’s a different type of empire that has been created today compared to the empires built by the marauders and plunderers and colonists of yore. Our technologies, our entertainment avenues, our medical advancements, and, of course, our “free stuff” in the form of employment benefits and government handouts…all meant to curb the bloodthirsty appetites of the masses and dindunuffins. We are living in extreme comfort compared to our ancestors, and are only too happy to oblige to remain on the sofa, eat fried chicken, and watch reruns of He Haw. Only a massive economic maelstrom that the world has never witness will create this domino effect to collapse our current empire structure. Until that moment occurs, enjoy the ride, right? Although, I am quite certain our global masters have contingency plans encased in glass. Do you have the hammer to break it when the zombie stomping occurs?
I do…
Corvinus, you have married outside your race or ethnic group, haven't you?Replies: @Corvinus
It’s too bad the left won’t venture beyond the Lazarene Creed. They have completely moralized the issue and consider any kind of practical discussion to be taboo.
Tyler over at Marginal Revolution did an interview with Larry Summers recently. Below is Summers’ immigration comment. Summers as we all know from his very triggering Harvard presidency is maybe not the perfect bellwether of emerging left wing opinion. Nonetheless I found it noteworthy since it’s an instance a liberal endorsing high immigration while advising against relying entirely on the Lazarene Creed.
He maintains high immigration is essential for The Economy®, but he at least acknowledges the importance of unapologetic assimilation, setting policy for the benefit of current rather than prospective citizens, and the need to move beyond unconvincing moral imperatives.
If you buy Christmas gifts in August, why buy them at all? How does a gift bought months before reflect heartfelt emotion in giving?
Does that include an Englishman marrying a French lady, or just your standard "Anglo-European hitches up with a Muslim" family? Because marrying outside of one's ethnic group in Europe "back in the good old days" was generally a high-class maneuver rather than standard low-class fare.
"Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry into the baggage of a Muslim family (most of whom would flatly prohibit it). Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry squat Aztecs. Anglo-Europeans are not going to marry into dysfunctional Somalian clans."
You're right, people will choose to marry within outside their race or ethnic group, with the understanding that even today there will be tacit disapproval, at best, or outright outrage, at worst.
"All these groups in general will only ever be insular sub-nations within the host nation."
The share of new marriages between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from each other increased to 15.1% in 2010, according to Pew Research. I would surmise that number has remained constant or increased within the past 7 years.
From a January 8, 2013 article, Pew Research says "More than a third (35%) of adults say they have an immediate family member or close relative who is married to someone of a different race. And nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) say they “would be fine” if a family member were to marry someone outside their own racial or ethnic group."
So your claim that "most will resent their out-group status", under this statistical umbrella, is not entirely accurate.
"And what’s the best outcome in any event–America as the graveyard of traditional cultures. Like someone else pointed out, Italians come here and are no longer Italian, Greeks are no longer Greek, French, Germans, Koreans, even our English cousins, just melt into the homogenized blob anti-culture."
No, just melt into the American culture. Ever since Europeans set their jackboots upon the Americans, specifically the Thirteen Colonies, intermarriage was inevitable.
“Diversity” actually results in less diversity. Of course, this is only for deracinated Anglo-Europeans."
You mean like how the Britons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Romans, Danes, and Normas were deracinated in similar fashion as they got all tangled and twisted to create the English people, that bastion of Western Civilization?
"Finally, note where Brooks’ permanent Year-Zero-universalism ends up: not only must this already populous nation endlessly import ever more exotic peoples, it must force-feed its vision down the throats of every other nation out there. We invade the world precisely because we invite the world."
[Laughs] Europeans were "exotic peoples" when they came over in droves to the Americas. They, in turn, "imported" more of their fellow "strange creatures". If anyone is to blame for this alleged mess, blame them for making mammon their God and siring future generations who heeded the call for fame and fortune against little brown and red and yellow creatures. But, then again, it is genetic. Europeans are world renowned for their euphoric rapacity.
"Empire is a recurrent delusion, and things will just have to run their course."
