Comments at Steve Sailer:
* Trump fills his cabinet with Goldman Sachs execs, and idiots still say he’ll be unfavorable to Jewish tribalist causes.
* “In general, people who have led oil companies are not that friendly to Israel,” Klein said. “That concerns me.”
In general Muslim immigrants are not friendly to Jews and Israel, but that hasn’t stopped most Jews from supporting massive Muslim immigration into North America and Europe.
* I’ve got a postage stamp here and a pencil and I’m going to make the definitive list of everything that does not spook jewish groups.
* News flash for Messrs. Halber, Klein, et al.:
The US Secretary of State serve the US, not Israel. Israel has its own government for that.
That’s what different governments are for.
* It’s almost as if Trump is selecting people who he thinks are competent and will do a good job. The benefits of running a tight campaign and not owing a thousand favors tends to scare those the most connected. What country is more connected politically in the U.S. than Isreal?
* One Jewish guy who isn’t spooked.
[David] Horowitz isn’t Alt Right (in no shape or form), but if anyone on the ‘right’ foreshadowed something like the Alt Right, it was Horowitz.
While Alt Right pays homage to Gottfried and Rothbard, neither was the kind of dogged fighter that Horowitz was.
Neocons sought respectability and establishment position. Horowitz, though allied with Neocons on the Israel issue, was far more committed to combating the ‘left’. And he always regarded the ‘left’ as the bigger enemy of the Jews. He knew about the ‘left’ because he’d been part of the 60s Left that made the ‘long march through the institutions’ and became the GLOB. In a way, the GLOB was more dangerous. While 60s radicals had crazy ideas and were delusional, they were driven by some real ideals. But over time, they became cynical, and it was all about the Power. Hillary and those around her were prime examples of this.
Neocons were just happy to gain control of GOP, push Zionist agenda, and even work with Libs and the ‘left’ to suppress White-conscious Conservatism.
Though Horowitz, as Zionist, cannot be a fan of white-centric Alt Right, he is a firm believer that the biggest enemy of the West is the Left and Glob. In this, he was more principled than the Neocons and Cucks who were mainly for position and status.
* There was a National Review gathering in the early 90s when a bunch of respectable luminaries gave nice-sounding speeches. Horowitz then appeared on stage and warned them that they don’t have what it takes to take on the Enemy that is far more dogged, cynical, driven, radical, and ruthless. And given what happened in coming yrs, Horowitz was right.
Where he was wrong was the failure to see that this danger came not only from the ‘left’ but from Neocons who got overly power-hungry and corrupt. Horowitz’s Zionism made him overlook the excesses of the Neocons and Bush II. Still, his attack on NeverTrump Neocons in 2016 indicates his disenchantment with them. Horowitz saw them as careerists than good soldiers.
Now, Horowitz’s reason for supporting Trump is very different from that of Alt Right, but both sides seems to understand that a new vanguard is necessary to move away from old staid and defunct paradigms of power. These are radical times.
Also, Neocons grew out of Trotskyism prior to the 60s. Its heyday was when leftist radicalism was still adult and ‘conservative’ and mature in style. The ideas were radical but the personal style was still respectable, restrained, and even ‘bourgeois’. After all, even Trotsky himself didn’t have a tattoo on his ass or indulge in homomania.
So, former Trotskyites didn’t really get what the 60s were about. They just took flight from the crazy left of the 60s and found a new home in the GOP as the Democrats seemed to cave too much to black demands. (As immigration and globalism made the Democrats increasing the Diversity party and Free Trade party and LESS the black party and white ‘dumb Polack’ labor party, some neocons began to move back. But then, BLM & BDS prolly triggered a good number of Jews even if they mostly stuck with Hillary. If Hillary’s loss leads to Democratic Party being taken over by blacks and anti-Zionist POC, it could spell exodus of Jews.)
In contrast, Horowitz was in the very thick of 60s radicalism that was far more nihilistic, narcissistic, and decadent that ‘leftism’ of an earlier time. Those elements of excesses of 60s culture meant that future politics could be more no-holds-barred, reckless, and insane.
If Neocons didn’t get 60s radicalism and just ran from it, Horowitz was at its center and saw everything. So, he knows the mind-set of the Left. Now, he must know that the hardcore 60s leftist types didn’t gain the most power. After all, it was the middle-of-roaders like Clintons and Obamas and Kerrys that gained power, not the Bill Ayers and Abbie Hoffman’s. But Horowitz is convinced that the entire Left spectrum since the 60s is infected with the same nihilistic spirit. Given the rise of homomania and reckless globalist open borders rhetoric, he may be right. GLOB went capitalist, but its spirit is totally nihilistic and destructive of order, the organic, and the meaningful. What the Right failed to understand is that this destructive spirit could also animate the capitalists. If there is anything that unites Wall Street goons like Jordan Belfort and commies like Bill Ayers, it’s their utter nihilism. Anything goes for the struggle, power, and wealth. No holds barred.
And we’ve seen that with the rise of Progs trained and brainwashed by boomer radical globs. And in a way, Trump is also part of this excessive politics of boomer era. Fewer inhibitions, wilder, more aggressive, shameless, blustering, and etc. But Trump victory suggests that some are waking to the fact that in the new order, fire must be met with fire.
