Economics

Tribalism and Economic Nationalism Are Cut from the Same Cloth

Antiglobalism and anticosmopolitanism might flow purely from economic ignorance, but it is hard to believe that's all it is for many people.

|

Pacific Press/Sipa USA/Newscom

I have no idea what goes on in Donald Trump's head, but I can imagine a connection between his refusal to renounce the support of alt-right white identitarians and his rejection of globalism—that is, the freedom of people to trade across national boundaries and to move, consistent with individual rights, as they see fit.

When Steve Bannon says he hopes the Democrats will talk about nothing but racism and let the White House get on with its program of "economic nationalism," he may be showing his clever side. Perhaps he sees the connection—and has a magician's sense of misdirection.

For the record, globalism and government intervention have no necessary relationship, whatever the rest of the political universe believes. The most eloquent promoters of unencumbered world trade were Richard Cobden and John Bright, the 19th-century "Little Englander" anti-imperialists and peace advocates. No one has an excuse for conflating free worldwide commerce—including the movement of workers, that is, immigration—with either empire or elitist rule through multinational bureaucracies birthed by politicians. As Cobden said,

They who propose to influence by force the traffic of the world, forget that affairs of trade, like matters of conscience, change their very nature if touched by the hand of violence; for as faith, if forced, would no longer be religion, but hypocrisy, so commerce becomes robbery if coerced by warlike armaments.

Anti-globalism and anti-cosmopolitanism might flow purely from economic ignorance, but it is hard to believe that's all it is for many people. Too often these attitudes suggest what Bryan Caplan calls "anti-foreign bias" combined with "antimarket bias."

Caplan defines antiforeign bias as "a tendency to underestimate the benefits of interacting with foreigners," and he defines antimarket bias as a tendency to "underrate the social benefits of markets." (His book The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies has the details about these and other relevant, common biases.)

Why would anyone underestimate the benefits of interacting with foreigners? It might be because they are, well, foreign. Combine this bias with an ignorance of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" (spontaneous order) and a suspicion that exchange is zero-sum rather than positive-sum, and you have the making of an economic nationalist. If you are already a committed economic nationalist, you will have an interest in spreading distrust of foreigners and markets to others in order to advance your program or be elected president of the United States. (Some apparent tribalists may "merely" be demagogues pandering to authentic tribalists.)

While I don't think one has to embrace racism or tribalism to be an economic nationalist, an affinity exists between the two dispositions: "I can't trust those people? Why would I want to trade with them?"

Moreover, the distrust of foreigners and markets could readily carry over to subgroups in the domestic population that seem foreign—that is, groups which don't quite seem to embrace the "nation's culture" with sufficient enthusiasm. Maybe some members of the suspect group have a primary language other than English, or practice a religion deemed weird, or don't trust the police.

In other words, someone who starts with a bias against foreigners and the social cooperation embodied in what we call markets is a prime candidate for bigotry toward domestic "foreigners" too. And that person might well see kindred spirits in groups that exhibit more-pronounced versions of those biases, even when their members have a taste for violence. After all, danger lurks, so who could blame people for being tempted to defend their values directly?

Since social and economic change is inevitable—some of it introduced by The Other—those biases could also incline a person to lament the loss of a treasured past and harbor resentment against those who appear to be responsible for that loss. That person might, for example, see "the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful [Confederate] statues and monuments." This could incline that person to be charitable toward groups trafficking in apocalyptic visions in which The Other threatens to destroy all that is held near and dear, "Western civilization" perhaps.

If Trump can believe that "the Chinese" are "raping" and "stealing" from us by offering attractive consumer bargains, he could certainly believe that there are people among us who don't really belong here and whose sheer presence jeopardizes our way of life. Maybe he's not sure what he can do about this, but he might deep down be glad that someone is trying to do something.

I suggest that blood-and-soil-ism and economic nationalism are cut from the same cloth. Those who comprehend their destructiveness should teach others that the way to prosperity, social tranquility, and global peace is the original liberalism of Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, Cobden, Bright, and their modern descendants.

This piece was originally published by The Libertarian Institute.

NEXT: Trump vs. the Business Community

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Globalism and cosmopolitanism both grow from the delusion that the world is a nice and fair place. Open trade may be to our advantage, though there appears,to be plenty of evidence to the contrary. OTOH plenty of trade barriers were in place in the 19th century during periods of strong National prosperity.

    If all countries were playing by the same rules (and with something approaching a full deck) I would be for free trade and open borders. That isn’t the case.as matters stand I am for cautiously open trade protocols and better immigration laws, fully enforced. I am also for making it absolutely clear that were Islamic customs like honor killing or forced marriage conflict with American law, American law will be enforced. This may be less of an issue than alarmist would have me believe, but the point should still be made.

    1. “If all countries were playing by the same rules …”

      This assumes the world is a nice and fair place. You said yourself this was delusional. Far better if your nation is the strongest, both militarily and economically if you can swing it. This was the case with the US until recently. Economically, it’s being overpowered by a communist dictatorship, and militarily, it’s been bogged down for 16 years fighting a militia composed of part-time goat herders. But the US was a different place in the last half of the last century and was in the perfect position to benefit from globalism.

      ” I am also for making it absolutely clear that were Islamic customs like honor killing or forced marriage conflict with American law, American law will be enforced. ” [sic]

      It’s not clear enough? How would you make it clearer?

      1. Did you read Thomas Friedman’s latest take on China? I think you would enjoy it. Makes me wish we would do more nation building right here at home.

        1. If by nation building, you mean cleansing America of the progressives, then absolutely yes.

          1. If by nation building, you mean cleansing America of the progressives, then absolutely yes.

            (vomit) Like your fellow self-righteous savages in Charlotteville?
            They had no shame either.

            1. That’s no way to talk about your antifa brothers.
              They may decide to stop you from exercising your Constitutional rights.

      2. “It’s not clear enough? How would you make it clearer?”

        If, Gods forbid, I was running things I would hold several messy public executions, ASAP. Starting with the idiots responsible for the recent Female Genital Mutilation case.

        1. Bring back crucifixions. It worked so well deterring those Christians.

    2. Good points and often ignored.

      The reason America tends to be good for business and individual rights is because we generally play by the same rules and most Americans value those rules being followed.

      Outside the USA there is mass corruption, life is cheap, and there are thousands of rules that are simply ignored or enforced in skewed manners.

      These are the types of socialist stereotypes that the USA has to trade with.

      1. “The reason America tends to be good for business and individual rights is because we generally play by the same rules and most Americans value those rules being followed.”

        There are laws which prohibit Americans from doing business with others in countries like Iran, Russia and North Korea.

        1. Correct. Obama banned me from purchasing Russian made AK-47s. Thank you (former) dear leader.

  2. I believe that economies exist and I believe nations exist. If that means I am a Economic Nation then so be it.

  3. “I suggest that blood-and-soil-ism and economic nationalism are cut from the same cloth….”

