Paul Krugman: The GOP’s National Security Stance “Serves the Tribe”

Steve Sailer writes: “Sometimes Krugman’s lack of sophistication has kind of a Trump-like little boy in Emperor’s New Clothes quality to it. I remember one of his columns about a decade ago about how he liked growing up in a middle class suburb on Long Island and why can’t we go back to that kind of America? Somebody must have gotten it through to him that because of Diversity and Immigration, he can’t go there, he just c-a-n-’-t.”

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* What is a nation? According to google it’s “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” I didn’t definition-shop, but I would argue the part about “particular country or territory” is weaker than the first part. A distributed people is often referred to as a nation e.g. Elijah Muhammad’s “Nation of Islam”. Or since I’d suppose Krugman is Jewish, that diaspora.

So yeah it’s OK to be loyal to your tribe. What’s the better patriotism — protecting your people, or protecting a specific area of dirt? They are both important, but to me the idealistic view of patriotism has more to do with the people than the land.

It’s hard for me to believe Krugman is missing this out of ignorance. He’s got an agenda and can’t think of good arguments for it, so he uses bad ones.

* He was right that Bush would be a disaster of a president and that the Iraq War would also be a disaster. He noted, before the war started, that it was exactly what Al Qaeda wanted us to do, and that Bush’s estimates for the war’s cost were absurdly low.

And “his brainy technical specialties” is a pretty broad area. He was right, in advance, that the Euro would be a disaster, and he was right for the right reasons: monetary union without fiscal union and labor mobility (like we have in the USA) does not work.

He was also correct that the monetary policy of 2008-2011 of greatly increasing the monetary supply and fiscal deficit would not lead to high interest rates or inflation, which was very widely predicted and is the normal result of such policies.

He has studied Japan’s economy closely and is notable for being someone who writes on the topic without advocating Japan engage in mass immigration, very much contrary to the global elite and how The Economics, Foreign Affairs, etc. cover it. He also defends Japan’s economic performance by noting that it is not too bad if you adjust for the fact its working age population is declining.

* Steve cannot really comment on this because he honors his old confidentiality agreement, but I think he said a long time ago that Krugman was on his old HBD listserv.

I wonder if Krugman, who lacks social graces, got into some heated disagreements with Steve who still has a mild grudge over it. I also think after reading him for years that Krugman is not an IQ egalitarian but feels conflicted but its implications.

* Looks like K-thug is just flat out engaging in psychological projection of his own belief system. Amazing how he could be so blind to it as to publish it in a major news outlet, but such is the state of modern day American MSM. And to wag his finger at white Christians who are probably the group in the US showing the least tendency to act “for their tribe” while his own shows the most. Loved how he tried to put the ‘us’ in there, to try and fool anyone who might be reading into thinking he was a ‘white Christian’. Lotta work, this guy.

* According to the new narrative to be a patriot one must be an adherent of globalism, which is essentially supporting global government. I don’t think it will be too long before these tough guy acts will be using the words “global security” instead of “national security” to argue for conflict somewhere.

* From my perspective, I don’t care if Muslims feel alienated. I want them to assimilate or leave.

* The left has been going on like this for decades: “The only true patriot is the one who wants to dismantle his country and turn it into something completely different.”

* The thing is, the entire profession of elite academic economics, the Federal Reserve, and the financing of the Democratic Party are virtual Tribal monopolies at this point. None of this bothers Paul Krugman. I wonder why?

* Devotion and support for one’s country would make one desire less, not more foreigners to come on board, particularly those who massively change the fabric of the country itself, and want to turn it into New Mecca, or New Aztlán. Not to mention the crime, disease, violence, loss of social capital they bring or cause, or how adding more people who are ‘on the public dole’ brings us down.

What is the ‘celebration of diversity’, but just a round about way of saying less whites? Whites built this country. “Treasonous white nationals”? It would be like saying the Japanese are committing treason by not importing millions upon millions of African guest workers to become Japanese citizens, and take over Japan. As usual, you completely flip reality on its head.

“We progressives love America enough to point out the ways in which she is failing People of Color and to try for positive change, while the Republicans stand that premise on it’s head and claim that it “those people” who are failing America.”

