Politics

The Populist Temptation

|

For the two decades that he's edited the scabrous and insightful U.K.-based web magazine Spiked, Brendan O'Neill, an occasional Reason contributor, has described himself—perhaps with a wee bit of provocation—as a "libertarian Marxist." That is, until the populist uprisings in Europe last year.

"The thing that's different now than it would have been six months ago," O'Neill told me during a February episode of the Fifth Column podcast, "is that I've increasingly gone off the word libertarian." The Brexit vote in England, the Yellow Vest protests in France, various anti-elitist spasms across the globe—these have packed more of a punch in two short years than four decades' worth of classical liberal think-tank thumbsucking, he said: "I think other things more interesting than libertarianism are happening in the world right now."

Individualists fond of Enlightenment rationalism do not generally hasten toward the excitement of street mobs or even electoral majorities. But the global rise in nationalist politics, from Viktor Orbán's Hungary to Donald Trump's America, has tempted many commentators with the thrills of revolution and machinations of power. Unsurprisingly, they are shedding their libertarianism along the way.

Daniel McCarthy, also an occasional Reason contributor, recently uncorked a Trumpian manifesto for First Things under the ambitious headline "A New Conservative Agenda: A governing philosophy for the twenty-first century." Like neoconservatives during the George W. Bush presidency, McCarthy is giddy with political possibilities yet oddly millenarian about the consequences of choosing the wrong ideological path.

"The most effective and honorable way out of the dilemma we face is to embrace something like nationalism as an economic program," he declared. "America's fundamental political choice now is between mild nationalism, resurgent socialism, or suicide by liberalism, whether of the libertarian or palliative sort."

We should be accustomed by now to such political appeals to our hormonal fight-or-flight reflex, even against a global backdrop the past three decades of unprecedented peace and prosperity. What was 2016, after all, if not "The Flight 93 Election," according to the famous Claremont Review of Books essay? (Never forget: "Charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway.") More recently, The American Conservative's Scott McConnell insisted that "Hungary Shows the West the Path to Survival," which is an odd way to describe a country losing population so fast that the government is now bribing women to have four children.

Progressive dystopianism, meanwhile, is getting so hysterical that it's hard to watch cable TV without giggling. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) in February announced his latest presidential platform—Medicare for all, a $15 federal minimum wage, free college tuition, breaking up the banks, and the Green New Deal, for starters—it came with the requisite hysterics that "this country is moving toward an oligarchic form of society," that "we have created a system which is basically out of control," and that his program is the only way to confront the "existential threat to our country and the world."

But it's nationalism that divides libertarians. Brexit was a righteous revolt against domestic and foreign elites…and it was the replacement of a free-trade zone with an arrangement sure to feature more tariffs. Orbán asserted Hungary's right to set its own immigration policies…and pandered repeatedly to anti-Semites. France's vest-wearing protesters are fed up with high taxes…and commit daily acts of violence against private property. We certainly need not look far to see the strong pluses and gaping minuses of Trump-flavored populism at home.

Such dissonances cry out for nuance as we poke forward into an uncertain, post-neoliberal future. Instead, the nationalism-whisperers are treating them with euphemism.

"The new nationalism's goals are modest," insisted editor W. James Antle III in a recent cover essay for The American Conservative. "Remind those in government that their primary fiduciary duty is to their current lawful residents, not the population of the whole planet, even in powerful and affluent countries like the United States; remain independent of the supranational entities that would transform mutually beneficial trade among self-governing peoples into rule by Davos-approved bureaucrats; police one's own borders rather than the world."

Such verbiage feels less like a forward-looking ideological program and more like a backfilling, rose-colored rationalization for a populist uprising that has already taken place. And fair enough—the political upheaval has been bigger than most smartypants types ever predicted, while creating institutional clashes the broader West hasn't had to confront in decades. Things are precarious out there.

But history has taught us that nationalism, in addition to resisting unwanted imperialism, can transition into collectivism, with outsiders easily scapegoated and deprived of rights. Whatever new order replaces the old, there will be an important role for us cranky individualists to play.

NEXT: Brickbat: Demographics Are Destiny

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. “But history has taught us that nationalism”

    Saved the world from totalitarianism in the 20th Century through US nationalism.

    Populist Nationalism: Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    To hate populist nationalism is to hate self-government. And the ruling classes do.

    1. Did I mention, MAGA?

      1. Fuck off, collectivist!

        1. What insight.
          Duncan may only have one note, and it may be even more shallow and less thoughtful than Rev’s, but at least it’s consistent.

