Ben Shapiro: Responding To The Alt Right: Are They Bigots, Or Just Stupid Children?

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

My sense is that the Alt-Right is neither. It is largely white people who think like Jews when it comes to their own people. They are goyim discovering that they have group interests which often clash with the interests of other groups. All told, they prefer their own kind. Just as Jews ask, is it good for the Jews, Alt-Right gentiles ask if things are good for their group.

The Alt-Right is the equivalent of Tibetans who prefer that Tibet remain Tibetan rather than be overrun by Chinese. They are the equivalent of the Japanese who prefer that Japan remain Japanese rather than a mixture of races.

Ben Shapiro writes: One of the great mouthpieces of the alt right is Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart News, whom I consider a friend and with whom I occasionally engage in spirited bouts of insult-fighting.

Milo appeared on Dave Rubin’s podcast today to explain why people like me shouldn’t be bothered by the apparent bigotry of those on the alt right. Here was his explanation:

“Generation Trump, the alt right people, the people who like me, they’re not anti-Semites. They don’t care about Jews. I mean, they may have some assumptions about things, how the Jews run everything; well, we do. How the Jews run the banks; well, we do. How the Jews run the media; well, we do. They’re right about all that stuff…It’s a fact, this is not in debate. It’s a statistical fact….Jews are vastly disproportionately represented in all of these professions. It’s just a fact. It’s not anti-Semitic to point out statistics….The anti-Semitism on the internet, which is really important, I want people to understand this because nobody seems to, when Jonah Goldberg of National Review is bombarded with these memes, and anti-Semitic “take a hike, kike” stuff, it’s not because there’s a spontaneous outpouring of anti-Semitism from 22-year-olds in this country. What it is is it’s a mischievous, dissident, trolly generation who do it because it gets a reaction. Right? That’s been the case for young people for generations….They can get to people in positions of power, and people in positions of power and keep biting, they keep taking the bait….It’s a direct response to the language policing, it’s a direct response to being told they can’t say things.”

So Milo seems to be making two points here. The first: not all stereotypes are rooted in falsehood (true). The second: trolling people with viciously nasty language is a positive good because it rips away taboos surrounding language (false). Then Milo wraps all of this in the mantle of political incorrectness.

As someone who despises political correctness with the fiery hatred of a thousand suns, I find this problematic. Here’s why: I believe there’s a difference between political incorrectness and bigotry, or political incorrectness and vulgarity. I have this problem with Trump, and I have this same problem with the alt right that simplistically embraces Trump because they mesh being a jackass with being politically incorrect. They’re not the same thing. It is politically incorrect to point out that black Americans commit a wildly disproportionate share of crime, or that Jews comprise an outsized percentage of successful media moguls, doctors, and lawyers. It is also politically incorrect to point out that cultural stereotypes are sometimes rooted in reality — Milo’s right about that. It is racist, however, to tweet the word “n*****” at a black person, and it is anti-Semitic to tweet a meme of a stereotypical hook-nosed Jew controlling the world or greedily collecting shekels. There is a difference between the two.

And it actually does the cause of political incorrectness a grave disservice to merge the two. It makes it easy to dismiss solid information and data by writing it all off as the work of bigots. The alt right isn’t tearing down taboos regarding language, if that’s really what they think they’re doing. All they’re doing is re-enshrining in the American mind a basic falsehood about the right itself: that we are bigots who use selective data-picking to back our political viewpoints. The self-aggrandizing belief that trolling Microsoft Artificial Intelligence bots on Twitter into tweeting about the wonders of Hitler somehow strikes a blow for free speech is sheer fantasy. It’s teenage puerility. It’s damn dumb.

There’s another problem, too: the alt right gives cover to actual anti-Semites and racists. I’m glad to grant Milo’s premise that there’s hardly any racism, sexism, homophobia and anti-Semitism in America. I believe that. But when I can’t tell the difference between a David Duke tweet and a tweet from Milo’s biggest fans, that’s not my fault – that’s the fault of the person tweeting like David Duke. When I can’t tell the difference between a trolling tweet and a death threat, perhaps the author ought to be clearer in his verbiage.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Ben Shapiro: Responding To The Alt Right: Are They Bigots, Or Just Stupid Children?

Benjamin Franklin On Race

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ben Franklin wrote: “All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.”

