Decius Out of the Darkness: A Q&A with Michael Anton

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 February 12, 2017|
Print Friendly

Michael Anton takes questions from reporters in the West Wing.

The Huffington Post on Thursday published a story by foreign affairs reporter Jessica Schulberg highlighting the work of Michael Anton, also known as Publius Decius Mus. Headlined “Trump Aide Derided Islam, Immigration And Diversity, Embraced An Anti-Semitic Past,” Schulberg’s story examines Anton’s older writings and make some shocking claims about his view of the world, breathlessly reporting how he “promoted Trump’s anti-Islam, anti-immigration platform on fringe websites.” (Ahem.)

Then on Sunday, The Intercept published a piece by Peter Maass titled, “Dark Essays By White House Are the Intellectual Source Code of Trumpism.”

“Nobody in the administration has drawn up a real-time ideological blueprint to explain the intentional chaos of what’s happening under Trump,” writes Maass, “except, as it now turns out, Michael Anton, whose radical theories have been compared to those of a German philosopher named Carl Schmitt, who helped lay the legal foundations of the Nazi Party.”

Are these stories’ claims true? We asked our friend Michael, who was a senior contributing editor of American Greatness before taking a post with the National Security Council, to shed some light on the matter.

HuffPo and The Intercept basically say you’re an anti-semite, or something close to it. What do you say to that?

It’s completely outrageous but sadly typical of the slander culture perfected by the modern Left. They can’t debate ideas anymore and don’t even want to try. They just look for any way to connect their enemies—that’s what I am to them, an enemy—to some scurrilous person or outlook. Once that taint is on you, they then work to make it impossible to scrub out.

What’s especially risible about this is that I’m a Straussian. It’s metaphysically impossible to be an anti-Semitic Straussian. My great teacher, Harry Jaffa—a man I revere more than any other I’ve ever known—was Jewish. I will go to my grave with my two greatest intellectual influences, the two people who more than any others formed my mind, being Jewish. Anti-semite? Give me a break.

But that’s the modern Left for you. They will turn that around and say, “Oh that’s just the old ‘some of my best friends are Jewish’ line.” Which in my case, happens to be true. The point is, nothing you can say is considered a valid defense. Once they have the chance to smear you, they will do it and continue the smear because it serves their interests. The human damage that they cause, the destruction of reputations—they don’t care about that. Actually, they do care, but they see it as a positive. Enemies are to be destroyed by any means necessary.

Has your position on Iraq changed over the years and if so how and why?

It’s just plain that the 2003 invasion was a mistake. Not a crime. And no, I don’t believe the Bush administration lied about it. I was there and I supported it at the time, and I can say with absolute certainty that all of us, from the president on down, believed every word we said. It’s just insane to think that any president would knowingly invade a country, knowing that his claims for why the action would be necessary would be discredited by that very action! That would be like Geraldo Rivera knowing in advance there was nothing in Al Capone’s secret vault and still broadcasting the opening live anyway.

But the plain fact is that the action was a mistake. Given the aftermath and the outcome, I don’t see how it’s possible to argue otherwise. That said, I stand by prior arguments that I’ve made, that the surge was both the right thing to do and a strategic victory for the United States, and that the 2011 bugout was a colossal strategic mistake.

Please clarify what mean when you wrote the America First Committee had been “unfairly maligned.”

President Trump often used the phrase “America First” on the campaign trail and still uses it as president, including in his inaugural. For him, it obviously means something so simple and uncontroversial it’s almost tautological: the purpose of the American government is to serve the American people. Not foreign people, not the world’s people, the American people. That is the purpose of any and every government: to serve the people who enact and consent to that government.

Trump’s enemies try to make this into a big scandal because the phrase “America First” was the name of a famous committee in the late 1930s and early 1940s that wanted to keep the United States out of World War II. It was primarily an isolationist movement, but there were anti-semitic elements that supported it. What the Left has tried to do—with much success, unfortunately—is retcon the committee as primarily an anti-Jewish group when that’s not what it was. It’s classic guilt by association: here is this group that a lot of anti-semites supported, therefore the group was anti-semitic and anyone who says anything good about it is an anti-semite.