          1. Yea, MAGA has layers of depth to it…

            1. It’s Challenger Deep compared to Duncan’s outburst.

      2. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
        Check For info Here,
        CLICK HERE???????? http://xurl.es/m7biw

    2. How is Welch gonna get invited to Cosmo parties if he doesn’t shit on American self-rule every-once-in-a-while?

      1. Rosencrantz – “Look it’s little Matty Welch, I heard he’s libertarian”

        Guildenstern – “That explains the socks. Does Miranda know?”

        Rosencrantz – “She must, that dishy doorman’s having a word with him now”

        Matt Welch – “I swear it’s not true Miranda, I only write there as missionary work! Look, look, back in April I wrote a whole article decrying the will of the people as populist bigotry. Look, look, I even invoke Nationalism, I call Orb?n an anti-semite for crying out loud, Miiirrrrrraaandaaaaaaa…..”

    3. You’re redefining Nationalism to mean only the American version. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a form of collectivism. And it doesn’t change the fact that it was harnessed to commit some of the most horrible atrocities of the 20th century.

      1. What he’s trying do is redefine patriotism to being synonymous with nationalism because he’s either willfully ignorant or incompetent or both. I’m guessing both.

      2. “muh anarchy”

        The American nation state preserved what liberty exists in the world from being snuffed out, probably forever, by totalitarianism in the 20th century.

        Those who dismiss that accomplishment with a sneer of “collectivism” show that they really don’t give a damn about preserving liberty in the real world.

    4. “No taxation without representation” and “government by the people and for the people” are nationalist sentiments. As is non-interventionism. You cannot mind your own business, without defining a limit to the scope of your business. Furthermore, internationalism is certainly also prone to collectivist and authoritarian thinking.

      The idea that nationalism is always bad is a shallow and unnuanced thought.

      1. The left feels the same about their form of collectivism too.

    5. Saved the world from totalitarianism in the 20th Century through US nationalism.

      You’re confusing patriotism and nationalism.

    6. I hate elections to determine who our tyrants should be. I don’t hate “self-government”, because a true self-governing apparatus is the free market, which is wholly separate from the state, and makes the state unnecessary.

      Why do you think that [A] is so important, in so much demand, that the state must provide it? Don’t you know that [A] is always best left to the market? Would you rather drive a Honda or a Lada (an imperfect example, but workable)?

  2. Bro’Neill, like most of the regular Spiked writers, is a grumpy misanthrope. The magazine started as Living Marxism and never really left that behind. They have some good articles about civil liberties (or lacl thereof) in Garbage Island, but generally speaking their supposedly positive, humanist mantra of “humanity is underrated” is ironic at best. Often described as “libertarian”, but rarely libertarian. Also Bro’Neil’s writing is often not very well and informed. There are no such thing as “military trials” in the UK for enemy combatants, for example.

  3. Unfortunately accurate. But, uh, why do I have to “submit”? How about “Speak freely!”

  4. “libertarian Marxist.’

    I’d like to think ‘oxymoronic sarcasm’ because there’s no such thing as libertarian-retard – er I mean Marxist.

    I find it hard to believe, from the articles I’ve read and footage I’ve seen, O’Neil likens himself as such with seriousness.

    I hope.

    1. there’s no such thing as libertarian-retard – er I mean Marxist.

      Except for AMSOC, wherever he may be now.

    2. Shikha is a self identified “progressive libertarian”.

      The postmodern Left is all about corruption of language. That’s one thing they’ve gotten better than the Inner Party. The Inner Party got rid of words. The postmodern Left makes them mean everything, and therefore nothing.

  5. In my eye, the “crises” that define our age are small flames compared to the past, whipped up into a hot fury by politicians and the 24/7 news cycle. Every blizzard in New York or DC is hyped by the media as a national emergency and every imperfection in our lives is described as a gaping flaw- an existential threat to our survival. No wars are killing off entire generations of young men. No cattle cars packed with undesirables are carrying people to death camps. No diseases are killing people by the millions.

    Further, America’s problems are not Europe’s problems, and the sum total of those problems is not some indictment of globalism or capitalism or any other ism. We have four major powers in the world, between China, America, Europe and Russia. Those powers have such different cultural foundations that attempting to draw parallel’s with them are major mistakes.