    So: Don’t like NAFTA = Nazi.

    Did they serve premium gin at Ms. Pelosi’s get-together last night?

    1. Yes. Fleischmanns in the 1.75 liter bottle.

    2. By the looks of her she drinks formaldehyde, not alcohol.

      1. Well, as she is in the process of becoming a lich, multiple daily doses of formaldehyde are required. As are the consumption of the souls of children during black magic ceremonies.

    3. So: Don’t like NAFTA = Nazi.

      Umm, Sparky, blood and soil is Nazi, either way on NAFTA.
      Anything else?

      Did they serve premium gin at Ms. Pelosi’s get-together last night?

      Did you get your meds at the asylum today?

    4. So: Don’t like NAFTA = Nazi.

      Blood ans soil is nazi, either way on Nafta.

      Did they serve premium gin at Ms. Pelosi’s get-together last night?

      Did they serve Diet Pepsi at Charlottesvile last week?

  4. “…but I can imagine a connection between his refusal to renounce the support of alt-right white identitarians and his rejection of globalism”
    I wish presidents would say less about nonsense like this and but into every protest, shooting, or whatever. Obama was constantly babbling about gun control after shootings and more racial tension where there was none.

    Its TDS all the way down at Reason staff HQ.

    1. and more racial tension where there was none

      The white supremacists in Charlottesville were despicable, But they were man enough to stand up publicly for their values.

      Unlike the supremacists in Reason’s commentariat .,.. who are PC pussies on what they are.

    2. I wish presidents would say less about nonsense like this and but into every protest, shooting, or whatever. Obama was constantly babbling about gun control after shootings and more racial tension where there was none.

      Two dumbfucks, one from each party.

  5. Is everyone required to write something about Confederate memorials now?

    At least Richman isn’t overtly calling for censorship and desecration like nearly every other contributor.

    1. des?e?crate
      ?des??kr?t/
      verb
      verb: desecrate; 3rd person present: desecrates; past tense: desecrated; past participle: desecrated; gerund or present participle: desecrating

      treat (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect; violate.

      So you’re not just interested in “preserving history” or the various euphemisms you’ve employed to defend the pro-slavery statues. You actually consider them sacred.

      1. That is the common understood term for the vandalization, defacement and destruction of grave sites and memorials to the dead

      2. the pro-slavery statues

        Please name one “pro-slavery” statue

        Confederate memorials are no more ‘pro slavery’ than any other war memorial is “pro-war”

        1. Confederate memorials are no more ‘pro slavery’ than any other war memorial is “pro-war”

          Is that why the vast majority of them were built during Jim Crow? Not pro-slavery, but pro white supremacy. That charge was made today by the son of Stormfront’s founder and godson of David Duke — while defending the roots of the white nationalism we were founded upon.

          And the disgust expressed by those fucking progtards, Ben Sasse and Jeff Flake (among so many other conservatives)

          1. I’m just plain tired of everyone being so obsessed with race. Somehow I’ve managed to give a shit about anyone’s skin color, or who they like to fuck. I’m not sure where anyone gets the free time to worry about things like that. It certainly isn’t a discernible line item on my priorities list.

            This obsession the left and others have with identity politics is just sad.

            1. I’m just plain tired of everyone being so obsessed with race.

              Except on the right. (lol)

              This obsession the left and others have with identity politics is just sad.

              Your defense of nazis, tacists, violent aggression, mayhem and murder is shameful. With a tinge of self-righteous blowhard.

            2. Maybe if you had been denied a job, or promotion, for which you were qualified, because they had to give it to a less-qualified person, because of each one’s race, with active government support, so that you had no recourse, you would feel differently.

              1. Maybe if you had been denied a job, or promotion, for which you were qualified, because they had to give it to a less-qualified person, because of each one’s race, with active government support, so that you had no recourse, you would feel differently

                Read the thread,
                Discover the topic,
                Realize your self-righteous babbling has nothing to do with the conversation.
                Then remove the pie meringue that you jammed in your puss.

                Don’t be confused. Your point(?) seems to come from a valid premise, but misapplied,
                As you stalk me down the page, making a bigger ass of yourself at each step.

          1. Most counties in Mississippi have Confederate monuments outside or near their courthouses. In Brooksville in Noxubee County, a Confederate soldier stands along the railroad tracks that separate the white part of town from the black, almost as if to guard against integration*. I’ve since reported numerous stories about injustices in the South, many of which involved racial bias, and in nearly every instance, the criminal-justice system that adjudicated those cases did so in courtrooms or police departments or district attorney’s offices or city halls that stand in the shadow of taxpayer-funded monuments celebrating the fight to keep black people as slaves**.

            Perhaps we’re too accustomed to it to notice the absurdity, but it is unquestionably absurd: Each day, thousands of black, shackled defendants appear before judges in courthouses guarded by memorials to a cause that believed those defendants’ ancestors were little more than livestock. The symbolism is inescapable. If a totalitarian country were to try members of an oppressed minority in a courtroom flanked by monuments to those who did the oppressing, we’d rightly call them show trials. Yet we’ve been doing exactly this in wide swaths of the South for more than a century.

              1. This is the bat-shit craziest of his lengthy hate screed. We’ve always known that SIV is a raving psycho. Now he adds white supremacist and illiterate. And actually more stupid than imagined — spewing so blatant a lie directly under his own proof that he’s full of shit! But a heroic martyr to the sacred cause, white supremacy.

                The Charlottesville alt-rights at least had the courage to stand and defend their values.
                Unlike their PC pussies trolling here.

                1. Well, if anyone knows bat-shit crazy, it would be you.

                  1. Are YOU defending SIV’s shameful lies about Balko?
                    If so, how can you support aggression on a libertarian site?
                    Or anywhere?

                    (Boldface in response to aggression)

                    1. You support the aggression of antifa, while trying to falsely deny that they do what they do to deny others their Constitutional rights and promote anarchy, as they did in Charlottesville.

                    2. You support the aggression of antifa, while trying to falsely deny that they do what they do to deny others their Constitutional rights and promote anarchy, as they did in Charlottesville

                      My stalker is a crazy, brainwashed nazi misfuck.
                      See this videoof the actual assault and the moments leading up to it.

                      1) NO charging or ball bats by the “alt-left.” Just peaceful protesters. STANDING
                      2) The fascists charge into the crowd, wielding clubs. They CAME for violence, with shields like cops in riot gear.

                      THIS video (smirk) exposes the EQUALLY PSYCHO LIE that the car killed and maimed AFTER it was attacked with a “lead pipe.” THIS video, as you’ll see is THE training video for the fuckers.

                      Yes, the car is hit BEFORE it crashes into the people … ABOUT TWO SECONDS BEFORE! (OMG)

                      The car is racing towards a street filled with people. Someone takes a swipe as the car races by. in seeming desperation, with A FLAG pole. The closeup shows … PEOPLE ALREADY RUNNING IN FEAR!

