Neocons, Free Trade, Open Borders (Choose Any Three)

Ted Colt notices,

One needn’t look further than a Wikipedia article describing NeoConservative history to comprehend the connection between neocons & free trade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

EVERY! FUCKING! TIME!

If your Alt-Right brand isn’t “anti-semitic” then you’re not alt-right

I prefer the more accurate term of art “countersemitic”. (The ADL, unsurprisingly, does not.) We are countering the malicious agenda of a hostile minority intent on drowning us in foreign invaders, trite consumerism, backbreaking debt, endless interventionist wars, and basically anything that destroys the historical and cultural bonds of the majority’s community, neighborhood, town, and nation.

Free Trade is practically a euphemism for Open Borders. The underlying motivation of the neocons and their useful signalers is One World Deracination. Neocon Globalists love free trade because they love open borders, cheap dispensable labor, and a terrorformed society that restricts the ability of Whites to act as a bloc and petition for their own interests. Arguing from the relatively benign premise of free trade allows the shift to “free movement of labor” rhetoric, which is the real goal of the Nation Wreckers.

Most fortunately for the Nation Saviors, “free trade” has become justifiably saddled with negative connotations, so this neocon sleight of rhetoric no longer works as well as it once did (there are still GOPe cuck hold-outs, but they’ll bend the knee to Trumpism in due time). Tariffs, for example, are immensely popular, and support cuts across voter demos. The latest poll has 80% of Americans supporting Trump’s tariffs.

Neocon Globalists pull more than their weight, but they aren’t acting alone. The universalist strain runs deep in neoliberal Gentile Whites.

Ovidiu Stoica notices,

It is a continuation of the liberal project of modernity which started in the 18th century but got trapped inside the national state because of nationalism. The goal is universal individualism and contractual only relations between individuals- no non-commercial (not chosen) community ties&bonds which would limit the individual.

Pure transactionalism is, ironically, dehumanizing of the individual, because we didn’t evolve in a social vacuum. There are those who would like us atomized and vacuum-sealed, but they don’t have the majority’s interests at heart, so it’s smart to dismiss their agitations as the effluvium of tribal spite, and to stop pretending they are worth heeding and that they know what’s best for us.

Twinkie notices,

I think Amy Chua is right in one way – the condition she describes may be objectively true. But she is wrong in another way. Some groups (e.g. Jews, blacks) could never be the majority and, yet, for some reason appear to harbor an irrational hostility toward the existing majority. Therefore, given the choice between living under that majority comfortably and stably or Balkanizing the society so their relative power improves vis-à-vis that majority, despite the increase in general instability, they seem to favor policies that lead to the latter.

For me, not only is the dominant Angl0-American culture (and the native white majority that enables it) appealing and desirable, it is also objectively beneficial for non- and part-whites who live in it, so it’s also in the interests of non-whites to want to maintain the native white majority.

So I find the political behaviors of these groups irrational, short-sighted, and quite incomprehensible.

Why? is a great question, and “social status striving” left to stew in a cauldron of envy and in-group favoritism is the answer. Status striving to feed an insatiable ego is a powerful force, powerful enough in some successful but implacably resentful minority groups to convince them to destroy the country they live in to spite the majority. As well, this particular group (and others who have evolved a similar temperament) may be better able to handle the societal instability their spite creates, and so for them the increase in their relative power vis-à-vis the shrinking majority is worth the comparatively smaller decrease in their well-being caused by the consequences of their monstrous Babelic creation.

PS Svigor has a great comment on this important topic. His other comments in that thread are worth reading, too (the same can’t be said for Fred Reed’s post which inspired Svigor’s thrashing of him).

***

Commenter Watson notices,

“It’s Okay to be White”

“My Borders, My Choice”

We should have one for trade. Maybe, “Don’t Trade Away our Wealth”. Or something else.

Even AFL-CIO gave a statement strongly in favor of Trump’s tariffs. Imagine that, a liberal-dominated institution strongly favoring a Trump policy:

“”For years, we have called attention to the predatory practices of some steel exporting countries. Such practices hurt working people and cheat companies that produce in the U.S. We applaud the administration’s efforts today to fix this problem.”

“Some steel exporting countries.”

Context: China produces 53% of the world’s aluminum and 49% of the world’s steel. (There was a time when most of the world’s aluminum came from Rhodesia, before that nation was destroyed.) Is half the world’s steel located in China? Of course not, it’s spread across the world. But their government finances the mining so they can dump prices in order to bankrupt Western steel producers. And they cut costs to a level where they every year have mines caving in and killing people.

AFL-CIO knows this. Everyone knows this. Politicians who pretend not to know are simply traitors, and that’s not an exaggeration.

There’s a nationalist issue here aside from saving business for economic reasons. And that’s this: Control of production = control of policy. Example: Nations are afraid of officially recognizing that Taiwan is a country because they don’t want to lose trade with China.

China knows that production is power, so they demand that those who export to China have to build factories … in China. Where they are easily controlled in future confrontations. (And also give jobs to Chinese.) How about we demand the same? “No, that would be a blow against free trade! Except when China does it!”

For liberals and cuckservatives who want to oppose Trump, this tariff policy would be a very foolish hill to die on. It’s much like the Black players who refuse to stand for the flag: Trump identified an issue where he can win easily.

Control production, control policy. That should be a go-to Maul-Right meme. And Watson is right; the preponderance of our ruling elite are traitors, in the very traditional sense of the word and with all that it retributively implies.

Commenter meistergedanken’s friend notices,

A friend of mine wrote on FB:
“I already pay thousands of dollars more to live in the suburbs instead of the pleasantly-scaled, walkable mill town nearby. Why? Because the mill that supported the town closed after NAFTA and is now a dangerous slum. I pay more in gas and vehicle wear-and-tear because I can’t walk to anything. I drive all around town for work, groceries, hardware, church, and school. Utility upkeep–including roads, sewers, electrical, cable, etc.–costs more because the supply lines are spread over hundreds more acres of sprawl.

I pay more in taxes because people on the lower end of the intelligence distribution curve no longer have a source of stable, adequate employment. The schools require more resources to manage malnourished and emotionally damaged children from broken homes–well, that comes out of my property tax too. I give more time and money to local charity to help my community cope with waves of drug addiction and homelessness. I’m told that this endless, crushing social illness affecting every corner of American society is just part of the price we pay for living in a global economy.

That it’s all part of the price of “free” trade.

So I’ve always wondered what, then, is the price of protectionism? Surely if I’m willing to pay all this just to keep my shelves lined with unlimited Chinese plastic, the cost of tariffs must be truly backbreaking.

Wait, what? It’s three cents per beer can? Three fucking cents?”

Globalism is evil. Globalist cheerleaders are full of malice for Heritage America. And now we know. The curtain is finally pulled back.

williamk notices what rick the strapon within refuses to notice,

strapon: “US consumers paying more for things”

No proof this actually happens. Prices are set to maximize PROFIT. Raising production costs doesn’t automatically raise the price. If you lose more customers by raising price, price stays put, tariff or not.

Microeconomics is more complicated than “durr drumpf tariffs bad”

williamk is right and, as usual, strapon is wrong. There’s very little evidence that tariffs nontrivially raise prices on consumer goods. There is evidence that tariffs lower corporate PROFITS but what that means is a hit to stockholders and fat cat CEO take home pay. So tariffs REDUCE INCOME INEQUALITY, which you would think a shitlib goon like strapon would be all in favor of….except perhaps when it’s her nemesis Trump proposing the egalitarian policies. Strapon never misses an opportunity to remind everyone that she is disingenuous as a matter of habit.