    Indeed, the problems in New York and California are very different from the problems of rural Colorado or Pennsylvania. And yet a public that needs to get to work while frustrated by shitty roads and burdensome licensing requirements gets sucked into these screaming matches about Muslims, Climate Change and Drugs. If you want to rail against populism, then get people focused on their back yard, rather than the National Mall in DC. Stop debating your facebook friends about Trump or AOC. Their national solutions won’t save you. To paraphrase Hayek, we need “Plans by the many, not by the few”.

    1. Put another way, the only reason Populism is a thing right now is that mass media and politicians have found all these existential outrages to unite a bunch of populations. And that generally means uniting them against some other tribe. From the various intersectional strifes whipped up by the Left, to the fear of immigrants- climate change, evil corporations, rich oligarchs, the Chinese and the Russians- these vague descriptions resonate and unite tribes, but won’t affect local communities across all of America.

      If there were one possible populist outrage Libertarians could get behind, it would be outrage against the Deep State. Unfortunately, that has been relegated to the stuff of conspiracy theorists because many at Reason do not like the current target of the Deep State- Trump. If they would spend some time focused on how it is that entire buildings full of unelected agents and regulators can undermine freedom, they would be making much more headway. The ability to unite the populace in its skepticism of a leviathan government hasn’t occurred since Reagan, and so far I haven’t seen a politician today who can make headway in this regard.

      1. If they would spend some time focused on how it is that entire buildings full of unelected agents and regulators can undermine freedom, they would be making much more headway.

        The latest college campus outrage is what I’m more interested in.

      2. Populism is a thing right now is that mass media and politicians have found all these existential outrages to unite a bunch of populations.

        I think you are selling people short.

        Even for all drama regularly seen on Twitter, that represents less than 17% of the population. A larger percentage of the US doesn’t even vote, much less cares about the 24 hour news cycle inasmuch as it doesn’t affect them directly (or that they have the ability to affect). (Side note- I’m always amused that people who potentially have a global reach are considered influential when they can draw the attention of a few million out of an audience of billions. It’s like being in love with the smell of your own farts. So turn off your smoke machine and Marshall stack).

        Surprisingly New York, California, Pennsylvania and Colorado have many of the same problems, and truth of the matter is that libertarianism, socialism, democrats, republicans; the whole 9 yards have been abject failures in addressing those local concerns. If some cranks on the outer fringes of the web want to call that nationalism, so be it.

        Ideology means fuckall anymore. All that matters is the ability to produce results.

        1. “”Even for all drama regularly seen on Twitter, that represents less than 17% of the population. A larger percentage of the US doesn’t even vote, much less cares about the 24 hour news cycle inasmuch as it doesn’t affect them directly (or that they have the ability to affect). “”

          Bury your head into a silo of sand while screaming everyone else is wrong.

          Then be amazed that Trump was elected.

        2. That’s what the social media crowd does.

  6. “Remind those in government that their primary fiduciary duty is to their current lawful residents, not the population of the whole planet, even in powerful and affluent countries like the United States; remain independent of the supranational entities that would transform mutually beneficial trade among self-governing peoples into rule by Davos-approved bureaucrats; police one’s own borders rather than the world.”

    What a HORRIBLE thing to say!
    Doesn’t this dude even progress?
    You get em, Welch

    1. Welch’s response of “Such verbiage feels” shows that even he knows has no actual arguments to make against nationalism, and can only sniff, hoot, and jeer against government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      “Collectivism!”

      Yes, collectivism like “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”.

      Marxists want the goods without the institutions that produce them.
      Anarchists want the rights without the institutions that secure them.

  7. libertarian Marxist.
    The thing that’s different now than it would have been six months ago is that I’ve increasingly gone off the word libertarian

    In other words, a guy who fits in absolutely perfectly around here these days.

    1. That’s not true. We Koch / Reason libertarians oppose raising the minimum wage and taxes on billionaires. We’re pretty much the opposite of Marxists.

      1. Uh oh. Something weird is happening with OBL unit #00001. Shut it down and put a repair ticket in, stat.

        1. I’m sorry, Dave. OBL can’t let you do that

          1. #HonkHonk

      2. I find it funny that NY Presbyterian hospital has a David H. Koch pavilion. He’s donate a lot of money to that hospital.

  8. “Orb?n asserted Hungary’s right to set its own immigration policies?and pandered repeatedly to anti-Semites.”

    Wait – I thought Orban CLOSED Hungary’s borders to millions of unvetted, economically migrating Muslims?

  9. “Such dissonances cry out for nuance as we poke forward into an uncertain, post-neoliberal future.”