                      This PROVES is how STUPID are retiredfire and his fellow Nazis See the video. Would any SANE person believe the narrative? Would onku an asswipe swallow the lie that hitting the people AFTER the care was struck (by 2 seconds) means THE DRIVER IS THE VICTIM??

                      My snark and boldface IN DEFENSE OF AGGRESSION by a bullying neo-Nazi scum.

                2. And unlike your antifa brothers, who wear masks and black clothing so that they can’t be identified and held accountable for their brutal efforts to deny people their Constitutional rights.

                  1. And unlike your antifa brothers, who wear masks and black clothing so that they can’t be identified and held accountable for their brutal efforts to deny people their Constitutional rights.

                    (sneer) Stalker’s PATHETIC bullshit is PROVEN a lie directly above

                    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6939737

                    YES, NAZIS ARE THAT SICK A FUCKS

          2. Radley Balko

            That;s a psycopathic fuckign liie, but it’s SIV.
            No surprise he’s also a white supremacist.

            1. What do they call it when the government removes “offensive” speech, expression, works of art etc?

              Oh yeah, CENSORSHIP

              Reason, Balko, Popehat, libertarians and civil libertarians of all stripes want the government to CENSOR sculptures of historical figures and veterans memorials.

              It seems like I’m the only one who remembers,that to liberals and libertarians at least, government censorship used to be a bad thing.

              1. Why is it censorship to move the statue of the losing general of a war off the courthouse lawn and into a museum or civil war memorial where it belongs? It’s absolutely true that most of these these monuments were built during times of Jim Crow revival and as a reaction to decisions made affirming civil rights. They were meant to be signals of white supremacy. Look at the timelines of when these were built.

                1. Look at the timelines of when these were built.

                  That huge spike at exactly 50 and 100 years after the war? Now what besides WHITE SUPREMACY could ‘splain that curious timing?

                2. Statues of generals are “generally” only found on the courthouse square of towns they were born in, grew up in, or have some other association with (like winning or losing in). The usual courthouse statue is of a generic enlisted man or a non-figurative monument memorializing ALL the residents of the county who died or served in the war.

              2. What do they call it when the government removes “offensive” speech, expression, works of art etc?

                (sneer)Bend over, This will go in with less pain

                What do they call it when a raging, our-of-control psychopath CHANGES THE SUBJECT after his ORIGINAL bullshit was jammed up his ass ,… and twisted?

                It’s called SIV being SIV.

                YOUR FELLOW SUPREMACISTS AT LEAST WERE MAN ENOUGH TO DEFEND THEIR VALUES. Not like SIV, too much a SNIVELING COWARD to say what he is – a PC pussy..

                WHO THINKS A STATUE IS SPEECH! (VOMIT)

                (the gubmint removed and replaced the sidewalk outside my apartment last year
                CENSORSHP! FASCISM! NAZIS! CENSORSHP! FASCISM! NAZIS! CENSORSHP! FASCISM! NAZIS! CENSORSHP! FASCISM! NAZIS! CENSORSHP! FASCISM! NAZIS! CENSORSHP! FASCISM! NAZIS! CENSORSHP! FASCISM! NAZIS! CENSORSHP! FASCISM! NAZIS! CENSORSHP! FASCISM! NAZIS! CENSORSHP! FASCISM! NAZIS!

      3. I remember back when libertarians acknowledged that the South’s fight wasn’t about slavery.

        1. Haven’t seen that in any of the years fro 1969 til now,

          1. It isn’t true.

            The North only fought to preserve the Union, but the South seceded to escape the abolitionists’ votes. It wasn’t about slavery for the North, but it was for the South.

  6. I”m having the usual mixed reactions to Richman; however, I do like that last paragraph.

    1. Until you recognize that by closing with “and their modern descendants” he’s actually referring to Adorno and Horkheimer more so than Smith and Bastiat.

      1. Of COURSE!

        Richman (distilled) “Smith, Batiat and their modern descendants.”

        ThomnasD by “by adding “modern descendants’ Richman negates his mention of Smith and Bastiat, and REALLY means two others I pulled out of my ass … because, we all know, there are NO modern descendants of Adam Smith OR Frederic Bastiat … and Hillary, Benghazi, email server … Obama, Muslim, Kenya … crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.

        (This is also a response to https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6938722 )

  7. I don’t believe that most economic protectionist are so because they’re racist. I think they just don’t understand basic economics which puts them in the same boat as most people including most politicians and media folks regardless of their end positions.

  8. I think if the media wants to ensure that Trump gets re-elected they should keep calling everyone that disagrees with them racist. You want to end the illegal immigration debate? Change the fucking immigration law. If the establishment doesn’t have the balls to do that then they should STFU.

  9. Those who comprehend their destructiveness should teach others that the way to prosperity, social tranquility, and global peace is the original liberalism of Adam Smith, Fr?d?ric Bastiat, Cobden, Bright, and their modern descendants.

    The GDP of Bangladesh is nearly 5 times that of Luxembourg. Where would you rather live? Which country would an economist say is better off?

    Maybe people are wising up that quality of life is more dependent on the economy serving the nation than the nation serving the economy.

    Tell the economists to fuck off.

    1. The GDP of Bangladesh is nearly 5 times that of Luxembourg

      GDP per cap =

      Luxembourg $102,000 2016 est.
      Bangladesh $3,900 2016 est.

      This cliff is closer to the ground than the City of Denver, therefore easier to ascend”

    2. Dick Puller —
      Look, GDP = (GDP / Population)*Population. So if you have a billion people earning $6,000 per year, you get a 6 trillion dollar economy. But if you have 300 million people earning $50,000 per year, you get a 15 trillion dollar economy. It is clear that most people want to live in the one with $50,000 per year, which is why immigration is a problem in the US but not in China or Bangladesh. No one outside of low rent journalists, and apparently lawyers, think that GDP is the key index, it is GDP per capita.
      — JB

      1. You also have to factor in the cost of living and a few other factors, but yes, that is definitely a key indicator.

    3. Capitalism has benefited the poor FAR more than any other economic system in history, and yet people like you would rather tear it down because of nonsense such as “quality of life”.

      1. “quality of life” in relation to someone doing better

        1. He/they has/have more than I do because RASSSSSISSS!

    4. Economists are just paid shills. Scientists are rolling in $$$. Global warming! Conspiracies!

      yawn

  10. the way to prosperity, social tranquility, and global peace is the original liberalism of Adam Smith, Fr?d?ric Bastiat, Cobden, Bright, and their modern descendants.

    Well that’s part of the problem. Their ‘modern descendants’ are often nothing of the sort. They merely invoke the quotable phrases of the aforementioned in order to claim high ground and stifle actual debate. While furthering specific agenda items that are absolutely contrary to (and warned about) by those very original writers in the less quotable and more complex parts of their writing/thinking.

    1. Well then they aren’t modern descendants, are they?.

      1. Sure, and German Nazism, descending from Italian fascism, descending from Marxism, is one of those ‘modern descendants.’

