How Trumpenvolk Talk

Atlantic Centurion
July 21, 2016

NRO writer and Republican party ship-jumper Jay Nordlinger is having a hard time. He is deeply concerned, troubled even, by how mean the alt-right is to him and the rest of his magazine on social media and in comments sections. In a recent article, “How Trump Folk Talk: A Political Movement and Its Lexicon,” Nordlinger tries to unpack some of our metapolitical dictionary and refute the charges of being a neocohen, cuckservative, Hillary supporter, and the like, which are coming at him from not just the alt-right’s meme army but from even Trump’s normie supporters. It was a nice try, but Nordlinger’s sad mewling is unconvincing. Let’s get a real explanation of why the alt-right is in the right, and NRO is in the trash heap of ideology when it comes to vocabulary:

Globalist — Nordlinger protests that “we at National Review, of course, have been making the case for sovereignty and the nation-state for years,” so the charges of being a globalist are false. He adds that it is “one of those nonsense words of the populist Right.” But the actual nonsense is him insinuating that NRO are nationalists. What kind of nationalism does NRO believe in? Are they going to do anything to preserve the historical American nation? Or are they civic nationalists who take the Ship of Theseus approach, where you just replace everyone with immigrants and expect America’s magic dirt to turn them into White-presenting natural conservatives? If you don’t believe in putting the welfare of your citizenry before foreign economic migrants, you are a globalist. If you believe jobs should be exported to sweatshops in the third world in the name of free trade, so that American breadwinners can be unemployed and the nuclear family broken down, you are a globalist. If you believe in America as a shopping mall for the world and not as a defensible homeland for its people, you are a globalist.

Open Borders — Nordlinger claims to be a “restrictionist” and that the people saying NRO supports open borders are really just saying, “you don’t support the candidate I support, and I hate you.” This is bullshit. Show me anyone at NRO who thinks we should enforce our immigration laws and deport violators, ban Islamic colonization, and restrict legal immigration levels to less than what they are now. I’ll wait. You either support enforcing the border and managing who comes so as to not radically alter society or you don’t. Most immigration since the 1960s has been non-white and most population growth has been due to immigration. That is how Anglo-Americans, who the Census labels as non-Hispanic Whites, went from almost 90% of the population to almost 60%, became a minority of births in this country, and got on track to becoming a minority of the total population by the 2040s. Oh and by the way, these people coming in, the majority of them and their descendants are not voting Republican. Decrying identity politics as divisive will not change tribal voting patterns. If you support any mass non-White immigration whatsoever, you are supporting the open borders imperative of the treasonous ((((Hart-Celler Act))), whose supporters in 1965 claimed it would not alter the racial composition of the United States. And you are supporting the marginalization of American conservative politics, which is almost entirely a White thing. No Whites, no American conservatism.  So-called “restrictionists” just want this process to be gradual; they won’t commit to stopping it.

Open Borders for Israel / Israel Firster — This is one of my favorites. Nordlinger writes that Open Borders for Israel is “a taunt” alleging that anti-Trump conservatives put Israel above America and that it means since “anti-Trumpers want open borders for America, they should surely want it for Israel. Which would destroy Israel. So, ha ha.” This is not a refutation. He is completely nailed here and he must know it. Movement conservatives believe strongly in the alliance with Israel and in using the American treasury to defend Israel’s existence. Israeli policy under the Likud government is to not allow Muslim refugees/migrants into the country or right of return to displaced Palestinians or their descendants. You know, since letting in millions of Arabs would make Jews a minority in the “Jewish state.” To stop migration from the global south, the Israelis have built barriers and border fences. That sounds pretty rational. Zionists want a Jewish majoritarian state. NRO wants the same thing as it supports Israel. But they don’t want the United States, their own country, to continue being a White majoritarian state. I thought movement conservatives were obsessed with sticking to principles. It seems like they are compromised when it comes to ethnonationalism. This is the essence of the Open Borders for Israel troll campaign, and what makes it so effective—it unearths the filthy vermin eating away at us.

Neocon / Neocohen — Nordlinger mewls that  Trumpists don’t “have the slightest idea what a neocon is,” that they only have a “vague sense that it means warmongering globalist.” He also notes that “alt-Rightists often say ‘neocohen.’ Get it? Get it? Good one, huh?” It is a good one actually, given the Jewish intellectual roots of neoconservatism, something even its Wikipedia article points out. You don’t have to read The Occidental Observer or use the Coincidence Detector plugin for Google Chrome to know this. Strauss, Kristol, Podhoretz, Wolfowitz, Bell (Bolotsky), Kagan, Nuland, Perle, Feith, Krauthammer, Frum, Muravchik—oy vey this sounds like the guest list at a bar mitzvah! And yes, neocons are warmongering globalists. (((Trotskyite))) world-revolutionary ideology is the grandfather of neoconservatism, almost literally for some of its adherents. Who can honestly deny that neocon foreign policy is to wage war in the name of exporting free-market capitalism and postwar democracy (i.e. neoliberalism), and to aggressively defend Israeli interests? Does the United States benefit from felling secure Arab nationalist/Baathist governments in the Middle East so they can be replaced with democracies vulnerable to Islamist parties and sectarian conflicts?