    Do you have any suggestions for a publication that does that?

    “Such verbiage feels less like a forward-looking ideological program and more like a backfilling, rose-colored rationalization for a populist uprising that has already taken place.”

    Well if that’s how you FEEL Matt, who’s anyone else to contest your truth…

  10. But history has taught us that nationalism, in addition to resisting unwanted imperialism, can transition into collectivism

    Nationalism is by definition a form of collectivism. No transition necessary. It intends to put the national identity above that of the individual.

    It’s interesting that in modern times (the Trump era is a good example) the nationalists tend to favor the individual within a larger group. For example, low taxes are a very individualist concept. Also, they tend to protect freedom of speech, rights to self defense, property rights, etc, for citizens. However, we see that they tend to not favor individual behaviors which they see as “diluting” the national identity. For example in the US, that identity being defined as Judeo-Christian, we tend to see the nationalists argue against traditional individual concepts like gay marriage, prostitution, and recreational drug use.

    In my mind, the key difference between this neo-nationalism vs classical liberalism is the idea that rights are a function of one’s citizenship for nationalism vs being a function of one’s humanity for classical liberalism.

    1. traditional individual concepts like gay marriage, prostitution

      Nothing says ‘(strictly) individual’ like a contract between two or more people.

      I’m not saying there shouldn’t be gay marriage or prostitution, but you have to be a retard to assume that there isn’t any collectivism behind any given action to support these causes.

      1. They’re concepts that allow individuals to act on their own behalf, in their own self-interest.

        that there isn’t any collectivism behind any given action to support these causes.

        Just because collectivists support freedom some of the time doesn’t mean that they got there by any principle that supports individual freedom. Similarly to my point with today’s brand of nationalism. Sure they support some freedoms; the right to self defense, freedom of speech, etc. But their lack in support of other freedoms like gay marriage, etc shows that they place the national identity above any principle that individuals should be left alone so long as they don’t interfere with others’ rights.

        Again, if you place national identity (being a Judeo-Christian nation is just one example of this) above freedom, you are a collectivist by definition. If you think we have some collective rights over the property on our side of the border because we are citizens, you are a collectivist by definition. The latter is at the very heart of the concept of nationalism.

        1. The US was founded on, and for, the principle of individual liberty.
          It makes sense that US nationalism promotes individual liberty.
          I’ll give you prostitution and drug prohibitions as antithetical to US nationalism, but gay marriage is another story.
          Gay marriage is not about the right of individuals to be gay or pledge themselves for life to another person of the same sex, it’s about the state sanctioning such a union and attaching legal privileges to that union which bind others to both recognize and act in accordance to it.
          And within the context of the US under the CRA, gay marriage by statute is more collectivist than simply leaving it unrecognized (though prohibiting anybody, outside official federal capacity, from recognizing gay marriage individually would also be collectivist).

          1. I would strongly prefer the state not be involved in marriage in any way. But if they’re going to be, then it’s pretty hard to argue any union between consenting adults shouldn’t be treated entirely equally under they law. But, I’m also not for forcing churches to perform or even recognize the service. My comments were only in regards to the government.

            Now, back to nationalism as a collectivist ideology. It is.

            1. As is your advocacy for gay marriage

              1. Arguing for equal protection under the laws is collectivist?

                Or are you just trying to deflect from the narrative that nationalism is collectivist because you’re a nationalist?

                1. Define “equal protection” in this context in any way that doesn’t boil down to the state promoting your union and forcing the rest of the republic to address you as you wish.

                  1. the rest of the republic to address you as you wish.

                    Can you link to even one instance where the state has compelled anyone to address someone as they wish with respect to their marriage status?

                    And even if you can, how is that an issue for gay marriage? It seems like that would be compelled speech which is not legal under 1A.

                    Are you going to address the topic of this story in any real way or just continue on down this rabbit hole?

          2. It makes sense that US nationalism promotes individual liberty.

            But it doesn’t. It promotes liberty for individual citizens, for the most part. It’s not in line with the idea that our rights are natural as a function of our humanity.

            Border restriction arguments are generally relative to 1) non-citizens not having the same rights as citizens or 2) collective property rights for citizens which must be defended against trespass from foreigners. Do you argue against that point? And if not, then how can you claim that position isn’t collectivist?

            I’m not interested in making a value judgement on this, it’s strictly about the definition of terms. We’ve discussed the value of those positions ad nauseum with really no chance of changing our positions, which is actually fine. People can have different value systems.

