* The backlash is always feared more than the actual terrorist attack. While a true backlash has yet to occur, if it does, it would get quite bloody. And, importantly for the elites, the Muslims are not going to win that battle. Expelling all Islamists from a single European country would not be much of a logistical challenge, were there political will. Whipping up native hooligans to burn down the no-go zones would be unstoppable like a freight train once its going.
The backlash gives the elites nightmares.
* It is my belief that the elites do want a real hard-core white backlash, one that causes a “vaccination” like effect on the social immune system. The OKC bombing in 1995 was instrumental in Clinton’s re-election, as was the 2011 Giffords shooting to Obama.
When the first reaction to the Brussels bombings was a large demonstration of people waving Nazi flags, the elites got exactly what they wanted. All their opponents smoked out into the open, to be tagged by the security services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trust
Look at PFAW, ADL and SPLC. They don’t have real enemies right now, but are quite well funded off of fear-mongering over small potatoes.
Now view their UK and France counterparts (Hopenothate, SOS Racisme). Far more media prominence, and government funding. The British call it the Quango.
* Population transfers are one idea, but I believe that enacting ever more police state remedies will be the choice of the Brussels elite. As Rahm Emanuel said, never let a crisis go to waste. With the UK supposedly leaving the EU, there is less resistance to an EU army, and an EU FBI analogue.
Knocking the elites of their pedestal is hard, even harder seemingly is to knock sense into Guardian and Le Monde readers. When it comes to liberalism, one really can be more Catholic than the Pope.
* The surveillance state is politically correct.
Consider:
It employs large numbers of affirmative-action bureaucrats (TSA).
It creates large government contracts for the connected (G4S).
It scratches the militaristic itch.
It is in theory, impossible for machines to discriminate
The solutions to the terrorism/black crime problem are quite obvious, racial profiling, civilian gun ownership and paternalistic shaming of black culture/banning Muslim immigration.
But those solutions would “allow our enemies to defeat us by causing us to abandon our (((liberal))) values”
* Many don’t understand the true intensity and endurance of black racial resentment towards whites. When Oprah claimed that millions were lynched, she appeared to seriously believe it. In the same way that people think that Mr. Brown in Ferguson was shot while surrendering.
BLM, much like the Tea Party, isn’t mobilizing those previously on the fence. It’s just turning up the volume of those already prone to ‘extreme’ politics.
* The Civil Rights movement was only on its surface about legal equality. Legal segregation persisted in less than half of the country, and had been gradually decreasing.
If you actually look at the speeches of MLK Jr, they are full of demands for welfare statism and affirmative action. As early as 1954 when he became a national figure during the bus boycott.
The National Review of its early days said very different things back then.
* The city of Dallas has a left-wing Mayor and Council. It isn’t run by the eeevil White Conservative Males.
Mr. Johnson and any possible accomplices were interested in killing white officers, in order to trigger a race war. In other words, a genocide of YT.
That’s not the 2nd Amendment, its Mein Kampf Schwarz.
The Framers were quite clear that this nation had an identity. Anti-white blacks were never included.
* The proportion of voters remaining in the electorate that cast votes for Eisenhower is almost nil. You never voted for Reagan if you were born after 1967.
What Brokaw called the “Greatest Generation” was the product of the world’s greatest social engineering effort. Frank Capra’s excellent series of war propaganda films shifted this country into full-throttle internationalism. We had lunatic ideas like “politics stops at the waters edge”, otherwise known as the idea that the CFR was to be the sole arbiter of what was allowed on foreign policy. To those gone voters, Buchanan sounded far too much like Father Coughlin and Huey Long.
Then you have the younger group, such as myself. I was born after Reagan’s terms, and am not a member of his Conservatism Inc. fan club. Trump has repudiated the Bush clan’s hold over the right, but he is running the same image as Reagan. What we need is a bit more like McKinley and Nixon.
* Most of the Jews in the US originated in the 1880s-1914 immigration from the Russian Empire. Any Russian expression of nationalism to them meant a Cossack raid. More glaringly, it meant a government that induced pressure to convert to Orthodoxy. Much of what we call the “war on Christmas” is mostly Jewish angst that public display of Christian symbols will induce their children into converting.
* The left tends to view conservatives in the way that Aquinas defined evil. That it is the absence of substance, rather than a substance in its own right.
So, everyone would naturally prefer a world of left-liberal Cultural Marxism, but some of us are “selfish”.