Now, I disagree with the America First committee’s isolationist stance. But that’s easy for me to do in hindsight. However, to the average American in 1940, it was not obvious why the United States should get involved in another European war. It took great strategic vision and foresight to see that clearly, and most just didn’t see it. FDR, who did see it, was very constrained in what he could do for the Allies before Pearl Harbor. Even after Pearl Harbor, absent Hitler’s mystifyingly idiotic declaration of war on the United States, public opinion probably would not have supported U.S. operations in Europe. In fact, in fighting the war, FDR prioritized the European theater over the Pacific against U.S. public opinion, and had to downplay the fact that he was doing so.

The point here is, the wish to stay out of World War II was the animating cause of the America First Committee and that wish was perfectly respectable and reasonable, if ultimately wrong-headed. That’s why I say it was unfairly maligned.

So what does “America First” mean in the current context?

It means prioritizing American interests in our foreign policy and the American people in our domestic policy. Which is what every state—at least every government that is acting as it should—tries to do.

This is such a “well, duh” statement and idea that the fact it would be super controversial shows how corrupt our intellectual discourse has become.

But there’s another layer here, too. There is now, and has been for some time, a broad consensus from the center-right all the way to the far left that America’s only legitimate role is to be a kind of savior of and refuge for the world. It’s not a country with citizens and a government that serves those citizens. It belongs to everyone. Everyone has a right to come here, work here, live here, reap America’s bounty. We have no legitimate parochial interests. Rather America exists for others. This standard does not seem to be held to any other country, although one sees it increasingly rising in Europe.

So Donald Trump’s forthright stance against that, insisting that this country is ours, belongs to us, and demands that we prioritize our own interests, sounds like the most horrible blasphemy against this universalist consensus. I think that explains so much of the freakout against his presidency and the travel executive order, for instance. People ask, “How can he do that? Doesn’t he realize that America belongs to the whole world?” And Trump’s response is: “Don’t be silly, of course it doesn’t. It’s ours and we must do what’s best for us.” No prominent leader has said that or acted on that in ages. So the reassertion of basic common sense sounds shocking.

What about the broad charge of “white nationalism”?

Just another lie/smear. Though I cop to “nationalism,” but I do wonder what is the difference between nationalism and patriotism? I am open to being educated on that point if someone wants to make a case why “nationalism” is so awful but “patriotism” is OK. If I am a nationalist, I am an American nationalist. I am also an American patriot and I don’t see the difference.

As for the “white” part, where do people get that? It’s just a convenient way to destroy and smear and not have to deal with the argument.

Actually, one of my great hopes for a Trump Administration and Trump economic policy is that he will build class solidarity among the working classes of all races. I think that would be good for the country and put salutary pressure on the political system. That sounds sort of Marxist of me, but I can live with that.

I know there are people who call themselves “white nationalists” but they strike me as a fringe. I don’t think “white nationalism” per se is actually possible or viable. The root of “nationalism” is “nation.” A race is not a nation. Nations come together and cohere in various ways. There is the French nation, the Chinese nation, the Navajo nation and so on. Nationalism exists on that basis, of “peoplehood” for lack of a better term. This goes back to the ancient distinction between friend and enemy, citizen and foreigner. This is the way humanity organizes itself and always has. Individual nations do not exist by nature but the impulse to form nations is natural. There will always be nations, but it has never been done on a racial basis—that is, by trying to unite an entire race into one nation—and I don’t think ever could be.

In any event, American nationalism is transracial because the American people are multiracial.

Do you really argue, as Schulberg asserts, that “immigration inevitably hurts the U.S.”?

Of course not. Immigration, like most policies, is contextual, tactical. There times and circumstances when it benefits the country and times when it doesn’t. Machiavelli lays out the case that early republican Rome could not have survived without massive immigration. But that also later, massive immigration into the empire was very bad for Rome.