GOPe / Establishment — Nordlinger doesn’t like this term at all, and writes that “people should make arguments for or against various policies without recourse to bogey words such as ‘establishment.’” What he seems to miss is that “the establishment” is a metonym for anti-populist movement conservatism and its Beltway right acolytes who dominate right-wing politics in Washington. What a mouthful. I think I will stick to calling them the establishment—in other words, anti-Trump conservatives. Some more food for thought: just as Nordlinger thinks the alt-right is bad because of “racism,” we think he is bad because he is “the establishment.” People on their respective sides know what is meant here. Don’t dish it if you can’t take it.

RINO — I actually do have to give Nordlinger a little credit here. He did leave the Republican party when Trump became nominee-apparent, so he literally cannot be a Republican-in-name-only (RINO). And calling other NRO writers RINOs is pretty basic. They are very much pre-Trump party-line Republicans. Since Trump is a newer breed of Republican as well as a former Democrat, he is wide-open to being called a RINO. To be fair though, whatever Trump’s brand of Republicanism is, he offers a much more robust and unflinching defense of it than anyone at NRO does of their own ideology, which retreats every few years and moves leftward. Sad!

Donor Class — You are being called “donor class” because you have almost the same, if not the very same set of opinions as the people who finance GOP candidates in elections. The candidates you shilled for pretty much had a blank check and they still lost to Trumpist populism and (civic) nationalism, to someone who ran their primary campaign on a shoestring budget. “Not since I was a student, surrounded by Marxists, have I heard so much talk about class. Or such expressions of class envy. And it all comes from the Trump army,” squeaks Nordlinger. Don’t be so shocked that people are talking about class on both the left and the right; your neoliberal free trade policies combined with the lenient mass immigration of unskilled labor were and continue to be a disaster for this country and have resulted in rising poverty, job insecurity, and underemployment. In other words, we are tired of your garbage and tired of the conversion of our homeland into an international shopping mall.

Cocktail Parties — “The Right charges you with tailoring your views to cocktail parties. As they tell it, ‘You have to toe the liberal line or your invitations to cocktail parties will dry up.’ This is so divorced from reality, it’s hard to know what to say,” writes Nordlinger. This is another metonymic meme meant to malign the milieu of movement conservatism. The cocktail party is the ultimate symbol of cuckservative compliance. It’s a place you ascend to for having the most correct opinions, where you can signal how much of a true conservative you are. It’s where one acquires connections and influence in the Beltway. There is no analogous institution for populists and nationalists. So yes, this is an expression of derision and resentment.

Elitist — Nordlinger’s jimmies are very rustled that “Trump partisans fancy themselves tribunes of the people — or the people themselves,” while people like him are “are non-people, somehow.” Considering how much flak Trump’s support base gets for skewing towards non-college White voters, I think it is fair to call anti-Trump conservative journalists members of the elite. Elites are not inherently bad though, so long as they are in tune with the aspirations of the people and exercise stewardship over the state and other civil and social institutions. The elite class of the United States does not do this. So an outspoken and angry billionaire (who has been critical of Washington for decades) is attempting to oust them on a populist platform, and becoming the most hated man in the world in the process.

Hillary Supporter — This is an easy one to get. #NeverTrump conservatives, by refusing to support or vote for the Republican nominee for president, are supporting the Clinton campaign. Supposedly they’ve hated Clinton more than the devil himself for years, and now we are expected to ignore that they’ve dropped defeating her from their platform? The United States is a de facto two-party state, so those are your options, A and B. Not-A is the same as B. I have my own disagreements with things Trump has said, but as an ethnonationalist I still support him as the best option. Why conservatives would disagree with him but not support him, tacitly endorsing Clinton, is beyond me, unless of course they are saying she is the better conservative of the two. Guess what, you’re Democrats now. Don’t expect a warm welcome from the coalition of the fringes, you White male.

The overarching theme here is a failure on the part of Nordlinger to defend his own ideology or position. His response to the Trumpists is limp and reads more like concern-trolling than anything else. This is why conservatives lose—their mission is just slower-paced liberalism. No coherent defense of movement conservatism can be mounted in the first place because it is a losing ideology. Out of fear of being called racist by third-worldists, marxists, communists, and (((public intellectuals))), these conservatives refuse to endorse any policies that would conserve their voter base.