Given that philosophical foundation, its not surprising that the left routinely lectures us. While we are their cosmic enemy, we are also the cosmic janitor. They need to keep the cucks around to provide stability and prevent reaction.
Another example is Dalrock’s “weak men are ruining feminism”.
* You can make many poor economic decisions when you have the pleasant climate of Coastal California.
Even with CA being one of the most social-liberal and welfare-statist states in the US, its non-Asian minorities are still underperforming.
For the rest of the country, the welfare state needs WCMs to pick up the tab. I doubt any Plains state could survive economically with CA taxation, demographics and values.
* The US prior to WW1 had a minimal welfare state, mass immigration helped tip the balance to the Democrats in the non-Southern states, even before FDR.
Not to mention that two world wars brought an onslaught of unity propaganda, and the elimination of German as a first language in the Midwest.
All that for about 10-15 hollow years of ‘prosperity’ 1953-1966.
* We have an economic reality where the top 1% is acquiring an increasing share of the wealth, with the billionaire class doing extremely well; while the bottom 50% and more are taking out ridiculous amounts of debt.
Either that debt gets paid down through (inflation, higher wages, redistribution), or we get serfdom.
Mass immigration benefits the few (tech billionaires, urban property owners) but gives the rest of us only more incentives for socialism; which then doesn’t work because immigration reduces social trust and increases corruption.
* The neocon gang has been running the GOP for 30 years. They ran it into the ground.
Now Trump comes along and tells them to get in the back seat.
Unlike the Mormons, who only sniffed power in 2012, the neocons had all of it under GWB.
Given their record during the Reagan years, the neocons cannot be accommodated at all, they must go back to the Democrats. At least Moynihan was intellectually honest.
* It is a trope of liberalism, to deny the moral agency of anyone who is not a straight, white male.
Sarah Palin was raked over the coals for being a paragon of “incivility”, which somehow led to Rep. Giffords being shot by a mentally deranged man.
Rush Limbaugh was blamed by Bill Clinton in a speech for inciting McVeigh to the OKC bombing.
It’s quite remarkable that Romney got 59% of white voters, when every single piece of the cultural establishment is on the left.
* In 1992, we had Buchanan and Perot. Disdained by the powerful, and regrettably defeated.
Now we have the best of those two men in one.
The Democrats have lost the monopoly on identity politics.
* Israel has nuclear weapons, and a near unbeaten record with their conventional military. Only the Jordanians have a worthwhile military tradition, built by both the US and UK.
Any attempt to overrun Israel would depend upon a disengaged US, Russia and China. You would also need to make sure that the Shia and Sunni were on the same page. Many forget it now, but until 1979 the Shah’s Iran was an ally of Israel. The Gulf Arabs were the leading funders of the Arab states bordering Israel, today that alignment has reversed. Its easier to imagine a 2030 Iran as an Israeli ally than a reconciliation of the millennia old schism.
The real “existential threat” to Israel is a permanent split between the seculars, religious and Haredi. A far lower threat in likelihood is massive civil unrest by the latter group in the event of a joint US-Russia imposed peace deal.
The Arabs face a far more grave existential threat, that of the oil bust. No oil, no welfare state. Regression to nomadic barbarians. Imagine the whole Arab World looking like Libya is now.
* I have inferred before that there is a current in Jewish opinion that favors the dissolution of the West as revenge for the Holocaust.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html
http://forward.com/opinion/199092/have-the-jews-lost-europe/
*not an Israeli, but comes very close to making the revenge claim explicit
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Feiglin-objects-to-Beck-Jerusalem-event
I do agree with you on the worldview of most of the Israeli Right, and I consider them far more invested into building their own civilization, than tearing down ours. But I do wonder if given a choice, would most of them prefer the West or the Arab World circa 1914.
* We need a “natural aristocracy” that was what was envisioned by Jefferson and Adams. A society where voting is restricted upon payment of taxes, and a labor regime exists that prefers the affordable formation of the natural family.
I do like having direct democracy, but I abhor any kind of universal suffrage.
* Communism is a bit more than a Jewish revenge fantasy. It’s intellectual background should be recognized as the threat that it was, and for the damage that it caused. Mao Zeodong wasn’t Jewish, but he was quite the Communist.