            1. The entire notion of *human* rights is collectivist by your standards.

              Go ahead: define *human* rights in a non-collectivist manner.

              1. If you mean all of humanity is a collective, then I guess I’m guilty of repressing the rest of the animals.

                Now, are you going to address my points with regards to collectivism?

    2. In my mind, the key difference between this neo-nationalism vs classical liberalism is the idea that rights are a function of one’s citizenship for nationalism vs being a function of one’s humanity for classical liberalism.

      Classical liberalism recognized borders and national interests. It wasn’t libertarianism. Stop lying and pretending that it was. If you want to be an internatonalist libertarian who rejects the nation state and all concepts of soveriegnty and borders, that is your right. But, it is not your right to slander classical liberalism as something that it wasn’t. It is not your ideology and stop pretending it is.

      1. Classical liberals believed that rights flowed from our humanity, not from our nationality. Do you dispute that?

        “All men by nature are equal in that equal right that every man hath to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man” – John Locke

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” – Thomas Jefferson

        There is no conflict between the concept of natural rights and national sovereignty, until someone tries to use national sovereignty as an excuse to restrict natural rights. Which is a greater virtue than the other, in your mind, is probably a pretty good litmus test on whether you’re a (classical) liberal or a nationalist.

        1. Classical liberals believed that rights flowed from our humanity, not from our nationality. Do you dispute that?

          Yes. Show me the stone tablet from on high that grants those rights, and I’ll grant that you have them. Until then, you’re simply pulling things out of your ass.

          1. That’s the beauty of libertarianism. I believe that I don’t need you to grant me my rights, I have them because I exist.

            The problem with getting rights from government is that they can take them away with a simple vote. Or infringe on the rights of others simply because the government has deemed that they don’t have rights (slavery is a pretty good example of this.)

            1. That’s the beauty of libertarianism. I believe that I don’t need you to grant me my rights, I have them because I exist.

              Prove it. Assertion lacking supporting evidence.

              1. You want me to prove that we have natural rights? I can’t, it’s an abstraction. We don’t have any rights insofar as the government chooses to defend them or not prosecute us for defending them ourselves.

                I can prove that classical liberal ideology is founded on the idea of natural rights, which I tried to do by quoting Locke and Jefferson.

                Practically speaking, prove you have any rights? The government can take them away, almost at will today, and if not at will by 2/3 majority and 3/4 of the states. That’s all it would take to overturn 2A, technically. Would you argue that if that were the case you would accept the judgement of democracy and give up your guns?

  11. But history has taught us that self-defense, in addition to resisting unwanted invasions of our rights, can transition into invasions of others’ rights, with the original aggressor easily scapegoated and deprived of rights.

    So watch out for that whole self-defense thing. You’re playing with fire.

  12. “Whatever new order replaces the old, there will be an important role for us cranky individualists to play.”

    Sounds mighty collectivist.
    I’m just wondering who wrote that sentence, as use of the word “us” followed by “individualists” would logically exclude the nominal author of this piece.

    1. “nuance”

      The usual Leftist empty claim to having fancier ideas, without showing *how* they’re fancier.

      Postmodernist rot.

  13. This is true of nationalism. But also of internationalism. Which one has the greater tendency to lead to statism depends on other specs of the circs. Right now in the UK I think nationalism’s noticeably better at resisting authoritarianism. In the US, not as clear, but the nationalist trends here seem at least associated w libertarian impulses.

    1. From the US perspective, nationalism has been associated with staying out of wars abroad and internationalism with getting us involved in wars. If you are going to take every refugee from every failed state, and reason demands that the US do just that, you can’t then claim to be surprised when the public takes a more active interest in the fate of the rest of the world and is more willing to go to war over things beyond self defense and US interests. Reason can’t figure that out. You don’t just get free trade and open borders. You get the internationalism and the impulse to police the world that necessarily comes with that.

      1. in other words open borders may be okay but when it becomes a flood then we have to take an interest in other nations internal workings If you don’t want that internationalism you have to close the borders to stop the flood.

  14. This feels more like an “Introduction” to an article than an article.

    i see where its going, and i think its an interesting topic, but Matt stops before he even makes a case for the future of cranky-individualism, or before demonstrating what the substantive links between ‘Brendan O’Neill’ and ‘W James Antle III’ really are.

    fwiw, i don’t think “Libertarianism” is seeing any real schism, w/ large swaths suddenly transforming into nationalists while ‘good ones’ remain progressives who say nice things about markets.