It's a different type of empire that has been created today compared to the empires built by the marauders and plunderers and colonists of yore. Our technologies, our entertainment avenues, our medical advancements, and, of course, our "free stuff" in the form of employment benefits and government handouts...all meant to curb the bloodthirsty appetites of the masses and dindunuffins. We are living in extreme comfort compared to our ancestors, and are only too happy to oblige to remain on the sofa, eat fried chicken, and watch reruns of He Haw. Only a massive economic maelstrom that the world has never witness will create this domino effect to collapse our current empire structure. Until that moment occurs, enjoy the ride, right? Although, I am quite certain our global masters have contingency plans encased in glass. Do you have the hammer to break it when the zombie stomping occurs?
I do...Replies: @David Davenport
You’re right, people will choose to marry within outside their race or ethnic group, with the understanding that even today there will be tacit disapproval, at best, or outright outrage, at worst….
Corvinus, you have married outside your race or ethnic group, haven’t you?
Remember, Americans are generally mutts. I am of German, Dutch, and Polish descent. I married a woman who's family is Irish and Dutch. I had serious relationships with women outside of my race (white). Is that not what humanity is all about?
If you buy Christmas gifts in August, why buy them at all? How does a gift bought months before reflect heartfelt emotion in giving?
Yes,it’s much more caring and heartfelt to wait until the last minute, and then hastily buy whatever is still available then.
Yeah, and I find it frustratingly fascinating. How the Hell do they explain the Jewish animus against Christians and Christianity? Haven’t they looked at History at all? Read any Jewish writings?
I get your point, but disagree that there’s “no such thing as ‘European’”. “European” is a low resolution sort of adjective, but it’s still a thing. To my mind, if we’re attacked as “Europeans” or “white people,” we have to respond as such, but I agree with you that those terms don’t mean much outside of Leftist identity politicking, a game it seems we’re forced to either play or lose.
by Youre wrong that its an otherwise useless category, they wouldn't be targeting us at that level if it were useless.They would attempt to divide and conquer us finer resolution ethnically instead of based on gender class and political orientation. They have little success to get us to hate southern europeans or eastern europeans etc.
The other problem is today our most successful nations are mutt europeans like USA. The mutt nations might be IQ shredders in the long term but in the short term of leftists they are white euroman hi IQ, hi wealth targets, only jews and half jews get a pass if they play the game.
Its also politically expedient for us to work this way, its not going to help is to throw greeks or russians under the bus, there's no new continents to exit to.And frankly the sickest europeans are the allegedly smartest europeans, Id bet eastern europe survives over western europe if this isnt arrested.
I don’t know, other than they have the same painfully warped view of history that most militant atheists do. Their view makes sense only if world history started in 196o some odd.
I very much agree here.
I was going down that rabbit hole to highlight that the militant atheist, or really anti-Christian alt-right are just a flavor of globalism, not nationalism. I don’t think they caucus with us ultimately if Christians insist that we have a full voice at the table and will be helping to shape the present and the future.
It’s like how the #NeverTrump crowd claims conservatism but when a highly electable conservative leaning candidate comes along, they’re nowhere to be found and even vote for the opposition.
I’m hoping that the anti-Christian alt-right is mostly just loud online presence, like the #NeverTrump people. They didn’t amount to much in the end.
Corvinus, you have married outside your race or ethnic group, haven't you?Replies: @Corvinus
“Corvinus, you have married outside your race or ethnic group, haven’t you?”
Remember, Americans are generally mutts. I am of German, Dutch, and Polish descent. I married a woman who’s family is Irish and Dutch. I had serious relationships with women outside of my race (white). Is that not what humanity is all about?
Universal principles? Pfft.. How’s democracy working out in the Middle East? It’s so easy to see right through David Brooks. America takes out country after country so that it might spread its principles far and wide. You just weren’t supposed to notice that those nations were Israel’s enemies as opposed to, say, North Korea. Iraq and Iran weren’t even America’s enemies at all before we injected ourselves into their affairs.