* Unless you were born earlier than 1967, you never voted for Reagan. For people younger than that, they only know one name when it comes to GOP Presidents: Bush. And the first thing people think about Bush is: war. Now, that would work out OK if those wars had been won, but they weren’t. Voters dislike warmongering neocons, but they hate regressed to the mean neocons that got their position by inheritance.
Look at the others served up by the GOP: Dole, McCain, Romney. Kemp, Palin, Ryan.
Of those six, only Sarah Palin was loved by the base, and has any populist tendencies. But her low IQ and inexperience have rightfully sent her packing.
What the base wants is a Putin-like figure (Cruz) with Reagan-like charisma (Rubio?). But they base has failed to realize that you cant win by means of ‘inreach’. A legend exists about 2004 being an example.
Both of the two GWB victories were by the skin of Rove’s teeth, largely because of preventable errors that threw away 3-7 point leads in October. People have forgotten it now, but while people thought GWB was more conservative than GHWB, he was still considered more moderate than the Rs in Congress.
* To the average liberal LGBTer, the single biggest threat is those flyover evangelicals enacting The Handmaiden’s Tale, the threat that has made up decades of SPLC and PFAW fundraising letters.
Since Muslims in the West are allies in the fight against white conservatives, many liberals really believe that they will go along with equality uber alles. Subconsciously, I believe many have already submitted to Islam and are just waiting for a gentle push to make it socially acceptable. Islam doesn’t treat the homosexual act as bad as it treats the open Western-style homosexual relationship culture.
We should also note that East Asian societies aren’t backing away from suicide either, they are just going about it in a different path that could result in less collateral damage. So far, it appears that only in Russia have the elites decided to avert suicide. It is actually the masses that are the bigger problem there.
* There are certain things that we know to be true, and dissent from thereof can be roughly equated to treason. In the past we used terms like sedition, subversion, lese majeste, blashphemy, etc.
For instance, the Koran and the Hadiths are clearly works of hate that inspire the violent conquest of all who oppose them. While it is foolish to ban the physical text, banning the people who advocate the text is appropriate.
If you oppose our civilization, the proper thing to do is to emigrate. If you want Sharia, go to KSA or IRI. If you want LGBT, then go to San Francisco. If you don’t leave voluntarily, and decide to be a subversive, a just society should exile you.
* Anti-Semitism is as natural to Western civilization as anti-Christianity is to Jewish civilization, Islamic civilization and Japanese civilization. To put it briefly, since the destruction of the Second Temple, Jewish religion has changed from the authority of the Torah to the authority of the Talmud. The latter text is explicitly targeted against the claims of Christianity, just as the Koran is. While you could argue that most Jews aren’t rabbinical scholars, and that reform Judaism is friendlier to Jesus at least as a prophet, I consider that over two thousand years of resentment doesn’t go away easily.
I’m not arguing that we should bring back Jewish quotas, confiscate their wealth, burn the Talmud or order mass deportations. What I am calling for is an understanding that we believe the claims of Christianity and seek to practice them, as well as continuing our ethnic line and geographic providence. In short, an anti-liberal society which will make those not identifying with it uncomfortable as a non-Mormon would be in Provo, Utah.
Racism is a Marxist term, it’s a slur, nothing else. Whether we are calling it racial realism or Human biodiversity, it should be an essential component of the right. We are not Young Earth Liberals.
* Like it or not, the Jewish community carries a lot of moral weight in Western society since 1945. Their record with this moral authority is deeply troubling, as my opinion is that far too many of them want Western society to be blurred out as revenge for the Holocaust. To me, any moral debt owed by the West was paid in full during the Yom Kippur War. In return for having supported Israel against virulent Muslim opposition, I do feel it is worthwhile to ask the diaspora Jews to either agree to defend Western civilization or move to Israel.
We can’t win anything by worrying about what the left is portraying us as. We should instead focus on portraying them as traitors, and even crypto-Muslims. I think that part of the way that our ideas will become increasingly mainstream is that part of the left could be convinced that the SJW-wing is going too far. This includes the nominally anti-white socon blacks, Asians worried about BLM crime, and liberal Jews concerned about BDS* and Le Grand Remplacement. Also Midwestern blue collar workers and (gasp) government employees.
*One of the strangest things to me is that the alt-right wants nothing to do with the movement that Israeli Jews appear to fear the most. A viable right-leaning BDS movement would be a worthwhile negotiating gambit.