        1. Sure, and German Nazism, descending from Italian fascism, descending from Marxism, is one of those ‘modern descendants.’

          … of Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Cobden and Bright!

          (boldface to magnify the ridicule)

  11. Bannon had some very unusual beliefs and it’s kind of incredible that we had a guy in the WH who called the president’s son-in-law a globalist cuck. What a time to be alive

    But as libertarians I feel like we’re about to miss the guy very, very badly. The neocons have completely pushed out anyone in Trump’s cabinet who was skeptical of foreign intervention. Expect the surge in Afghanistan to move forward plus at least one other horrific interventionist decision that Bannon would have advised Trump against

    1. it’s kind of incredible that we had a guy in the WH who called the president’s son-in-law a globalist cuck

      Not really, since that expression doesn’t really mean anything except “i don’t like this guy’s ideas” in idiot-speak

    2. Also, “Hawks” are not the same as “Neocons”.

      The latter term denotes a very specific group of people (ex-democrat jewish intellectuals) with very specific foreign policy ideas which largely orbited around “using US military force unilaterally to seize the maximum possible strategic advantage in the wake of the cold war”; what that meant in practice was:

      1) a very israel-centric view of the middle east; contra the people who thought Iraq was ‘all about Oil’, the actual neocons (Pearle, Wolfey, Rumsfeld to a lesser extent) weren’t really all that fussed about it – they were more concerned with securing Israel’s flanks and eliminating its most likely near-term threat.*

      2) using force unilaterally and overwhelmingly in any and all conflict; they determined that in the wake ofthe cold war that no other combination of forces on earth presented a genuine conventional match to US power, so the US should basically say, “Fuck the UN security council” and do whatever the fuck it wanted. the rest of the world would consequently realize it was in their best interests to play nice.

      Even if the people trump has advising him now are more prone to military action than, say, Obama’s people (i don’t know if that’s true and would be skeptical), that would not make them “Neocon” in their approach to military engagement. Merely being hawkish doesn’t require the above 2 very-neocon-ish assumptions.

      1. *re: #1

        the Neocon view was actually quite different than the carter/reagan/bush I view of the ME which was mostly to be relatively hands-off and not take too-overt sides in the Israel/Pally conflict, and not get too tied up in any direct conflicts with various competing interests in the region (although that included being ‘passively’ supporting both israel and saudi arabia; it was not unbiased, it was just trying not to be overtly, actively involved in conflicts)

        The “carter doctrine” was mainly concerned with maintaining flow of trade in the persian gulf, keeping the straits of hormuz open, and preventing large scale war from breaking out and causing massive global economic dislocation.

        The neocons were basically like, “Fuck that; we should step in and forcefully make the place “more stable”, not passively sit around and wait for shit to happen then try and put out fires”.

        iow, whenever you’re talking about neocons, its not necessarily that they represent “interventionism” and others are “less interventionist”. Its more that Neocons tended to argue for massive, decisive action, while “non-neocons” tended to favor low-intensity warfare on the margins and using multilateral pressure + diplomacy to compel desired results.

        e.g. our current fuckery in Syria, for instance, is more Clintonian than “Neocon” in its approach.

      2. The military careerists Trump has surrounded himself with seem more anti-Iran or anti-Russian than Israeli-centric. I wouldn’t necessarily call them hawks or neo-cons.

      3. The basic core of the neocon foreign policy was that democracies don’t get into wars with other democracies. Thus if the US used force to promote democracy across the world (Middle East anyway), then ultimately the world would be a safer place as once every country there is a democracy, there would be no more war.

        However, events showed that people in the Middle East apparently don’t want a Democracy, as given the chance they will vote in Islamists

        1. The basic core of the neocon foreign policy was that democracies don’t get into wars with other democracies.

          That’s not entirely true. That’s the basis of expansionist Wilsonianism.

          Neocons overlap with classic-Wilsonians on a venn diagram in some areas (which makes sense, because Neocons were basically ‘progessive liberals with aggressive anti-communist foreign policy ideas’ in the first place)

          but they’re also very different in methods and purpose.

          Wilsonians believed that if you ‘create democracies’ around the world, the world will become more peaceful. Hence, you got the UN, the concept of Nation Building. Even if you don’t go to war with adversaries, you should use multilateral institutions to ‘convert’ them over time into democracies.

          Neocons were less interested in the ‘laboratories of democracy’ idea. despite rhetoric about ‘bringing democracy to the middle east’, that wasn’t their goal nor was it part of their fundamental thinking. If anything that was marketing used to sell pursuit of hegemony to a public that disliked unilateral action.

          basically, Neocons don’t care about “creating democracies” as much as “destroying enemies”. the priority was to try and use the advantage the US possessed in the wake of the cold war to remove despots that threatened US interests *(e.g. Iraq, iran, NK, etc). whether they were replaced by democracies was more of a “meh” issue.

      4. For all his bad points, McMaster at least recognizes that the govt/state of Israel “completely illegitimate” – this completely excludes him from the neocon category. He’s still a sociopathic war criminal and an accomplice after the fact to treason (maintaining Rice’s security clearance).

        1. Master at least recognizes that the govt/state of Israel “completely illegitimate”
          ….
          He’s still a sociopathic war criminal and an accomplice after the fact to treason

          what’s your basis for either of these claims?

          No one (to my knowledge) ever accused McMaster of being a ‘neocon’; for fuck’s sake, he was a serving officer in the army – not a foreign policy-maker.

          when he was in iraq he became known for his successes in getting locals in Tal Afar on board to resist the insurgency – an effort that was seen as a “smarter, more-cooperative” approach than the ‘our way or the highway’ of his predecessors. when you have the New Yorker praising you as representing the “kinder, gentler” part of the Army, that’s sort of the opposite of ‘war criminal’.

          I don’t even have a clue what your blathering about with references to ‘treason’ or any comments about israel. I sincerely doubt he’d have been picked for his current job if he had ever been moaning about Israel’s ‘illegitimacy’

          1. Golden line from that article:

            “The operation succeeded despite an absence of guidance from senior civilian and military leaders in Washington”

            Despite.

            DESPITE, HE SAYS.

            1. yeah, that’s pretty rich

    3. But as libertarians I feel like we’re about to miss the guy very, very badly.

      Any military interventions that Trump’s advisers will push him into will be far less destructive than the trade wars Banlon was pushing.

      1. ^this is actually very possibly true, tho i don’t know how serious Bannon’s anti-trade ideas were.

  12. Now that he’s been let go from the White House, can we call him a loose Bannon?

    1. (a million souls cry out in suffering)

    2. No.

  13. The problem is that slightly cheaper products aren’t much help when you can no longer get a good job because everything has moved overseas because of cheaper labor or companies are using immigrant labor.

    The problem with free trade is that it assumes that people will leave the nicer countries to find work in the shithole countries. But that’s not going to happen. They will stay here because they figure it’s better to be poor and on welfare in their home country than it is to move to a 3rd world country and get employed at $10 a day in a sweatshop.