The same is true in the United States. There have been times when immigration was an enormous net positive for the American people—that is, the people already here. And there have been times when it was not. My view is that we long ago passed the point of diminishing returns and high immigration is no longer a net benefit to the existing American citizenry.

What’s happened in the meantime is that immigration became something of an absolute for that center-right-to-far-left consensus. Immigration is good—full stop. It’s “who we are.” How dare you question that! Racist! And so forth.

The fact is that America benefited enormously from the Ellis Island wave—my ancestors were part of that—but also benefitted from the post World War I restrictions, which vastly aided and speeded assimilation and forged a coherent national identity out of these recent arrivals. Doing that again would do enormous good in my view.

What is the proper basis for this country—or any country—to decide its immigration policy?

The proper basis is what is best for the existing citizenry—period, full stop. It’s also important to note that the existing citizenry is entitled to base its judgement on whatever considerations it wants. That is to say, the existing citizenry is free to be “wrong” in the eyes of expert or elite opinion.

Expert and elite opinion definitely wants high immigration and views opposition as “inaccurate” or “in error” and therefore illegitimate. This is true not just of immigration but of a whole range of policies that a majority of ordinary citizens don’t want but that the elites want. The elites then make an elaborate case for why their preferences are “correct” and any opposition is based on simple ignorance, not a legitimate, political difference. This is a much larger topic, that I explored in my previous writings, but that’s the heart of administrative state rule. Your wishes don’t count. Right and wrong are replaced by correct and incorrect and political government by the people is replaced by administrative rule by experts.

Did the analogy of “The Flight 93 Election” mean to imply that Hillary Clinton was a terrorist, as Schulberg seems to think, or that continuing the policies of the progressive Left would continue to undermine self-government, that the country had reached a tipping point?

The latter, of course. I really don’t know how I could have made that any clearer. The country was on a bad course, in my view. Administrative state control was growing and the speed of that growth was accelerating. There is massive bipartisan support for administrative state rule. The major exception in the last generation was the Trump candidacy.

Now, my judgement may have been wrong that 2016 was the last chance to turn things around. Obviously I don’t think it was wrong or else I wouldn’t have written that but one can’t rule it out.

My objections to a Hillary Clinton presidency were explained in detail and there’s no need to repeat them here. They did not include any notion that she is a “terrorist.”

Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard on Twitter compared you to Carl Schmitt. Explain the difference between the limited government constitutionalism you have advocated and Carl Schmitt’s defense of the Nazi Party.

Well, on the one hand I’m flattered because Schmitt was a brilliant man who had the respect of Leo Strauss. But, of course, that’s not what Bill meant. He meant to insinuate that I am a Nazi. I’ve known Bill for more than 20 years and always liked and respected him. That was about the lowest blow I’ve ever taken from a “friend,” however, and I don’t know what to make of it.

So, I read Concept of the Political once, in grad school, and that was a long time ago. I also read Heinrich Meier’s great book, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue, which shows how Strauss, in private correspondence, demonstrated to Schmitt the shortcomings of his argument and how Schmitt in response revised the book and made it better.

But in the end, Strauss is still right and Schmitt is still wrong. What Schmitt gets right is the irreducible nature of the friend-enemy distinction in politics. This is the Polemarchus argument in Book I of Plato’s Republic. Remember there are three initial definitions of justice and Socrates refutes them all. But of the three, only the middle one—help friends and harm enemies—survives in any form at all in the elucidation that follows in the rest of the dialogue.

As Strauss notes, the political community as such is closed. There is no possibility of a universal state, or certainly no possibility of one that is not a universal tyranny. He and Schmitt agree on this. Where they disagree is what gives the political—the state—its moral standing. Strauss identifies in Schmitt a kind of implicit indifference to this question. It doesn’t matter what the people agree on so long as they coalesce around something.