Posted in Race | Comments Off on Benjamin Franklin On Race

The Alexander Technique In Movement

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

12931063_1054703601240137_2666129970313772595_n

Posted in Alexander Technique | Comments Off on The Alexander Technique In Movement

Three Stages Of Jihad

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ce5ZgDjXEAAR65X

What we’re fighting for:

CeBuhM5XEAAtDqV

Whites are already a minority on earth:

Ce5SdKaW4AA9i2J

Ce5STkeW8AAQ0ZV

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on Three Stages Of Jihad

Whom The Gods Want To Destroy

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

Martin Van Creveld writes: The killing last week by an Israeli soldier of a wounded Palestinian terrorist who was lying helplessly on his back has sent the country into a turmoil. No sooner was the picture published on the Net then the Israeli media mounted a wave of protest. Taking up from there, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Minister of Defense Yeelon, and chief of staff Eisenkot quickly denounced the deed and promised that the soldier in question would be put on trial and punished. This was followed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attorney general’s announcement that the charge would be murder.

Israelis like to think that theirs is “the most moral army in the world.” Consequently there was much palaver about the IDF’s “ethos,” its “values,” and so on. But not everyone agreed that the killer was in fact being treated as he deserved to be. Not only did his family and friends stand by him, but images of him, in handcuffs, led to an equally strong wave of protest in his support accompanied by rioting. That caused Netanyahu, a weathervane if ever one there was, to soften his original stance on the case pending a court investigation. Not content with that, right-wing politicians, smelling blood, entered the fray. They lionized the soldier and accused the chief of staff of failing to back his troops. One notorious extreme right-wing activist, Itamar Ben Gvir, demanded that the police investigate Be-Tzelem, the humanitarian organization responsible for taking the image and spreading it. One rabbi has even suggested that, for having the soldier tried, the chief of staff himself should be put on trial.

In his defense, the soldier claimed that the terrorist was moving and that he was afraid that he, the terrorist, might be carrying an explosive belt on his body. This was denied by the man’s commanders and made doubtful by the fact that the terrorist, who had been lying there for no fewer than six minutes before he was killed, had been examined and found unarmed. As always happens in such situations, charges and countercharges quickly multiplied until they congealed into a single opaque, stinking, tissue of truths and falsehoods. I do not know what the outcome is going to be. But I am prepared to bet that the soldier will not be punished as murderers in Israel usually are, i.e. with life in prison. Assuming he is punished at all, almost certainly he will get a pardon of some kind.

All this is still in the future. Meanwhile the fallout from the case is splitting Israeli society from top to bottom. Not to mention other soldiers’ justified fear that, should they be caught in a similar situation or commit a similar deed, their superiors, instead of backing them up, will wash their hands of them. To be sure, the State of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are not the world’s worst human rights offenders. Unfortunately, though, they are bad enough.

Sun Tzu, in the first chapter of his celebrated On War, says that victory will go to the side who keeps the favor of heaven—meaning, the moral advantage—by formulating rules of behavior and sticking to them. I agree. For those of you who have never read my best-known book, The Transformation of War, or who have forgotten its contents, here is what I wrote about this topic a quarter century ago:

“[Suppose a war] where one belligerent is much stronger than the other. Under such circumstances, the conduct of war can become problematic even as a matter of definition… Over the long run… fighting the weak demeans those who engage in it, and therefore undermines its own purpose. He who loses out to the weak loses; he who triumphs over the weak also loses. In such an enterprise there can be neither profit nor honor. Provided only the exercise is repeated often enough, as surely as night follows day the point will come when enterprise collapses… Since the very act of fighting the weak invites excess, in fact is excess, it obliges the strong to impose controls in the forms of laws, regulations, and rules of engagement… The net effect of such regulations is to demoralize the troops who are prevented from operating freely and using their initiative. They are contrary to sound command practice if they are observed and subversive of fighting discipline of they are not. Hence Clausewitz’s dictum, plainly observable in every low-intensity conflict fought since World War I, that regular troops combating a Volkskrieg are like robots to men.

A sword, plunged into salt water, will rust…A strong force made to confront the weak for any length of time will violate its own regulations and commit crimes, some inadvertent and others not. Forced to lie in order to conceal its crimes, it will find the system of military justice undermined, the process of command distorted, and a credibility gap opening up at its feet. In such a process there are neither heroes nor villains, but only victims: whom the gods want to destroy, they first strike blind.”

Mr. Netanyahu, are you listening? For God’s sake, GET OUT OF THE TERRITORIES!!!

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Whom The Gods Want To Destroy

Is Anti-Semitism Irrational?