    1. “They will stay here because they figure it’s better to be poor and on welfare in their home country than it is to move to a 3rd world country and get employed at $10 a day in a sweatshop.”

      That’s true wherever. The loafers and the deadbeats stay put and the risk takers and entrepreneurs try their luck in sunnier climes.

    2. Slightly cheaper products leave with consumers with more dollars, demand that would otherwise not exist, demand which ALLOWS new products and THEIR jobs. Creative destruction.

      WAY back in high school, we learned about — and ridiculed — the early-19th-cenrtury Luddites, English textile workers who hysterically warned that the cotton gin would destroy, not just their jobs, but — by extension — the dawning Industrial Revolution would destroy ALL jobs through automation.

      The exact opposite occurred. But the same mentality now screeches the same about robotics. And imports.
      Wal-Mart allows millions of Americans to enjoy a higher living standard than would otherwise be possible.
      Two centuries of non-stop and expanding proof is not enough for today’s Luddites.

      1. The problem with free trade is that it assumes that people will leave the nicer countries to find work in the shithole countries.

        OOOPS! I almost missed this part!
        America — and market economists — adopt free trade … hoping VOTERS will leave the country. (FACEPALM)

    3. Kinda.

      I think it is more trade agreements rarely include labor (EU exempted). You do not have the same open access to emigrate to where the jobs are or where your capital has more purchasing power (without a corporate intermediary). Those are solely for (and to the benefit of) the multi-nationals, with a smattering of cheaper products to justify the cause. That’s not free trade. That’s protectionism of labor markets writ large.

      Although I’m leery to embrace economic nationalism, it is a perfectly understandable impulse and at least coherent in its tenets (restrict trade, restrict immigration). The critiques of it however are not, favoring capital over labor, and are disingenuous in who they benefit- cheaper goods don’t do a damn thing for me unless I’m buying. What you meant to say is higher profit margins, and at whose expense?

      Extrapolate to race relations as you see fit.

      1. What’s incoherent about “neither trade nor immigration should be restricted”?

        How does that favor Capital over Labor?

        1. Because, as already mentioned, those agreements are rare and most usually favor movement of capital. You don’t get to decide both sides of the equation, and unless both countries agree to the free movement of labor, it is still government picking winners and losers. Picture the opposite where people are free to move but goods and capital are not.

          I’ll grant that no trade agreement is perfect and even in the best scenarios creative destruction is going to have some adverse effects. But again I really don’t see the tendency for economic nationalism as an end to free trade, but asking for better trade agreements with some game theory thrown in for good measure.

          1. I’m not sure that makes sense.

            If one defines “Capital” and “Labor” as “rich people” and “poor people”, both have the same potential to suffer or benefit from free trade. When a business’s leadership (Capital) leaves the US, the poor American workers (Labor) suffer, but that situation is just as easily reversed: foreign companies building factories here employ US workers (Labor) which might otherwise have been employed by US businesses (Capital). In free trade with an equally wealthy country, as many jobs are imported for Labor as are exported by Capital.

            And while that obviously doesn’t apply to countries that we have a trade deficit with, there is still another more important factor: that “smattering of cheaper products” you mentioned. That “smattering”, which is: A, in no way a smattering, and B, sold to everyone in the US: rich, poor, and all in between. The average American’s cost of living is much lower thanks to trade with China and the rest, and the poor benefit MOST from that, not least.

            And while it is true that decreases in prices don’t balance out job losses for affected workers, you’re forgetting the flipside of that: *increased* consumption by the rest of the country, who make as much money as they did before, but whose previous purchases are now cheaper… Which leads them to spend it on new things. Which creates *new jobs*.

            1. No, I’m perfectly happy with leaving capital and labor as their common definitions instead of euphemisms for rich and poor as the difficulty described isn’t some call for class warfare, but more an examination of the asymmetric aspect of trade agreements. If capital were traded between countries via gold barges (or something similar), I doubt we’d be having the same conversation. Economist recognize velocity of money as a concept, so I am puzzled that velocity of labor (internationally) as a concept isn’t also discussed.

              Capital investment in a country by no means diminishes the argument as again no multi-national corp. is beholden to any country, and the exact same argument apply to workers immigrating to another country (they will most likely be purchasing local goods and services), so why favor one over the other?

              If those new imported products were specifically housing and cheaper food (something everyone must buy), they wouldn’t be sold equally to rich and poor (people repurposing shipping containers aside), so no, it isn’t sold to everyone. The ability to purchase Mexican manufactured cars has no consequence to someone riding the bus.

              You’re mouthing the same arguments heard a thousand times before. If it were true, the desolation of the rust belt wouldn’t be a thing, and someone running on ending trade agreements wouldn’t have been elected president.

              1. What the electorate thinks has approximately nothing to do with what actually ought to be done. See: Drug War, Iraq War, Great Society…

                Anyway, putting aside the fact that automation, not trade or immigration, is responsible for between 50% and 66% of those job losses, no one is arguing that trade and immigration didn’t kill the other 50% to 33%. That was never the issue; that was to be expected. Trade ALWAYS kills jobs; the question isn’t “where did the old jobs go?”, it’s “why didn’t the new jobs show up?”

                And that is the problem: they (the protectionists) and, seemingly, you, aren’t willing to look for alternate explanations as to why those new jobs did not appear. But there are several:

                Occupational Licensing- the most direct example
                Zoning Regulations- keeps rural workers out of job creation zones
                College Loans- created a cultural overemphasis on higher education, at the expense of traditional trades (which there are millions of unfilled openings for)
                Non-State-Transmissible Welfare- makes moving to a new state riskier

                Each of those *alone* has killed *millions* of careers, necessarily hitting the recently unemployed hardest. THEY are the cause of your Rust Belt desolation.

                1. Anyway, putting aside the fact that automation, not trade or immigration, is responsible for between 50% and 66% of those job losses

                  THE 19TH CENTURY LUDDITES WERE CORRECT … THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION WILL, DESTROY JOBS … AND IT ONLY TOOK 200 YEARS.!!

                  Actually the jobs were destroyed in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, written by Democrats, which created a double tax increase on jobs-creating new investment in manufacturing equipment. . They repealed Kennedy;s 7% Investment Tax Credit on new investment. And they doubled Reagan’s writeofff on new factory equipment from 8 years to 16 years … when all our trade competitors were at FIVE years. They said they were “closing corporate loopholes,” but they destroyed our industrial base. Manufacturers were driven back to postwar tax structure, when we suffered five recessions in only 16 years, 1945-1961, and sunk from the only industrial base still standing to “among the lowest in economic growth” (JFK 1961 SOTU)

                  You MAY know that we have the world’s highest corporate taxes, AND the world’s highest health care costs. But … do you know employer healthcare costs in our “social welfare” trade competitors are essentially ZERO? That;s WHY their indivifual tax rates are double ours.

                  Any questions?