Tracy
Im a reluctant atheist and until maybe a decade ago a pretty staunch cultural catholic. I have decades of catholic education.Im not an anti christian per se. It simply isnt possible to pick and choose the periods and parts of christianity we liked and insist no true christian. The fundamental basis of christianity is to the left of marx.Now I cant argue about elements of faith nor should you because those who will use christianity against whites don’t believe those elements, you have to look at what it teaches from a secular perspective. It teaches all humans are gods children and are therefore owed not simply what we would give our own biological brother but christians are taught to go beyond this for even stranger to give our lives. worse yet ths springs from the outright irrationality of the entire theology which essentially posits the world is a second order illusion and the real world is post death, that the rules reason would proscribe in this world are actually the opposite of how we ought to behave for a positive judgement in the eternal other world. In short christianity negates self and reality from a secular reality based perspective. The only way this is not the case is if you actually believe all the assertions you have to take on faith.And frankly if you really believe all that then theirs really no reason to have any political ethnic temporal interests at all just do your christian duty and trust god.
I get your point, but disagree that there's "no such thing as 'European'". "European" is a low resolution sort of adjective, but it's still a thing. To my mind, if we're attacked as "Europeans" or "white people," we have to respond as such, but I agree with you that those terms don't mean much outside of Leftist identity politicking, a game it seems we're forced to either play or lose.Replies: @Colleen Pater
Low resolution true, but as you say this is the resolution we are targetted at.And we will only win if we respond from that resolution.
by Youre wrong that its an otherwise useless category, they wouldn’t be targeting us at that level if it were useless.They would attempt to divide and conquer us finer resolution ethnically instead of based on gender class and political orientation. They have little success to get us to hate southern europeans or eastern europeans etc.
The other problem is today our most successful nations are mutt europeans like USA. The mutt nations might be IQ shredders in the long term but in the short term of leftists they are white euroman hi IQ, hi wealth targets, only jews and half jews get a pass if they play the game.
Its also politically expedient for us to work this way, its not going to help is to throw greeks or russians under the bus, there’s no new continents to exit to.And frankly the sickest europeans are the allegedly smartest europeans, Id bet eastern europe survives over western europe if this isnt arrested.
I am very proud of all of your gathered Pokeman points. I am sure didn’t just objectify all of the wome of those past relationships into merely skin colors.
I agree that sleeping with people outside of marriage is generally what humanity is about, but it’s what Christ asked we don’t do, for our own good. Shockingly color blind in that regard.
Don’t forget “Silent Cal” Coolidge, known for his admonition, “Gentlemen, above all, be brief.” Coolidge was, along with Adams, one of our smartest presidents. As a schoolboy he translated Dante’s Divine Comedy as a present to his girlfriend.
The idea is that Western civilization is imperiled by an insufficient degree of tribalism on the part of white people, and may allow itself to be washed away by certain largely tribalist projects of the largely Jewish globalist elite.
Im a reluctant atheist and until maybe a decade ago a pretty staunch cultural catholic. I have decades of catholic education.Im not an anti christian per se. It simply isnt possible to pick and choose the periods and parts of christianity we liked and insist no true christian. The fundamental basis of christianity is to the left of marx.Now I cant argue about elements of faith nor should you because those who will use christianity against whites don't believe those elements, you have to look at what it teaches from a secular perspective. It teaches all humans are gods children and are therefore owed not simply what we would give our own biological brother but christians are taught to go beyond this for even stranger to give our lives. worse yet ths springs from the outright irrationality of the entire theology which essentially posits the world is a second order illusion and the real world is post death, that the rules reason would proscribe in this world are actually the opposite of how we ought to behave for a positive judgement in the eternal other world. In short christianity negates self and reality from a secular reality based perspective. The only way this is not the case is if you actually believe all the assertions you have to take on faith.And frankly if you really believe all that then theirs really no reason to have any political ethnic temporal interests at all just do your christian duty and trust god.Replies: @AM
You are a reluctant atheist because you not have a serious education in Catholic faith. It’s not your fault. Religious education has been horrible for decades. A proper education has been deliberately avoided so that Christians don’t have do difficult things. The real issue of course, is that what Catholic church teaches is simultaneously both wonderful and horrifying, but it seems to match life.
For the record, you’ve misunderstood Catholic theology. I would highly recommend “Catholicism for Dummies” which is where I started when I came back to look at the faith.