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

I hate the term “anti-Semitism.” It tends to render the hatred of Jews as something mythical and unworldly. I prefer the term anti-Jewish. Just as many people have anti-white and anti-black and anti-Mexican and anti-Japanese sentiments, so too some people have anti-Jewish animus.

Different groups have different interests and they are often engaged in a brutal competition for scarce resources. An Arab or Muslim who does not have some negative feelings about Jews because of the existence of the Jewish state of Israel on land they regard as their own is an outlier.

I can’t think of many examples of a group seizing power without some other group being disadvantaged. That’s how the world works. When Jews move ahead, other groups by definition fall behind. Modern anti-Semitism is largely a reaction to the rise of the Jews.

My bias is that the world is explicable and people make choices in their own interest. I don’t like “irrational” as an answer to why people act as they do.

From the perspective of one sentence in the Talmud, the great hatred of the Jews arises from them getting the Torah from God at Mount Sinai.

All of these responses seem to find anti-Semitism irrational.

JoshuaPundit : Why antisemitism? It survives and will continue to survive because like any other psychosis or fantasy, it provides what appear to be certain necessary benefits, at least in the short run.

For starters, it’s a convenient excuse and rationalization of one’s own miserable circumstances. And a convenient excuse for theft.

After the Roman Diaspora in 70 CE, Jews became an educated, prosperous and powerless minority in both the Muslim and Christian worlds, which made them a convenient target both as a scapegoat and for plunder.

The pattern was repeated over and over; Jews are invited to settle, and improve the local economy with their skills as merchants, artisans and skilled professionals like doctors and architects. In the latter stages, some of them become intermediaries used by the local aristocracy to lend out their capital and as sources of loans for themselves. And when the time is right, you simply rile up the peasants or the fellahin to stage a pogrom..after which the Jews are either murdered or expelled, their wealth and property are confiscated and all loans outstanding get canceled to the rejoicing of all.

Aside from the obvious financial benefits, it also works well for the local clergy as a lesson to the faithful as to what can happen to ‘non believers.’

And a few years later, when the economy tanks again, you simply invite the Jews back, since they always need somewhere to live. And then you can simply repeat the cycle.

Nowadays, the pattern remains similar, although it’s been expanded somewhat by the advent of Israel. The Muslims did their very best to destroy Israel in1948 and even with modern weaponry and British officers lending a helping hand to jihad and genocide against the sparsely armed and outnumbered Jews, they failed.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Is Anti-Semitism Irrational?

Politico/Religious Madness

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

Rob emails: Dear Mr. Ford,

Let us assume that there is a modicum of historical accuracy in the Authorized Biographies (a.k.a. “Gospels,” both Canonical and not) of Y’shua bar Joseph ha Nazir. To this “Pagan,” he comes across as delusional. At his time, “sons of G-d” were a dime the dozen in the eastern Mediterranean/western Asia.

According to those “Gospels,” he irritated the Powers That Be in the Jewish community sufficient that they denounced him to the Roman occupation authority. Examining him, Pontius Pilate is recorded to have said, “I find no guilt in this man.” None the less, Pilate allowed him to be executed, as the local Jewish P.T.B. demanded.

With respect, I none the less assert that that was a world-historical error: This made a martyr out of him. Do not you Jewish folk know the power of martyrdom?

In my humble opinion, what should have been done with Y’shua bar Joseph is to invoke Din Meshugga upon him. He is a rabble-rouser, trouble-maker, an all-around pain in the tuchus; but instead of crucifying him, remand him to Beth Meshugga. Whenever he is thirsty, give him cannabis tea; and be sure to cook plenty of the right kind of (hallucinogenic) mushrooms in his food. In short order, symptoms will present themselves more and more blatantly, and the cult-let of his followers will dissipate in disillusion.

I am someone to whom Christianity never made sense. On the other hand, what I have read of your People over the last fifty-six years, shows a core of straight-line sense, covered by your share of any tribal People’s non-canonical mythology, interspersed with suggestions for group survival among other Peoples. Indeed, I personally regard the Jewish People as the Gods’ heuristic example, a.k.a “classroom demonstration model,” of group survival: Other ethnies have been, metaphorically, “tested in the crucible;” with your People, that metaphoric crucible broke, and your People were tested in the fire. It behooves anyone concerned with the survival, and continuity into the future, to learn everything admissible of intellectual apprehension, about your People, in order to discover your success formula, thereafter to appropriate what parts thereof can be tweaked for application to one’s own People.

Having seriously enjoyed your blog since I first discovered it, I urge you, please, keep up the good work.