* For a brief moment David Duke was an extremely popular politician in Louisiana, that happened to make an ill timed decision to run for Senate, and then Governor, than to the House district that later sent Bobby Jindal and David Vitter to Congress. Subsequently, he’s been a demon trotted out by the left and conservatism inc.
But it should be remembered that he was running at the same time as Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. The latter two and their supporters were tarred with the same brush. That is the point Gottfried is making.
David Duke tapped into a real dissent from the governing elite orthodoxy, and showed how desperate the establishment was willing to go. For that one brief moment in 1991 he had the left scared.
Look at the left, do they disavow Farrakhan? Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? How about Luis Gutierrez? Fabian Nunez? Abe Foxman? Chuck Schumer?
I don’t favor the worldview of David Duke, but I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament.
* A partitioned Syria would serve Israeli interests better from my point of view. An Alwai, Druze, Kurd and rump Sunni state. The Druze state and an Alawi state with no Assads would likely have diplomatic relations with Israel. The Kurd state might as well. I doubt that the DC foreign policy establishment favors this idea, as it undermines the “moral” case against Russian Crimea.
ISIS is too much of a bandit economy, and it rejects any pretense of the post-Westphalian international system. Without the tacit non-interference by Erdogan, they would have already burnt out.
From the original neocon perspective, the goal is to make every Middle Eastern state a liberal democracy that will cease hostility to Israel. By now I doubt that even Kagan & Kagan really think another “humanitarian intervention” will create a New Switzerland on the Tigris.
Their main “fear” is that Iran will ship a nuke through Iraq/Syria, give it to Hezbollah, and then nuke Tel Aviv.
* The Muslims have historical evidence that they will eventually prevail over Israel (I doubt they will), given that the Crusader kingdoms lasted from 50 to slightly less than 200 years. While the average Arab Muslim seems to believe Israel will be gone in 20 years, and has believed this since 1948, their existence can only be called ‘stable’ after more than a century of peace.
* If one considers the Right as being dedicated to shrinking the %GDP of .gov spending to pre-WW1 levels, then the neocons are certainly against that. Of course, about 80% of the US shares that position.
The first generation, or the real intellectuals, of the neoconservative movement were made up of people who had experienced WWII, and the rapid destruction of the legitimacy of fascism as a political concept. Further, as some of them were former Trotskyites (Podhoretz and friends), they thought you could defeat Stalin’s communism (which they called red fascism) just as quickly. More or less it looked in the early 90s that they were right on that part.
That brings us to the second generation, or the regressed to the mean. Today we don’t have a massive clash of ideology, despite attempts to promote jihadism as such. We are in a civilization level struggle with Islam, but we also have equally important internal conflicts. To add more confusion, the neocons won’t identify Islam itself as the enemy. (You might mention Frank Gaffney, but he’s one guy with little influence). I consider this a strategic error on this part, in order to preserve their immediate position on mass immigration.
To understand their foreign policy position, as distinct from the rest of the liberal internationalists, its mainly a tendency to resort to ‘hard power’ earlier than others. During the Bush years the left considered the neocons to be ‘averse’ to diplomacy, but that isn’t really the case. Just look up a certain John Negroponte. Their real difference is a neocon skepticism towards ‘soft power’. They like bombing things, but don’t actually like occupations and rebuilding. (Quite an irony for those that consider them the key drivers of the Israeli ‘occupation’)
But to a man they all hate Russia, and I can only explain this in terms of ethnic hatred due to their roots as Eastern European Jews. The average Joe Sixpack conservative might believe that Putin is still a Communist, and the slightly more informed would say something about Dugin wanting world domination. I honestly think the foreign policy establishment has pegged Putin exactly, they fear him because he is a real nationalist that challenges the liberal post-1945 cultural order.
* Trump is the only candidate that treats Russia with respect, instead of terming it the Fourth Reich. He’s the first Republican candidate to seriously question the Bush wars, in retrospect Ron Paul was nothing but a gadfly.
His potential administration would hire few if any residents of the neocon Beltway think tanks.
He is an existential threat to the very legitimacy of the regressed to the mean third generation descendants of Kristol and Podhoretz.
No Moynihans either today.
* It’s unnerving to admit that your community (Jews) depends upon the approval of others (the West, Russia, Iran), that even nukes can’t guarantee. If the security of Jews and Israel depends upon the active existence of right-wing Christians, it causes tremendous theological quandaries for the religiously observant. In with Gospel, out with Talmud. Bridge too far for many…