I have found secular evidence for absolutely everything the Catholic church teaches. In my mind, the only “leaps of faith” are a)God loves us and b)Christ is the Son of God
Marriage is forever? Check out the Protestant based US tax code, where the in-law relationships established at a marriage exist forever. You can be divorced from your ex-wife for decades and still claim your (ex) Mother-In-Law as an exemption.
People are fallen? Read any bit of history, but especially any Utopian society
Original sin? How else to sell you sell a Prius? Everyone knows and feels it, they just ignore or deny it to more or lessor extents.
Abortion is wrong? The MDs who do such butchering are defacto considered the bottom of the barrel by MDs who are otherwise ‘pro-choice’. Most MDs who other push “pro-choice” positions simply will not perform an abortion themselves. If it’s not a moral issue, why is such a quietly vulgar and demeaning procedure that few will do?
Each of the 10 commandments can be discussed in secular terms – including the first. You just have to go look.
For reasons I do not understand several generations ago they abandoned what I could call the secular evidence based apologetics. It was just “believe or burn”. Catholicism in particular has no need of this approach. Reason supports faith, it’s not in opposition to it.
Re: The Alt Right as “anti-Christian.” The Alt Right are mostly young folks and have drunk some of the counter-culture Kool-ade without realizing it. That includes the dismissive attitude toward theology. Also, a few, probably marginal members reject Christianity because it came out of Judaism. However, the leading voices (eg Richard Spencer, Andrew Anglin, Stefan Molyneaux) seem to agree that Christianity is the distinctive religion of white European society and that hostility to Christian hegemony motivates many of its enemies. That is, they would defend Christianity without being believers, just as secular Jews defend observant Judaism. Note that the pacifistic and universalistic admonitions of Jesus are a problem for a pro-active white nationalist movement but in the past white nationalists have been mostly nominal Christians and a number of hard right leaders have been clergy, e.g. Father Coughlin, Billy James Hargis.
This is all we need, in the end. That’s why the anti-Christian alt-righters register to me as a concern (and potentially globalists), rather than merely agnostic. I’d love to see everyone convert and have a great life, but more realistically, anyone who can conjure up any level of sympathy will be a friend and be helpful.
The problem is that too many modern lukewarm Christians, who want to ignore that to be a Christian is to obey the 10 Commandments plus love your neighbor, have turned Jesus into one very righteously hippy dude. That’s helped along by the various German Protestant sects, such the Amish, absolutely determined to turn his message into pacifism.
Christ does suffer at the hands of the state, but then tells his apostles to carry swords for self-defense when traveling. Turn the other check, the most abused of the Gospels, is clearly about interpersonal relationships. At no time does he come right out say: let yourselves be run over or slaughtered or never fight. I have to think that as the Son of God, that was deliberate decision.
So it’s like a battle on two fronts, although it’s the same because what globalists remain that go to church love hippie Jesus. The Man who said, buy swords, you’re about ready to take this one the road, I send you as sheep among the wolves, and no, you can’t have sex with just anyone is not so popular. It’s reminding people that Jesus was not nearly as straightforward as self-help guru who loved trees or whatever.
Brooks:-
The point is an implicit assertion that America was and maybe is the only legitimate state (“nation”) on Earth.
You’re probably right about that: most of the pressure to ‘secularize’ Christmas is coming from the Jews rather than the Moslems. Christians is Syria and Lebanon, for example, don’t generally go around saying ‘happy holidays,’ after all. But that just points out why the Jews, as a rule, make bad allies for Christians: they hate our religion even more than the Moslems do. Because of their bad experiences with Israel, more Christians is Lebanon now actually support Hezbollah rather than Israel. (To be sure, the non-Maronite Christians there never were to enthusiastic about Israel to begin with.)
Even an Israeli government commission admitted that Sharon bore “personal responsibility” for the massacre–the only time in history the Israeli government has ever criticized one of its own generals for a war crime.
Israel is the first and the most eternal nation in human history …what brooks is doing is saying that like israel america is a nation ..but in his liberal mind ..america has replaced israel ..just like the christians said christianity has replaced judaism …this is yet another example of replacement theology
I ask myself the same question every damned time I’m downtown and pass the smoking glass chimneys that are Boston Holocaust Memorial!
The Tsarnaev brothers should have blown THAT up!