– Why should the goal be how it ‘fails people of color”? Are people of color the majority of Americans? If we’re talking ‘love and devotion to one’s country’ (i.e. patriotism), then why do we give two sh*ts about doing more for a million illegal Guatemalans here? “People of Color” are the ones who are failing America. They commit more crime, they take more public assistance in net than they contribute, they are more likely to engage in politics that rip the country apart. Not to mention how an increasing percentage of them are in groups that literally want to make America into New Mecca, or New Aztlán. How is it ‘positive change’ to take away from the descendants of those who built the country, those who contribute the most still, and give it to those who take away from the country and who literally seek to make it into an extension of their homeland?

* I actually think Krugman gets it, in some flawed way (and with an unwillingness to do the electoral math), in a way that Mrs. Clinton and most of the Democratic mainstream does not.

This election is about identity and interests, not ideology and principles. Krugman may be unhappy that White America has returned to seeing itself as a nation worthy of inhabiting and preserving it’s own nation-state, but I’ll give him credit for figuring it out.

Of course, Trump also gets it, and has done the electoral math, and has no moral qualms with the idea of an American nation-state, which is why he stands a good chance of being the next President, and all Krugman gets is a column in the NYTimes op-ed page.

* Was it just his [part black, part white, part Indian] wife?

Pretty much.

The change tracks closely to the time of marriage, and she’s a radical feminist who “helps” him write his Times articles.

We’re the dog that Krugman kicks after his wife kicks him.

* If nothing else, the Trump candidacy has been a stalking horse outing the pseudo-conservatives in the Republican party as well as the anti-white elements on the left. He is yelling Little Marco, and everyone else has to yell Polo. The people are not realigning so much as the parties are. But there are a number of impostors who would have preferred to remain where they were, well hidden and well employed behind enemy lines.

* Steve — There is a Krugman blog post from 2013 where he reminisces about the way that public expression of racism became “utterly taboo” in his old neighborhood. I find really interesting; maybe you could do something with it? Here is the key paragraph:

“And while it didn’t literally happen overnight, it did happen fast. My personal memory: I grew up on Long Island in the 60s, and at the time many of the fancier houses (split-level ranches!) had little statues of coachmen in front. In my memory, at least, there was one summer — maybe 1965? — when, suddenly, everyone had the faces on their coachmen repainted; all of a sudden they were white. The message had gotten through: pretending that you were living in antebellum Tara was not OK.”

I find it kind of hard to reconcile assertions that America is a racist society with the fact that it’s been 50 years since it’s been possible for respectable members of society to risk the appearance of racism.

* Did anyone notice how Tim Kaine repeated a phrase at the convention: “Faith, Family and Work” — a translation of the Vichy France slogan “Travail, Famille, Patrie”?
Someone call the ADL.

* Krugman telling white Americans they should get over being dispossessed from the patrimony their forefathers built is like Mark Zuckerberg telling kids who lost their house in a fire they shouldn’t be so materialistic, it’s only stuff. Before slamming shut the door to his 50k square foot mansion. He shouldn’t be surprised to find one of them in his garage, playing with matches.

It’s easy for Jews to lecture whites – they’ve already got their homeland.

* It’s pretty clear that Israel is the only nation that David Brooks feels patriotic about:

Having acknowledged that, I nevertheless understand the complaints of those readers who are bothered by something they have recently learned about David Brooks: his son is a member of the Israel Defense Forces. In a recent Hebrew-language interview in Haaretz magazine, Mr. Brooks was asked about his worries as a father. The article noted that the columnist’s “connection to Israel was always strong.” It continued:

“He has visited Israel almost every year since 1991, and over the past months the connection has grown even stronger, after his oldest son, aged 23, decided to join the Israel Defense Forces as a ‘lone soldier.’ ” (The reference is to a soldier whose family is not living in Israel.)

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

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/david-brooks-son-idf-times-public-editor/?_r=0

As far as I’m concerned, serving in a foreign military is an act of treason, and David Brooks’ son should be stripped of his American citizenship.

* Interesting to note how touchy John Podhoretz is about people noticing that David Brooks’ son serves in the IDF:

John Podhoretz ‏@jpodhoretz 8 Oct 2014

Everybody who thinks David Brooks has to “reveal” his son, who’s 23, has joined the Israeli army can go f[***]himself.