                  1. Are you asserting that the invention of the automobile, did not lead to the near-elimination of the carriage and stable industry?

                    Or that the invention of the tractor and other farming implements, did not lead to the percentage of the population employed in agriculture being reduced from 48% to 2%?

                    Note that I am not asserting those job losses were a tragedy… Because new jobs were created to replace them. Keyword: “new”.

                    All of those tax problems you listed, don’t change the fact that humans are less needed in factories with every passing day. The key is that there are lots of new jobs and careers- app designer, concealed carry instructor, yoga instructor- that the economy has dynamically created, which regulations are keeping them from taking.

                    1. The key is that there are lots of new jobs and careers- app designer, concealed carry instructor, yoga instructor- that the economy has dynamically created

                      and no trade agreement needed.

                    2. Yes, trade agreement needed.

                      Without the automation we call “tractors” and “modern irrigation”, how many people do you think we would have available to be nurse practitioners, fast food workers, and gaffers for the 2nd unit of “Avengers XVIII”?

                      Trade works according to the same principle, and has the same effect- “destroying” old jobs, without destroying the old *workers*, who can then either reinforce existing labor markets, or move to new ones created for them.

                      Every free trade agreement, infusion of immigrants (other than welfare recipients), and new job-replacing technology today, frees up more workers for the bigger, wealthier economy of tomorrow.

                      Protectionism is best understood as “forced redundancy”: forcing people in Country A to do Job C, and people in Country B to do Job C as well, when it would be more efficient to just let people in Country B handle Job C, because they’re better suited or positioned for it… Thus letting Country A get on with Job D, which couldn’t have existed otherwise.

                      Repeal NAFTA or withdraw from the WTO, and you’ll learn the hard way how much we all need each other.

                2. The demands of the electorate is extraneous to a democracy?

                  Uh-huh. Nevermind the marketplace of ideas; nice of you to favor free markets, except when you don’t. Thank god there is someone out there who perfectly understands the plight of millions better than themselves. You wouldn’t happen to work for the government by chance?

                  The most obvious aspect affecting the rust belt is the inability (for whatever reasons) for people to move to where the jobs are (well, you apparently understand it for, of all cases, welfare, but seem to be befuddled how this could have broader implications across the economy). Do you understand the asymmetrical relationship between the movement of capital and labor now? Having a litany of structural justifications as to the demise of certain segment of the economy matters not one iota if people also lack the most basic response of voting with their feet against those same policies.

                  I am continually stupefied how doctrinaire libertarians can indulge the minutiae of the most tangential point (yes yes yes; zoning, occupational licensing, etc. are all important, but more importantly, they can ALL be discussed without even broaching the subject of the rust belt even once. They affect growing regions just as much as any other [and in many cases, moreso], but somehow have a more muted effect) and yet are shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU when popular movements continually upend their imagined utopias with messy details like reality.

                  1. The demands of the electorate are not “extraneous to a democracy”. The demands of the electorate are *stupid*. Because crowds are stupid.

                    You think anyone in this comment section is arguing in terms of “optics”? In terms of what could “get people elected”? Libertarians don’t get elected. They point out how stupid everyone else is being, get shouted down for their trouble, and then spend 50 years on the sidelines while everyone else chases the dream of Statism to its inevitable conclusion, before finally quietly admitting we were right all along, immediately forgetting, and proceeding to ignore us again the next time a debate starts up.

                    Your assertion that I should respect the will of the Rust Belt, and concede the argument because “I don’t live there”, is entirely undermined by the revelation that dozens of other statist initiatives started from that same premise. (Most) black people support gun control because they see gun violence every day. A lot of New Yorkers supported the War on Terror because they saw 2 skyscrapers collapse out their window. Mothers of drug addicts often support more prohibition. And in every case, their “personal experience” is nothing, against the personal experience of the people whose lives they would take control of, to no end. The call for Protectionism- regardless of whether you are making it yourself- is more of the same.

                  2. The funny thing is that we’re here nattering at each other, and I don’t think we even disagree that much.

                    You, I gather, are asserting that Free Trade is a problem because workers can’t follow the money. My point is that:

                    A, a lot of regulations that have nothing to with trade (listed above), are more responsible for these problems than your asserted “capital flight” (or whatever you want to call it)

                    And B, that Free Trade is still better, even without Freedom of Immigration, than a combination of Immigration Restrictionism and Protectionism is.

                    Violating the right to spend money across borders, won’t make the violation of the right to move freely across borders any better. Even if guaranteeing the right to cross borders freely, might make the right to spend money freely across borders less “harmful”.

                    Can you cite an example of this harm you allege?

    4. The problem with free trade is that it assumes that people will leave the nicer countries to find work in the shithole countries.

      No it doesn’t. What it DOES assume is that the winners from changes in the terms of trade compensate the losers from that change in terms of trade. Which also means that in the real world (where terms of trade exist and where govts are the ones who make agreements to change them) that ‘free trade’ is always incremental. IOW – there is no state of ‘free trade’ – merely ‘freer trade than before’ and ‘less free than we thought we negotiated because some of those new trade benefits have to be given to the losers of that new agreement’.

      Otherwise, it is just a form of utilitarian winnersvlosers game – which is exactly the same thing as protectionism or cronyism or majoritarian tyranny or anything else in politics where the winners tell the losers – FYTW.

    5. It means we’re closer to the ideal of nobody having to work and everybody having what they need.

      Working is overrated. You can exert minimal effort to live at the standards of the 1950’s. This is largely due to the reductions in cost of living associated with technology innovation and globalism. When you redefine the view (e.g. the iPhone 4 is no longer a viable tool to many people), you perpetuate this constant narrative of being at the precipice of being broke and struggling to keep up. As a result, employment becomes the predominant theme, when in fact employment is an unnecessary component of a good economy.

      There’s no logical way to end the sentence “The problem with free trade is…”

      1. You can exert minimal effort to live at the standards of the 1950’s. This is largely due to the reductions in cost of living associated with technology innovation and globalism.

        Would that hold up if the USD was not a reserve currency and tied to Saudi oil?

  14. The purpose of the State is to turn us against one another.

    The only question is: which tribal affiliation will be invoked today?

    Capital vs. Labor? Black vs. White? Christian vs. Muslim? Gay vs. Straight? Male vs. Female? Urban vs. Rural? East Placenamea vs West Placemamea? Suburban Soccer Mom vs. Waziristan Mud-hut Mom?

    The rhetoric, and victims, are different, but the lists, cells, and ditches get filled just the same.