Posted in Jews, Nationalism | Comments Off on Politico/Religious Madness

The 1488 Crowd

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Breitbart: Anything associated as closely with racism and bigotry as the alternative right will inevitably attract real racists and bigots. Calmer members of the alternative right refer darkly to these people as the “1488ers,” and for all their talk of there being “no enemies to the right,” it’s clear from the many conversations we’ve had with alt-righters that many would rather the 1488ers didn’t exist.

These are the people that the alt-right’s opponents wish constituted the entire movement. They’re less concerned with the welfare of their own tribe than their fantasies of destroying others. 1488ers would likely denounce this article as the product of a degenerate homosexual and an ethnic mongrel.

Why “1488”? It’s a reference to two well-known Neo Nazi slogans, the first being the so-called 14 Words: “We Must Secure The Existence Of Our People And A Future For White Children.” The second part of the number, 88, is a reference to the 8th letter of the alphabet – H. Thus, “88” becomes “HH” which becomes “Heil Hitler.”

Not very edifying stuff. But if you want to use the 1488ers to tarnish the entire alt-right, you need to do the same with Islamist killers and Islam and third-wave feminist wackos with the entire history and purpose of feminism. Which you might well be fine with — but let’s be consistent.

Alt-right vlogger Paul “RamZPaul” Ramsey describes them as “LARPers” or Live-Action Role Players: a disparaging comparison to nerdy nostalgists who dress up as medieval warriors. Paul even goes as far as to suggest some in this “toxic mix of kooks and ex-cons” may be there solely to discredit the more reasonable white identitarians.

Every ideology has them. Humourless ideologues who have no lives beyond their political crusade, and live for the destruction of the great. They can be found on Stormfront and other sites, not just joking about the race war, but eagerly planning it. They are known as “Stormfags” by the rest of the internet.

Based on our research we believe this stands in stark contrast with the rest of the alt-right, who focus more on building communities and lifestyles based around their values than plotting violent revolution.

1488ers are the equivalent of the Black Lives Matter supporters who call for the deaths of policemen, or feminists who unironically want to #KillAllMen. Of course, the difference is that while the media pretend the latter are either non-existent, or a tiny extremist minority, they consider 1488ers to constitute the whole of the alt-right.

Those looking for Nazis under the bed can rest assured that they do exist. On the other hand, there’s just not very many of them, no-one really likes them, and they’re unlikely to achieve anything significant in the alt-right.

What little remains of old-school white supremacy and the KKK in America constitutes a tiny, irrelevant contingent with no purchase on public life and no support even from what the media would call the “far-Right.” (Admittedly, these days that includes anyone who votes Republican.)

THE ESTABLISHMENT’S FRANKENSTEIN

Not all alt-righters will agree with our taxonomy of the movement. Hacker and white nationalist Andrew Auernheimer, better known as weev, responded in typically jaw-dropping fashion to our enquiries: “The tireless attempts of you Jews to smear us decent Nazis is shameful.”

Delving into the depths of the alternative right, it quickly becomes apparent that the movement is best defined by what it stands against rather than what it stands for. There are a myriad of disagreements between its supporters over what they should build, but virtual unity over what they should destroy.

For decades – since the 1960s, in fact – the media and political establishment have held a consensus over what’s acceptable and unacceptable to discuss in polite society. The politics of identity, when it comes from women, LGBT people, blacks and other non-white, non-straight, non-male demographics is seen as acceptable — even when it descends into outright hatred.

Any discussion of white identity, or white interests, is seen as a heretical offence. It’s a fact observed as early as 2008 by Yarvin:

Ethnic pride is one thing. Hostility is another. But – as progressives often observe – they tend to travel together. It strikes me as quite incontrovertible that if an alien anthropologist were to visit Earth and collate expressions of hostility toward human subpopulations in Western culture today, the overwhelming majority would be anti-European. Anti-Europeanism is widely taught in schools and universities today. Its converse most certainly is not.

So here is my challenge for progressives, multiculturalists, “dynamists,” and the like: if your antiracism is what it claims to be, if it is no more than Voltaire 3.0, why do non-European ethnocentrism and anti-European hostility not seem to bother you in the slightest? Do they maybe even strike you as, um, slightly cool?

The current consensus offers, at best, mild condemnation of identity politics on the Left, and zero tolerance for identity politics on the right. Even for us – a gay man of Jewish descent and a mixed-ethnic half-Pakistani – the dangers of writing on this topic loom large. Though we do not identify with the alt-right, even writing an article about them is akin to prancing through a minefield.

