Washington Post: “Horror in Brussels Is a Rebuke to Trump’s Foreign Policy”

Steve Sailer writes: “How’s NATO working out at defending the borders of Europe, anyway? Are the peoples of the North Atlantic getting their money’s worth? You know, sometimes I almost suspect that the Washington Post favors whatever foreign policy would lead to maximum expenditure of taxpayer dollars within its circulation area. Times being what they are, you gotta keep those ad rates up …”

Comments:

* That’s hilarious. From claiming that Trump has no “policy” that’s quite a climb down for the WaPo clowns to concede he does.

* One possible effect of NATO and the non-necessity of Europeans defending their own borders without Uncle Sam standing behind them is the mistaken impression on the part of Europeans that armies are for intervention, not defense.

I’ve never once seen an article about border skirmishes or even war games on European soil. However, there are constant articles about NATO or French or British military interventions. I assume the media in Europe are basically the same.

I suspect people who don’t think of their military as a defense force don’t think of their nation as requiring defense.

So, maybe one of the best things that could be done to win hearts and minds in Europe on the immigration question would be to completely 100% pull out of Europe and NATO and let them fend for themselves against Russia, ISIS, etc.

* Black Lies Matter hate it every time there is a terrorist attack, because the media focus shifts away from police brutality of Dindus to Muslim extremists. After the Paris attacks happened, Black Lies Matter went on Twitter to tweet who cares about a bunch of dead White people. I am sure they will also tweet the same about the Brussels attacks.

* Back in ’01, were we not all assured by reliable sources that 9-11 was a consequence of GWB’s isolationism? I recall hearing that somehow or other his failure to ratify the Kyoto Treaty had some bearing on the incident. I guess green IS the color of Islam, but I digress.

Is the WaPo running so short of spurious complaints they had to dig up the isolationism schtick? Or am I just supposed to not have a memory? I heard memories are racist, so yeah whatever…

* Has anyone else noticed that headlines and content from the Washington Post and Huffington Post are now impossible to tell apart? Huffington is intended to be a left tabloid and WAPO is meant to be serious.

Even NYT got in on the act for a while but they are dialing back the crazy a little bit.

* Where has Trump said withdrawing from NATO will keep us secure? Trump has suggested we are not getting the bang for the buck. We are providing the lion’s share of manpower and funding of a defense pact in which most of the members are collectively confederated into the European Union which is more populous and has a larger GDP than the USA. Evaluating whether this is the most effective way to spend our defense dollars, or whether the Europeans should contribute more is a different argument that what you wrote.

Now Patrick Buchanan might make the argument that withdrawing from NATO would make us safer. That of course would be based upon his concerns that any one NATO member, such as Turkey, could get us into a shooting war with a nuclear armed Russia over an incident that is not in our national interests. For example, last October’s downing of a Russian jet might have been the tripwire that committed Uncle Sam to an armed conflict with Russia.

Given how close we came to such an event, and given how Turkey’s and possibly other European nations’ interest differ from ours, there is a potential threat to USA security remaining in NATO twenty plus years after its reason to exist went out of business.

* The appearance of this article today simply underscores the fact that the real political battle emerging is between globalism and nationalism, not liberalism and conservatism. The editorial board of one of the most prominent newspapers in the country jumps on the tragic fallout of a great international terror event in order to attack a presidential candidate’s foreign policy platform.

The article is completely incoherent.

“On one side are those who support the internationalist response of President Obama, who said the United States “will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally Belgium,” and who asserted that “we must be together, regardless of nationality or race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.”

The perfect articulation of internationalism – unqualified devotion to non-Americans. This is assumed to be a good thing; the position is never justified.

“Against them is the radical isolationism of Donald Trump…”

Anything not in the vein of Trotskyite internationalism is automatically branded “isolationism”.

“However much they are reinforced, borders will provide no protection to Americans if the jihadists are not defeated elsewhere.”

Simple non-sequitur. Even if ISIS is not defeated elsewhere, if they can’t get thru the border, or they at least have a decreased chance at getting thru the border, that keeps citizens of Belgium or the US, applicable, safer.”

“Britain, France and Germany, among others, contribute materially to the war against the terrorist entity in Iraq and Syria, not to mention NATO member Turkey.”

Yes, not to mention Turkey, who supports terrorist groups allied with ISIS in their fight against Assad, thus hindering the effort to bring stability to the Syrian situation.

“But she or he must also accept that the alliance won’t function without U.S. leadership — which inevitably means a larger role militarily and financially as well as politically.”

Yes, the world cannot function without US leadership. In the last 15 years, the United States’ international “leadership” has de-stabilized Iraq and Libya, sites that are now, as a result, prominent sources of radical Sunni terrorism.

* For a candidate who is a joke with zero chance of winning, and hopelessly behind either democrat in a general election matchup, the MSM and other candidates sure seem to focus a lot on Trump. I don’t think any major news outlet can go the day without condemning this candidate who has no chance of winning. Even Hillary and Bernie seem to be directing more of their attacks against this potential November walkover than they do against each other. People seem to show a lot of concern and expel a lot of energy over a guy who supposedly has no chance of winning.

* If only we’d had an aggressive foreign policy for the last 15 years, invading and occupying and bombing and droning all over the middle east, I suppose we wouldn’t be facing the threat of ISIS today.