For Strauss—and the ancients, and the American founders—this is the vital question. What is the moral basis of the state? Only a government dedicated to just ends, to the good, is truly legitimate. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, refers to the “just powers” of government. Harry Jaffa always pointed students to the vital importance of that qualifier.  The government may not legitimately do anything it wants, for the same reason that the people cannot rightly do anything they want: because right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust exist by nature.  And the proper role of government is promote the good and prevent, resist and mitigate the bad.

Limited, constitutional government is, in the modern context, the best form of government through which a free people can secure the human good. The good is real. It’s not just a preference. It’s higher than our preference. It’s our duty to seek the good. That’s what government properly does. Schmitt, in Strauss’s reading, doesn’t see that and that’s why he could take his core legitimate insight—the centrality of the political—and go so far off into the darkness. On this question, as on so many others, I am with Strauss.

About the Author:

The Editors
  • BurkeanMama

    The Iran Deal is the single most anti-Semitic act of the US Government since FDR closed down Jewish immigration. Those who support Obama and Clinton support this genocidal treaty and then accuse others of antisemitism. Left wing projection at its most homicidal.

    • Ian Nairn

      I would say the UN resolution against “settlements” was the most AntiSemitic thing President Obama did. He made certain areas Judenfrei, and was more “literally Hitler” than the claims against President Trump.

      • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

        Wow, a two-fer, one loon followed by an even greater loon – unless this was a play at some kind of reductio ad absurdum.

    • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

      Lol. Are you out of your mind? “Anti-semitic?” What a shameless, baseless charge -just like it is 99% of the time over the last couple of generations.

  • Em_ptySkin

    “For Strauss—and the ancients, and the American founders—this is the vital question. What is the moral basis of the state?”

    Good god. But we’re not going to actually ever have any discussion about the nexus of classical republicanism and classical liberalism, are we? No, we’re going to consult the vagaries of Strauss and whatever morals means to his followers (that sounds a lot like neoconservatism).

    Just read Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Taylor, Randolph, Sedgwig – they’re what Americanism means; they defined the moral conditions of the ideal citizen. They defined Americanism – innovation and self-employment (not worker classes), jury nullification, strict corporate charters, no foreign banks, sound money, and policy comes from the House (once we get it under control), not the Senate, not the Executive, and not the think tanks. Reconciling these issues, along with only strategic defense alliances, should be what Americanism means. Not what these pseudo-neocons, and obvious Chatham plants say it is.

    • America First

      I don’t want today’s House making policy.

      • Em_ptySkin

        Me either. I want espionage investigations, first. But, the House making policy is the core definition of Republicanism.

    • CJinPA

      You think this is about House v. Senate policy-making? That kind of debate is a luxury of a bygone U.S. This is where we’re at:

      “There is now, and has been for some time, a broad consensus from the
      center-right all the way to the far left that America’s only legitimate
      role is to be a kind of savior of and refuge for the world. It’s not a
      country with citizens and a government that serves those citizens. It
      belongs to everyone. Everyone has a right to come here, work here, live
      here, reap America’s bounty. We have no legitimate parochial interests.
      Rather America exists for others.”

      “we’re not going to actually ever have any discussion about the nexus of
      classical republicanism and classical liberalism, are we?”

      If you don’t address the urgent struggle identified by Anton, you’re discussion is irrelevant.

      • Em_ptySkin

        “the urgent struggle identified by Anton”

        Read about the law for two seconds, kid. The liberals are simply wrong. YOU need to learn about elite ideologies (Atlanticism, cosmopolitanism, internationalism). Just because you are a little impotent pipsqueak that thinks history is irrelevant, does not make it so.

        Anton is a neocon, you fool. I mentioned many things, of which, my guess is, that you know nothing about, and hence want to turn the conversations back to “them blacks ain’t ‘serve my money.” I get that. I’m moving on. You’re fighting an ideology that is being weaponized by the same institutions responsible for US espionage. They have won ten times over and you don’t even know it, which is a testament to how many times they’ve already won..

        So, go on, continue fretting about the impotence of your heritage, mathematics will show you have nothing to stand on. I suggest, Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilization and Decline.