    1. Yankee vs Confederate

    2. Transexual versus…labeled bathroom

      1. Alright, if we’re just gonna list all we can:

        Hippie Pot-Smoker vs. Horrified 50-Year-Old Widow Who Passed Him In The Street

        White Christian Schizo vs. Sikh Wearing Turban Who Kinda Looks Like A Muslim, Ish

        Edge-Of-Poverty Oregonian Logger vs. Failed Mesopotamian Art Major Turned Environmental Activist

        CIA “Enhanced Interrogator” vs. Iraqi Dude With Same Name As Mohammed Muhamed Bin-Mohamed, Infamous Baby Eating Terrorist

        Mother Of Dead Gangbanger In St. Louis (Murder Rate: 60 Per 100,000) vs. Concealed Carrier In Vermont (Murder Rate: 1 Per 100,000)

        1. Ron Pail cultist vs gays, blacks and Jews

          Ron Paul himself vs balance of power, via checks and balances between three co-equal branches.

          Hater of the alt-right vs its spiritual icons, Ron’Rand Paul

        2. Hippie Pot-Smoker vs. Horrified 50-Year-Old Widow Who Passed Him In The Street

          50-Year-Old is a vested Hippie Pot-Smoker.

  15. Richman defends all the other terms well, so how did he blow tribalism?
    Are tribal progressives economic nationalists?
    Or libertarian tribalism?

  16. Its funny how you can accurately identify anyone’s personal political views based on which ideals they define as close to nazis and which they differentiate as being the farthest from nazis. Well except when it comes to actual nazis I guess.

    1. funny how you can accurately identify anyone’s personal political views based on which ideals they define as close to nazis and which they differentiate as being the farthest from nazis. Well except when it comes to actual nazis I guess

      HINT: THEY CARRY SWASTIKAS … CHANT “BLOOD AND SOIL” .,. HATE JEWS … AND INITIATE VIOLENCE, MAYHEM AND MURDER.

      Anything else, nazi ass-kisser?

      1. Ask Sheldon. Or you can refer to (fellow nazi-ass-killer) George Orwell. He compiled quite a list.

        Have I been downgraded from Nazi then? Or is it a promotion?

        1. Have I been downgraded from Nazi then?

          Nobody said you were a Nazi. Even they are smarter than you!
          Repeat
          1) Swastika
          2) “Blood and Soil”
          3) Hatred of Jews
          4) Initiating violence, mayhem and murder against peaceful protesters.

          Yes ….peaceful. Here’s what you missed, so eager to be manipulated by Fox, Breitbart and/or Infowars

          This video provides UNDENIABLE PROOF of the assault and events leading up to it,
          1) Violence ENTIRELY by the fascists, Counter-protestors just standing there.
          2) NO charging or ball bats by the “alt-left.”
          3) The fascists charge into the crowd, wielding clubs. They CAME for violence, with shields like cops in riot gear.

          This overhead drone shows your hero committing the murder and mayhem that YOU defend .. MORE proof that your fellow BARBARIANS are ? subhuman scum.

          .

          1. “Just standing there”, not allowing others’ free movement, is violence, especially when those people denied their Constitutional right have been, specifically granted the right to be there by a federal court.
            The drone shows nothing except the effect of the lone crazy driver.
            You’re just an apologist for real fascist (antifa) anarchists, who caused the violence in Charlottesville.
            Ironic thing is that the original protesters, except for their racial views, are pretty much sympatico with your antifa brothers – socialsist/communists.

            1. EVEN CRAZIER!!!

              “Just standing there”, not allowing others’ free movement, is violence,

              REPEAT (pee my pants laughjng)

              “Just standing there”, not allowing others’ free movement, is violence,

              REPEAT (pee my pants laughjng)

              “Just standing there”, not allowing others’ free movement, is violence,

              STANDING STILL IS VIOLENCE!
              THAT IS HOW DICTATORS “THINK”

              Having jammed it up his ass … let’s TWIST … HARD WITH ….
              THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

              The right
              of the people
              to peacefuily assemble

              Unless there’s fucking Nazis with clubs

              It’s their fucking stupidity that makes them so easy to be brainwashed,
              But there is one thing even worse than their stupidity

              Their absolute, total,, raging HATRED.
              What would Jesus say?

              (my snark and boldface in DEFENSE OF AGGRESSION by a serial stalking nazi bully)

              1. REPEAT (pee my pants laughjng)

                Incontinence might be one explanation for Hihn’s dour disposition. Also frequently goes along with age-related brain problems.

  17. So how come racial collectivists and economic collectivists all agree that altruism and the initiation of force are the standard of ethical value and absolute best practical approach to all problems, real or imaginary?

    1. So how come racial collectivists and economic collectivists all agree that altruism and the initiation of force are the standard of ethical value and absolute best practical approach to all problems, real or imaginary

      Socialism?

      Got anything that’s not self-evident to a 10-year-old?

  18. It’s not just tribalism and economic nationalism.
    Its identity politics in general, as well as racism and class warfare politics. They are all various forms of tribalism.
    All different versions of us against them, against the other. We need to defend ourselves against the other. Those people over there are not like us and they are oppressing us.
    Both the left and right engage in this kind of politics and it’s getting worse, and will ultimately lead to nothing good.

    1. Exactly this. You said it better than I could have.

    2. Obviously our tribe should kill the left and right then.

      1. It’s actually more about trying to stand in between them, futilely waving our arms and telling them to stop.

        Think Gandalf, trying to stop the Elves and Dwarves from killing each other outside the Lonely Mountain.

        1. It’s actually more about trying to stand in between them, futilely waving our arms and telling them to stop

          (lol) NEVER work against nazis and racists assaulting peaceful protesters … as proven in Charlottesville.

          Think Gandalf, trying to stop the Elves and Dwarves from killing each other outside the Lonely Mountain.

          Think Charlie Brown, trying to stop vicious aggressors dedicated to violence. mayhem and murder against peaceful protesters. While goobers are eager to be brainwashed about the precise opposite.

          1. The vicious aggressors were the antifa, and others, who wanted to deny the original protesters their Constitutional rights.
            Why do you hate the Constitution?
            One of the beauties of America is that, if you don’t like the Constitution, you are not prevented from leaving to somewhere that doesn’t have such a wonderful foundation.
            You should try that.

            1. MOAR NAZI LIES FROM RETIREDFIRE (sick)

              FACT, video proof below. The counterprotesters were standing quietly in the street — the right of the people to peacefully assemble — when they were charged, attacked and beaten with clubs CHECK MY SOURCES, two clear and undeniable videos.

              Moment of assault, and leading up. Counterprotesters standing silently. Alt-right charges into them, swinging clubs. They CAME for violence, with shields like police riot-gear.

              LIE: The car was hit was hit with a lead pipe BEFORE hitting the people.
              TRUE: TWO SECOND BEFORE KILLING HEATHER
              AND NOT A LEAD PIPE!

              You MUST see this video to see how SICK they are.
              The car is already racing towards a street filled with people, only a second or two from carnage. Someone on the sidewalk whiiffs the car IN THE BACK ….. with a FLAG pole, as the car races by.

              The closeup shows people ALREADY running in fear.
              retiredfire and his fellow nazis are THAT sick. And THAT consuned wirh raging hatred,
              Ask any Jew.

    3. Both the left and right engage in this kind of politics and it’s getting worse, and will ultimately lead to nothing good.