* I know this is a blog that favors deep thought about long-term policy issues, but my first thought regarding that title was clickbait.

“Brussels Shows Trump Wrong”

It’s simple: like sex, Trump sells. And if it bleeds, it leads. Everyone wants an explanation. And we of course can’t say Trump is right. So.

A. Bleeding: Brussels
B. Trump: Wrong
Explanation: A causes B, or B causes A.

It’s a bit much to say that Trump Wrong Caused Brussels (but let’s keep that around, it might come in handy later). So Brussels Caused Trump Wrong.

I’m overthinking it.

“[Insert news here] Shows Trump Wrong”

works for everything. That guy really is a gift to all of us.

* I’m thinking about Steve’s concept of leapfrogging loyalties. As he wrote in 2012, “Modern liberals’ defining trait is making a public spectacle of how their loyalties leapfrog over some unworthy folks relatively close to them in favor of other people they barely know.”

Loyalty, properly understood, has to be reciprocal. You have loyalty to your spouse or to a friend largely because you trust they are loyal to you. To a lesser degree there is some reciprocal loyalty to your neighbors, your coworkers, or members of any group to which you belong. That is how interpersonal bonds are forged. But the liberal, who leapfrogs his loyalty to underclass blacks or Mexican immigrants, gets no loyalty in return. Rather, they see in him someone who has made himself open to manipulation and exploitation. The liberal’s only reward from this arrangement is the pleasure he experiences from the resentment of his fellow citizens, who feel his loyalty would be more properly devoted to them. So his loyalty, the leapfrogging type, doesn’t create the normal bonds that exist between people, or in communities and nations, but fractures them.

Obama frequently displays his leapfrogging loyalties, as when he refused to stop travel from Ebola afflicted nations. As it happened his policy caused few deaths, though that was by no means a given at the outset. However, the message to Americans was, “Your safety and well-being is not my foremost concern.” Similarly, with Syrian refugees, he expresses contempt for the natural concerns of his citizens–”This is not who we are! We’re better than that!”–which means, “If some of you die as a result of my admitting this hostile group, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

In a democratic nation, citizens are loyal to their government because the government represents their interests; i.e., makes their safety and well being its primary concern. But in most Western societies that is no longer the case. As this fact sinks in to the citizens of Western nations, they must ask themselves what loyalty they owe their governments. Is their authority even legitimate anymore?

* Trump does poorly in states with high social cohesion. He does better in more diverse states.

* Donald Trump does well with Right Wing people who are not Conservative in the traditional sense, because they use a lot of profanity. That is why The Donald is popular with people like Anthony Cumia, Legion Of Skanks, Gavin McInnes, Nick DiPaolo, Jim Norton, and Adam Carolla, but not Steve Sailer. The Donald is too vulgar for Steve, who has a very PG vocabulary.

* Trump does well with those who feel that society needs what he’s offering and does poorly with those who quite like the society that they inhabit and don’t see the need for Trumpian policies.

* I was looking at county level data for the Trump and anti-Trump voters. The higher the percentage of the county which is black, foreign born, Hispanic the higher the Trump vote and the opposite for the anti-Trump voters. Those were all independent measures. The only measure with higher correlation was poverty in the county. So poverty, followed by black, followed by Hispanic, followed by foreign born, followed by tw0 or more races, etc.

Living in close proximity to diversity sure seems to predict support for Trump.

* If you ever watch a Gavin McInnes or Anthony Cumia podcast, let’s just say its not for the whole family. Sometimes they even have female porn stars on showing their breasts. They also use the N word more freely, get into specific details about sexual acts, and drug use. They are definitely not your parents Conservatives. They are more anti-PC than they are Conservative in the traditional sense. They are like South Park.

* Because it was so classy of Cruz (or his supporters) to use Melania’s 15 year old picture against Trump.

And do you really have a problem with Trump getting angry when his wife is attacked?

* Yeah, I clicked on your link. So Ted (or a front group for him) doing an absolutely unnecessary, and, frankly, vulgar, thing of tweeting a nearly nude pic of Melania (taken 15 years ago when she was a silly girl) is NOT repulsive. Okaaaaayyy.

But, Trump threatening to spill the beans on Ted Cruz’s wife *is.*

Uh. Huh. You do know what the “beans” are, right? That she is an executive of Goldman Sachs and that GS gave undisclosed loans to Ted Cruz’ campaign (no bribes there, right?) and has had active involvement in the, frankly, treasonous effort to abolish the border between Mexico and Canada under the project of North American Union. Telling THAT truth is “repulsive.”

You are nuts.

Twinkie, every time I turn around, you just reconfirm my bias. Asians are *not* good immigrants. Even the ones who are ostensibly well-assimilated Catholics with tall sons.

* Why is it that everything now seems to be PR or Marketing, honed to eventually provide a nozzle via which any collective rage or fear can be redirected at will to hose whatever target is convenient or profitable for those pulling the strings?

We saw this expertly played in the aftermath of 9/11, when public rage was channeled into support for a war long planned, against a nation-state whose rulers and people had nothing to do with the events on that day, while the official story ignored the fingerprints of [a] nation[s] since clearly more involved.

Mass media + mass psychology = herd behavior on a scale not seen before, say, 100 years ago. Video (esp. TV) makes direction and amplification of the mass mind’s emotions all too easy.

About Luke Ford

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