The pressure to self-censor must be almost overwhelming for straight white men — and, for most of them, it appears to be, which explains why so much of the alt-right operates anonymously.

While movements like third-wave feminism and Black Lives Matter often draw criticism from conservatives and libertarians, advocacy on behalf of those causes is not a career-ending offence. Quite the reverse. It’s possible to build successful and lucrative careers off the back of those movements. Just look at Al Sharpton, Anita Sarkeesian and Deray Mckesson.

Posted in Nationalism, Nazi | Comments Off on The 1488 Crowd

The Intellectual Case For Trump

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

Mytheos Holt writes: I’m no white nationalist (in fact, being Jewish, I’m pretty sure I’m disqualified), and I regard the ideology with just as much disgust as I do every other form of radical identity politics. That being said, I do have a fairly unique ability to answer this question, and with apologies to Lloyd Bentsen, it can be summed up this way: I know white nationalism. A white nationalist was a friend of mine. Trump is no white nationalist.

If he’s president, there might well be fewer of them. Why? Well, if you’ll indulge me in just a little more autobiographical navel-gazing, you’ll find out.

I once met a young woman whom I will call Sylvia, after her favorite poet, Sylvia Plath. At the time, Sylvia had been raised as a member of an infamous white nationalist organization. And I do mean “infamous.” These weren’t the comparatively well-mannered sorts that attend conferences led by Richard Spencer. These were the sorts of people who probably get raided by the FBI.

Where I met her was probably the last place you might expect to find white nationalists, closeted or otherwise. Now since I am, as already established, Jewish, this obviously made me initially regard the girl with something less than charity. I was almost afraid to speak to her.

That is, until I actually did speak to her, in the company of another friend, who had made it his personal mission to deconvert her from her ideology, a task with which I agreed to help, mostly out of morbid intellectual curiosity. When we first spoke to her, Sylvia was fairly careful with her words, and obviously seemed to realize she wasn’t among company who’d take kindly to open admiration of Adolf Hitler. She was, however, more than happy to enthuse about Pat Buchanan, VDare, and restricting immigration.

Now, at the time, I was fresh off having argued for the Gang of Eight bill until I was proverbially blue in the face, so when Sylvia started talking about immigration, I obviously pounced on this as a first opportunity to break down her worldview. I’m fairly certain that all I managed to do was scare her, though she did actually put up a far better fight than any white nationalist has a right to, probably because, despite her sheltered upbringing, she was off-the-charts brilliant. This instantly registered with me, and was later confirmed when she later revealed she’d learned a new language in only two weeks.

Over the coming weeks, I continued to send out feelers and message and speak with her online, keeping my ethnic heritage a secret at first so I could probe her ideology without sending up alarm bells. After a while, she got used to me, and we bonded over our mutual love of H.P. Lovecraft and dark internet humor. As a result, she began to open up about her more risqué beliefs. So, this time with more gentle prodding, I started to make her doubt what she’d been taught.

Of course, at some point I had to reveal that I am a Jew. Needless to say, this shocked her, not least of all because apparently her people train their children to recognize Jewish heritage in someone’s features, yet I had registered as pure Aryan. The realization that “they can look like us,” to use her words, set off something of a minor existential crisis for her, but I’m pleased to report that she got over it, and that my ethnic revelation actually made her open up more to me rather than less.

When Two Worlds Collide

That’s because what shocked her even more than my Jewishness was that I’d known she was a white nationalist and still willingly engaged with her like a human being and an equal. From someone who belonged to a group that she’d assumed held nothing but contempt and malice for people like her, this was the last thing she expected. The feeling was mutual on my end.

After that revelation, gently poking holes in her worldview was out of the question, as I’d just metaphorically sent a cannonball straight through its foundation. What happened instead was that, with the scales lifted from both our eyes about the other’s decency and humanity, we started dissecting the other’s culture as it actually existed rather than how we’d been taught to believe it did. To make a very long story short, she came away understanding that my people weren’t intentionally hurting her people, and I came away with an appreciation for how much, and how unfairly, her people really were hurting.

I say “unfairly” for multiple reasons: firstly, because people as brilliant as Sylvia is do not deserve to be written off as incurable white trash. Giving everybody the opportunity to succeed means everybody, even people who were raised in ways we find troubling. One doesn’t have to be willing to offer blanket pardons to the Aryan Brotherhood to see that someone who was merely raised with bad ideas is not necessarily a lost cause, no matter how repellent those ideas are. In fact, lifting people like Sylvia out of circumstances where they think white nationalism is the only solution seems like Americanism at its finest, not a betrayal of the idea.

