A Response to David Brooks' "The Future of the American Left"

http://www.unz.com/isteve/brooks-the-future-of-the-american-left/

"Not long ago, most of the American left tended to think transnationally — partly because problems like climate change are global, partly because it’s hard to regulate a global economy nation by nation, partly because progressives used to be psychologically averse to nationalism."

Funny, but it seems ‘free trade’ is transnational too, and it allowed rapid industrialization of China and India that led to so much additional green house gases. Maybe the global environment wouldn’t have been so polluted if not for transnational global capitalism.

Sierra Club used to be more mindful of immigration’s impact on environment. No longer. It got bribed into welcoming more mass invaders into the West.

Also, as Ross Perot pointed out, when US companies remained IN the US, they adhered to environmental regulations. When they moved to Mexico, Vietnam, or China, not so much if at all. They could pollute all they wanted.

"Tribalism is in the air, on the left as well as on the right."

As opposed to both parties saying WE LOVE ISRAEL AND WE HATE RUSSIA & IRAN BECAUSE JEWS HATE THEM?

Tribalism or nationalism is NOT a zero-sum game of ‘we get all, you get none’.
Maybe it is with Jews, and therefore, Brooks could be projecting his tribal supremacism onto others. After all, the Jewish way in the Middle East is ‘Jews get everything, Palestinians get nothing’. Or it’s a case of  ‘Israel can have nukes and randomly attack its neighbors and be showered with billions in aid… but Iran, a nation with no nukes, must be sanctioned to death.’
Brooks’ tribe practices that kind of zero-sum tribalism.

But most peoples in the US don’t. Their tribalism is ‘negotiative’. And most of American tribalism was always like this. Take NY. It has had Italians, Jews, Irish, Poles, blacks, Germans, Greeks, and etc. They all had a sense of ethnic community, but they knew they had to get along with other groups. So, they negotiated. It was never about ‘We Italians get everything, and rest of yous get nothing’ or ‘We Irish take everything, and the rest of you starve.’

If any group tarnished the good name of negotiative tribalism, it was Jews because their agenda was ALL OF YOU MUST SERVE US. Jewish tribalism has been the most zero-sum.

For example, Greek Americans have Greek interests and use their political and economic clout to sway US government to favor Greek interests. Turkish-Americans do the same. All groups do this. But Greeks don’t make ALL OF US favor Greek interests over our own interests. Greeks do their thing, Irish do their thing, Turkish-Americans do their thing, and etc.
But Jews? All of us are made to sing must hosannas to Israel, all of us must worship Shoah(even though most of us had NOTHING to do with it), and all of us must despise and hate Palestinians. And if Jews decide to hate Russia and Iran, all of us must hate them too. What is MSM but Jewish-run Hate News against Russia, Iran, and White gentiles?

Someone should tell Brooks that his people need to practice negotiative tribalism than zero-sum tribalism. Even so-called Jewish Liberalism is just a weapon of Jewish Power. Jewish anti-tribalism is really just (((anti-tribalism))) that aims to boost Jewish tribalism be weakening gentile tribalism. Jonathan (((Weisman))) let the cat out of the bag when he explained that Open Borders policy is wonderful because it is especially good for Jewish global hegemony. Basically, he’s admitting that gentile national sovereignty must be tossed to serve Jewish globalist hegemony.

Another thing. Identity politics of Right and Left are utterly different. On the Right, it’s about loyalty to essential and real identity with history, roots, culture, and memory.
In contrast, leftist politics is about ideology than identity. Credo than Ethno. Marxism is an idea in the mind. Now, classes do exist in society, but they are far less fixed than race, ethnicity, or culture. Whether rich Greek or poor Greek, a Greek is Greek. But if a poor man becomes a rich man, his class has changed. In India, caste and ethnicity are almost synonymous but not in the West.

Still, at least Marxism addressed real social evils of the dark side of capitalism. Today’s ‘leftism’ is an inspid vanity circus about how homos and trannies must be celebrated, even worshiped(as proxy puppets of the Tribe). Some guy recently wrote in NYT that Marx was right, i.e. today’s SJW are still carrying the torch. No, if Marx turned out to be right, it is because capitalism did come to be dominated by disgusting oligarchic imperialists with no sense of limits or decency. Gayday is elite destruction of the true leftism of Mayday. Today's 'leftism' is like the Apple Campaign of 'Think Different'. It is corporate appropriation of everything to turn them into brands and logos. Today's 'Marx' is like a Che Guevara T-shirt. It is fake leftism invoked to push Homomania funded by Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Hollywood as a means to replace class politics with the cult of universal vanity and narcissism.

Also, much of leftist identity is really rightist. Black power, brown power, and etc are really forms of rightism.
They are about 'my people, my culture, my heritage'. They are particularist, not universalist.
They only happen to be allied with naive white gentile leftism. Likewise, Muslims in Europe are allied with secular leftists because the latter are more for Open Borders. Does that make Islam a ‘leftist’ ideology? No. It’s just about alliances… like Saudis are allied with the US.  And let's not forget the 'intersectionality' of Nazi imperialism and Japanese imperialism against the intersectionality of Anglo-American Imperialism and Soviet Imperialism. Politics makes for odd bedfellows.

Furthermore, current Leftism values identity only in terms of its ‘victim’ value. Unless an identity can invoke iconic victimhood, it has no value in the eyes of the Left.

In contrast, identity has value simply for its roots, substance, and history on the Right. Whether Swedes or Poles are a ‘victim’ group or not, the Right believes their identity has value as a repository of history, culture, and sense of larger shared community.

Leftist identity is purely negativist. So, if a group can claim victimhood, its identity matters. But if the group loses its victim credentials, its identity must be deconstructed and impugned.  Today's so-called Leftism is held together by Shared Hate. Jews maintain the Coalition by vilifying White Gentile 'cis-gender' Males as the source of All Evil.  Without that Hate Hysteria, the current 'leftist' coalition will unravel overnight.

In contrast, rightist conception of identity has value regardless of political fashions or perceptions. Thus, is far richer and more meaningful. It’s not identity as mere virtue-signaling.

Also, rightist identity is largely a matter of Inheritance.  You receive your identity, culture, and history from forebears and pass them down. In contrast, much of New Identity Politics on the 'left' is fantastic and faddish, especially with 'gender fluidity' that says a man with penis and balls is suddenly a 'woman' if he so chooses.

--------------------

Left needs to cross with the Right. And that is what Trumpism called for.

Left vs Right is the most toxic idea to come out of the French Revolution.

The proper way is Left and Right. That is the only intersectionality or convergence that really matters. Left without the Right is like a Crucifix with bar but no pole. Right without the Left is like a Crucifix with pole but no bar.

The radicals of the French Revolution failed because they were all leftist. Napoleon did much better by crossing left and right. FDR did this too with New Deal. The saner part of Hitler did the same before he went nuts with imperialist war fever.

Nationalism is the best socialism. When the elites are compelled to think nationally, they feel a sense of obligation to the people of the nation. If they think globally, they just dream of ‘new ____’(in the form of endless Mass Invaders) or spout off symbolic banalities about “it takes a village” without doing anything for anyone. After all, a man who takes care of his own kids is a better man than a man who claims to love ALL kids but does nothing for any of them, including his own.