    I think its always been a loose-glue constituency & that there have always been multiple serious divides between self-styled libertarians, barely papered over

    And i don’t think Trump really has anything to do w/ it. If anything he’s just an excuse.

    If there’s a significant schism going on in american politics, imo its between factions on the left, not ‘right or libertoid’.

    The big-tent on the right isn’t really reliant on any single issue – even immigration – to maintain cohesion. They’re happy w/ some combination of ‘status quo’ and ‘needle the left’

    but the left is riddled w/ divides over how dogmatic people need to be over ”green new deal’, ‘medicare for all’, ‘free college’, anti-Israel posturing, etc. Screw up on a single one? and you’re a crypto-fascist

    By contrast, a mild shift in rhetoric by a few ‘vaguely libertarianish rando columnists’ isn’t really all that significant, imo

    1. *footnote:

      people make fun of O’neil’s ‘Libertarian Marxist’ thing, but i’ve always quite liked his writing.

      he’s a good one.

      I think people’s stated brands of personal politics is increasingly irrelevant, and what’s more important is how they stand on some basic liberty issues; if i had to reduce it to the most simple divide, its “pluralism” vs. “anti-pluralism”

      e.g. the former are people who simply want to live in a world where people are free to disagree; the latter insist these disagreements are irreconcilable and that ‘the other side’ on certain debates are an existential threat to their being.

      you find a wide range of relatively moderate people in the former camp, and ‘the SJWs and alt-right’ whacking at each other in the latter. I think too much debate is focused on the antics of the latter when the real majority of american people reside in some version of the former.

      1. Nobody could discern my libertarian ideology from just my positions on issues that are on the agenda. I’m so extremely pro-choice on abortion, I’m for legal infanticide. I’m against same-sex “marriage”. I think persistent & large trade deficits w the outside world bode ill, but I’m against trade restrictions.

        1. Do you think you’re typical of anything?

      2. I like his work. But admiiting you’re a Marxist is amusing given it’s an ideology for the envious, illiberal, and retards.

        1. Marx was on point for some things.
          – tyranny through control over the means of production. In the information age, we see this most readily in major media, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc
          – class warfare. This I very much embrace, though I think he was wrong about the classes. Rather, it’s the independent/productive/working vs the crony/subsidized/regulating

    2. “Populism” in today’s media generally is just shorthand for “people the speaker doesn’t like having a say in government”.

      1. “bloody peasant”

  15. Usually there’s no road directly from where you are to where you want to go. You have to choose from the roads that are open, because you’re not in position to build a new road. Such is the way w politics.

  16. Living in PCT I am too often late to the party, but I have to say-
    Hungary is losing population, but no more than, often less than other Eastern European countries.
    Hungary does prefer white Christian immigrants. Perhaps because it already has a large Jewish and Roma population, it wants to limit Muslims.
    Anti Semitic for Welsh appears to equate to “anti Sotos ism”

  17. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  18. Matt is candidly admitting that Reason pays marxists to offend readers with their scribbling. So why not come out and honestly admit that “populism” is itself a watery euphemism–a mask to help pretend that we are not talking about communo-fascist variants of socialism? After all, are there any political parties allowed to operate in Europe that are NOT Stalinist, Hitlerite or something tightly wedged in between these Siamese-twin versions of looter kleptocracy?

  19. Daniel. true that Esther`s storry is surprising… on tuesday I got a great Smart ForTwo since getting a check for $5857 this last 5 weeks and a little over ten grand this past-month. this is actually the nicest work I have ever had. I actually started 9-months ago and straight away started to bring in over $73.. per-hour. I follow the details here,

  20. Ugh. Reason showing how out of touch with Reality they are again… Internationalist globalist utopian thinking will NEVER work. Because it goes against some of the hardest wired traits human beings have… To belong to a community, a culture, to determine their own way, etc. All the things the international technocrats absolutely cannot stand.

    Nationalism is not in and of itself a bad thing… Only bad forms of nationalism are bad things. It’s as simple as that. Freedom is not a bad thing, but certain ways some people use freedom is bad… Like choosing of their own free will to rape and murder somebody. Looking out for your national interests first and saying “We like the way we do things here in America BETTER than the way those tools in Europe/Asia/Middle East/Africa do shit.” does NOT make you automatically bad. Imperialistic nationalism is bad, but not taking care of your own shit first and foremost, which is the simplest form of nationalism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.