The other reason I say the pain experienced by Sylvia’s community is unfair is because when you strip away the swastikas, imitation Hugo Boss uniforms, and Klan hoods, there are things that even rabid, clannish white nationalist society does better than our own. Ironically, given their loathing of other cultures, the biggest one is bilingual education.

One of the odder things I learned was that Sylvia and every other child in her community had to learn to speak German and English, and achieved total fluency in both by their teens. I’m from California, and our own education system wishes it were that good. We don’t have to excuse, or even tolerate, the massive amounts of bad behavior such people engage in to learn from the few decent things they do. After all, just because Mussolini made the trains run on time doesn’t mean punctuality in public transit is itself bad, no matter how hard the DC Metro system pretends.

Ultimately, the biggest reason the pain that drove Sylvia’s family and so many like them into the arms of white nationalism is unfair is a pain that I, as a Jew, can empathize with. After all, once many Jews turned to communism as a way of trying to get political rights they didn’t think they could get any other way, and as a way of lashing out at a society that unfairly disdained them and their culture.

Even though this ideological shift made many people hate Jews more, at least the communists were trying to do something. Only that kind of desperation can make a radical ideology like white nationalism attractive.

Nationalism Is Backlash to Hatred of Western Culture
This brings me to the first and, arguably, the most important lesson that Sylvia taught me about what drives people into the arms of white nationalism: that urge comes not from economic dispossession, nor spiritual dispossession, but cultural dispossession.

No, I don’t mean the sort of “where has my country gone” ignorance that I and my fellow coastal cosmopolitans like to mock over cocktails. I mean the sorts of people who are attracted to white nationalism are people whose own communities have been hollowed out by economic and cultural forces beyond their control, and who are now adrift in a society they perceive to be universally hostile to their heritage for no good reason.

That heritage, as white nationalists in America see it, is the heritage of Western civilization. If you wonder what that means (which is reasonable), let me spell it out: It means historically Western European cultural norms. Specifically, norms like respect for agents of the law, aspirational pride in work, willingness to accept the consequences of one’s actions, disdain for laziness and welfarism, and reproductive responsibility (i.e., not having children you can’t afford to keep).

They respect these norms not merely because these are what their own communities follow, but also because they think these norms make constitutional government, liberty, and classical republicanism possible. If you have to pick between the two, defend the norms every day, since temporary cessations of liberty will naturally recover if they’re still in place, whereas the institutions without the norms will become meaningless: the Constitution will become a pointless scrap of paper to which people pay only lip service, and constitutional government will become bureaucracy hiding behind the fig leaf of a separation of powers.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on The Intellectual Case For Trump

The Trump Doctrine: Peace Through Strength

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

Professor Peter Navarro writes: Those who insist Donald Trump has no foreign policy are simply not listening. The “Trump Doctrine” is a page right out of Ronald Reagan’s playbook: peace through economic and military strength.

Trump knows the key to keeping America safe in an increasingly dangerous world is to “make America great again” through economic renewal. America must have the fiscal firepower to end Pentagon’s budget sequestration in order to fund the military the U.S. needs for adequate defense. Cutting the corporate tax rate and cracking down on unfair trade practices to increase America’s GDP growth rate are just as demonstrative of national might as the F-35…

Trump recognizes Vladimir Putin for the clever, ruthless, charismatic leader that he is. Putin has run strategic circles around both America and its NATO allies when it comes to Russia’s military intervention in Crimea, Ukraine, Syria, and former Socialist Republics like Georgia and Latvia.

Putin recognizes Trump as a strong and fearless leader who will draw clear red lines in Europe and the Middle East that Putin dare not cross. This is a far better and safer situation for America than a status quo Russia policy that leads from behind and inspires far more contempt from Putin than respect…

In laying out his Trump Doctrine, Trump has assiduously avoided surrounding himself with a large circle of advisors. He has done so because he has “off the record” access to a broad distributed network of experts around the world—as well as an inner circle that stays out of the limelight. From his own detailed foreign policy research over many years—required due diligence to conduct business globally—Trump has developed a strong aversion to the kind of “nation building” that dragged America into wasted and protracted wars in God-forsaken killing fields like Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, Trump has promised the American people – he will not be shedding the blood of any American soldier either in vain or under the vanity banner of American Exceptionalism. This is how Trump is in tune with the American public that is both tired of war and ready for the new era of prosperity that will usher in peace founded on true American power.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on The Trump Doctrine: Peace Through Strength