      Perhaps they were easily brainwashed, like today’s libertarians?

  19. nice article , thanks ..

  20. nice article , thanks ..

  21. Sheldon the open borders anarchist…..

    have you ever read thru the thousands of pages of these Trade Deals – I KNOW YOU HAVENT!

    its also about screwing the people over, as you knocked them down as idiots!

    its scumbags as yourself who farkin lie thru omission………….

  22. btw genius….

    Charlottesville Racist Leader Was Former Occupy Activist, Obama Supporter..
    Jason Kessler(scam artist), the organizer of last Saturday’s white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, is rumored to be a former Occupy Wall Street activist and supporter of Barack Obama.
    James Alex Fields, Jr., the 20-year-old who plowed his car into a left-wing counter-demonstration in Charlottesville, killing one and injuring several others, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia as a boy and had been given antipsychotic drugs. It is not clear if he is still taking them.
    Occupy Wall Street was a radical left-wing movement that began in 2011 in Manhattan and spread throughout the globe. It was committed to the destruction of the capitalist system, and included violent and extremist elements that waged confrontations with police in the fall and winter of 2011-2. President Barack Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Media Matters for America, and other Democrats nevertheless embraced the Occupy movement.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..n-kessler/

  23. White Nationalist term is a media created term bringing up thoughts of the KKK..
    White Nationalist: the term itself, as in anything with the word White before it is a racist term bringing up thoughts of the KKK. how about his, American nationalist? the media would also call this a cover name for the KKK… and the thought process, if you are white, voted for Trump, support a Constitutional Rep then you are by that alone a KKK supporter, racist, and of course privileged,

  24. The Alt-Right is Not Right – It’s Left…..The alt-right is myth
    One of the pillars of conservatism is “The Golden Rule,” which automatically precludes white nationalism or racial supremacy of any kind.
    According to McPaper, the white nationalist/supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2008. If he uses the term alt-right to identify himself and his fellow believers ? this begs a question?
    Was President Woodrow Wilson a member of the alt-right? He was a racist white supremacist.
    So were President Lyndon Johnson and the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd.
    Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to halt the spread of the black race. I’d call that white supremacism.
    The KKK was the enforcers of the white supremacist Southern Democrat Party, the Dixiecrats.
    Alt-right demonstrators hit the streets adorned with Nazi paraphernalia and Confederate flags.
    Neither of those symbols represents American conservatism.

  25. In fact, the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, which these nuts appear to be so fond of, was a tale of combat between two competing leftist ideologies ? fascism and communism.
    Neither faction incidentally resembled conservatism or what we’ve come to know as “the right.”
    The German KPD was the largest communist party outside the Soviet Union during the 1920s.
    It was the Trotsky-inspired KPD or German Communist Party vs. the Hitler led fascist “National Socialist German Workers Party” (Nazis).
    There were no “right-wingers” involved at all.
    And did I see the word socialist?
    By cracky, I did.
    I don’t know of anyone who would confuse conservatism with socialism.

    1. There were no “right-wingers” involved at all.

      That’s not true. Whatever they may have actually believed, Hitler and the Nazis were presenting themselves as socially conservative. Furthermore, the German Center party (Christian conservative) and the Catholic church were instrumental in Hitler and the Nazis coming to power.

      The sad fact is that Christian conservatives, social conservatives, communists, socialists, are largely cut from the same cloth. The fact that small government free market types are thrown in with the other kinds of conservatives is an artifact of the US two party system; in Europe, they have different parties and don’t see eye-to-eye.

  26. The alt-right is myth.
    It’s a name crafted to confuse the public into thinking these loons were spawned out of the conservative movement.
    It should actually be relabeled, or labeled properly as the National Socialist American Party, because they are in fact fascists – not of the right and certainly not conservative.
    But because of our woefully inept education system in this country, most believe fascism and Hitler were right wing.
    They couldn’t be more wrong.
    The fascists were leftists who had/have a lot more in common with communists than with free market conservative capitalists.
    The major difference between fascists and communists is that the former is nationalistic and the latter, internationalistic.
    http://freedomoutpost.com/alt-…..ight-left/

    1. But because of our woefully inept education system in this country, most believe fascism and Hitler were right wing.

      That’s not ineptness; it’s working as intended.

  27. “Anyone who disagrees with me is just a Racist Racist Racity Racist. Look out, Whitey is gonna getcha!”

    Usually Sheldon at least has his own brand of reprehensible crazy.

    Nothing could be more commonplace, boring, and evil than joining the Left in fomenting the fear, hatred, and resentment of identity politics with the “Racist!” Shriek.

  28. The motivating factor in both of these philosophies is fear- fear of the other, fear of change, fear that one’s position is society is in peril of being undermined. They can dress their fear up in all sorts of patriotic garbage about racial purty, the duplicity of foreigners or the danger of “globalism,: but what they are really saying is that we are afraid to compete because we know that we can’t. This is rather like the American Little League World Series. After a series of defeats by Japanese little league teams, the organizers made the event strictly American teams only, defeating the purpose of a World Series.

  29. The motivating factor in both of these philosophies is fear- fear of the other, fear of change, fear that one’s position is society is in peril of being undermined. They can dress their fear up in all sorts of patriotic garbage about racial purty, the duplicity of foreigners or the danger of “globalism,: but what they are really saying is that we are afraid to compete because we know that we can’t. This is rather like the American Little League World Series. After a series of defeats by Japanese little league teams, the organizers made the event strictly American teams only, defeating the purpose of a World Series.

    1. I would call it healthy skepticism.

  30. Antiglobalism and anticosmopolitanism might flow purely from economic ignorance, but it is hard to believe that’s all it is for many people.

    My antiglobalism and anticosmopolitanism flow from having grown up and lived in other countries and not wanting their oppressive politics and economics to come to the US.

    When statist or authoritarian countries like Germany and China have huge trade imbalances and end up buying a lot of US capital investments, real estate, and government debt, that places US liberties at risk. Ditto when the US allows large numbers of people from statist nations to immigrate.

  31. Trade is great as long as countries are on equal ground, but that doesn’t happen often. Maybe between countries like the USA, Canada and Western Europe it is fair. But trading with countries like China that subsidize their industries, have weak environmental laws, and grind their population into the dirt to get an economic whenever they need to are not “equal” market traders and special steps need to be taken to insure that it is fair trade.

  32. “I suggest that blood-and-soil-ism and economic nationalism are cut from the same cloth.”

    You suggest more than that. You suggest that those who disagree with your opinions on borders or trade policy are violent racist.

  33. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

  34. I guess that would depend on how you define “fair trade”. To me, “fair trade” is allowing me to conduct voluntary exchanges with whomever I choose, regardless of the other party’s origin, without regulatory or financial barriers/hindrances imposed by the government. So yeah, by that definition of fair trade, I agree with you. However, I suspect that isn’t what you meant by that phrase.
    moschino jewelry

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.