Will Stokes ‏@William_Stokes 8 Oct 2014

@jpodhoretz not trying to be antagonist. Don’t you think having your son in a military would at least unconsciously effect your beliefs?

John Podhoretz ‏@jpodhoretz 8 Oct 2014

@William_Stokes his son is an adult and it’s nobody’s fu[***** business. And he’s a writer, not a politician. It’s naked anti-Semitism.

Will Stokes ‏@William_Stokes 8 Oct 2014

@jpodhoretz for me, if someone was a writing a piece on Afghanistan and Iraq and had a son serving there, I’d want to know.

John PodhoretzVerified account

‏@jpodhoretz

@William_Stokes it’s none of your business. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

* Krugman the loony lefty likes just about the only openly Republican hair band while Trump favors globalist gay boy piano man. Opposites can admire each other I suppose.

I think Krugman’s piece about Republicans serving the tribe is just another example of Steve’s conjecture that Jewish intellectuals tend to project Jewish intramural conflicts onto the gentile world. I can’t imagine any of Krugman’s relations being happy that he married a schvartze, lopping off a branch of his own family tree and in effect refusing to serve his own tribe.

* I have taught my children that whenever you read something by someone who’s promoting something decidedly disastrous for our people, something counter-intuitive turning nature inside-out and upside down, just google their name and add “Jew”. 9 times out of 10 it’s a Jew. I call it Jew bingo.

My eldest came home one day and said “You know how you said to google someone’s name and add Jew whenever you read something nasty and anti-White? Well, I did it all day and guess what? You were right!” It was a great moment in family bonding.

That night we went through the history of feminism and the bingos were going off like you wouldn’t believe. If I can turn this into a board game I reckon I could retire on it.

* I do think it is odd that any American citizen would serve in another nation’s army. I would consider that grounds for forfeiting citizenship. (I think some of those early 20th Century idealists were willing to do so, and/or otherwise break the law.) However, the SCOTUS determined in 1967 that service in a foreign army is not incompatible with citizenship, and that definitely creates a gray area in the War on Terror where we do not have any clearcut national entity that we have declared war on. (Supposedly you forfeit citizenship if you serve in the army of a nation we are at war with.)

The problem with making these kinds of exceptions, even when your heart is in the right place, is that you open the door to dual citizenship of all kinds. I object to this. Right now, apparently, there are millions of American citizens in the Southwest who also have Mexican citizenship (because Mexicans who become American citizenship do not lose their Mexican citizenship). I think that is insane.

I think holding David Brooks’ son to account for serving in the IDF rather than the armed services of the United States is valid, and not anti-semitic, because the US is de facto at war (something not applicable in your contrary examples) and thus failure to serve, but to serve a foreign country, suggests that the loyalties of Brooks’ son lie more with Israel with the United States. I wouldn’t call it treason but I wouldn’t mind having Brooks, Jr. called to account.

For all that, the sins of the son should not be visited on the father, either.

* The thing that gets me most about how Democrats are all in a dither over Russia is just how petty and immature their attitude toward Russia is, given that it is still by far the most fearsome nuclear power in the world, ourselves excepted.

We’re supposed to worry about Trump bringing us to nuclear war when Obama and Hillary did just about everything they could to gin up tensions with Russia? And over what, for God’s sake? Because Russia made Obama look weak and rather stupid in his idiot program to oppose Assad (which program, rather embarrassingly, enabled the rise of ISIS)? Because Russia and the Ukraine (a former republic in the Soviet Union)– were trying to smack each other around over territory? Because Russia gave the gay rights movement, for Christ’s sake, some disrespect?

I’m sure Obama’s feelings, the feelings of a black man, were hurt, and Hillary’s feelings, the feelings of a woman, were hurt as well, and those are some very important feelings. But are those feelings of such awesome significance that we should be antagonizing the one power in the world that could actually blow us to kingdom come if it had a desire to?

Again, is there anything more petty, more childish, or more foolhardy than the Democrats’ attitude toward Russia?

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see Amazon.com). My work has been covered in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and on 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (Alexander90210.com).
This entry was posted in America, Jews. Bookmark the permalink.