        • CJinPA

          Your repeated declarations of intellectual superiority would be more convincing if you didn’t feel the need to prop them up with juvenile taunting. If I personally insulted you in my comments, I apologize. It was not my intent. If I did not, kindly cram it up your rear.

          I don’t doubt your ability to identify trees. I’m noting that your comments indicate you can’t identify the forest.

          I directly quoted the man we are discussing. You interpreted the quote as “them blacks ain’t ‘serve my money.” You managed to craft an interpretation in which nearly every word is wrong.

          I think it is clear that the quote I cited distills Anton’s motivation and how he will make decisions in his job. (The current topic.) You argue the true answer is found not in a specific declaration about the defining 21st century issue, but rather within the 418 pages of a 19th century thesis.

          Funny thing is, the observations of Anton and Adams aren’t mutually exclusive. Of course, we could digest, discuss and debate old text and demonstrate our knowledge of various academic ‘isms’ and brand people who are trying to help with labels to declare them unworthy. We can do that right up to the day when your intellectual posturing has left you surrounded by a dominant demographic that doesn’t give a damn about your dead white males, or their theories or your insistence of their relevance.

          • Em_ptySkin

            Dude, globalism as an ideology has been built on the use of Hamiltonian Federalism for British and European purposes, okay? I can tell from how you characterize this that you do not understand the forest for the planet. Is that an okay metaphor?

            State rights, the compact theory of the constitution, were subsumed by the national government after the civil war. WWI and WWII brought the US to the center of power, and the US took over the British Empire. That’s what is falling apart right now. It’s far more than demographics, which I am with you on. I know all about Pan Europa, and what they are doing.

            Your “declaration” will no doubt be a tweetworthy competitor for the French Declaration, or the UN Declaration. Really, what you’re looking for is the fucking Declaration of Independence, maybe with some 21st elements included it can be restated. And who are you going to address it to? “The left?” “The people?”

            “You managed to craft an interpretation in which nearly every word is wrong.”

            But you didn’t address it…

            “Funny thing is, the observations of Anton and Adams aren’t mutually exclusive. ”

            I didn’t make the argument that they were. All I said was read Adams, not Anton on Adams. I’m familiar with Strauss. Anton is a shill neocon shrewdly biding his time behind Trump until he and others like him can inject the ideological basis for Trump’s administration. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, preying on people like you, that think you know what is at stake, but do not. He is by definition of his adherence to Strauss engaging in myth making.

            If you actually read international relations literature from around the world, the 21st century will look just like the 19th, except it is not German and Britain that are going to be sending people everywhere. Trust me, kiddo, I’m keenly aware of what the problems are. The US is undeer and attack from international philanthropy to denationalize US identity and to wear down people’s respect for their heritage. So many people who think they are defending heritage are foolishly going to throw away the United States, which is the constitution and mechanisms that make the US unique.

            Further, look around the literature on international law; we are under an attack on all fronts to give up control of US law to international definitions from the UN. That’s what these courts are doing in opposing Trump, transposing an international legal doctrine over the US constitution, obviating basic legal words like “citizen.”

            As for the 19th century, when it comes to Mexico, what I feel, is that Americans should know and proudly declare that Jackson and Polk are heroes of the United States. Mexicans cannot be proud Americans the way I see it. Plus, Reconquista is appealed to by our enemies every time the US goes to war – this coming war is going to be bad. You and I are not on opposing sides. I’ve just thought about this too much to let shallow ethnic politics take over the only opportunity we have to reinstall US pride – with that pride would come the old perspective of corporations, which, if it (the classical republican perspective) had been maintained, half of globalization would have been precluded. The US used to not allow foreign banks to even operate here. The same could be said of Jefferson’s definitions of equality and democracy – we should be promoting his definitions. Real Republicanism is a naturally stratified society. If we had that, Jefferson’s view, people wouldn’t bitch about rich people. These ideological attacks I want considered espionage against the US – I can see the trees, forest, and planet.

            And you’re right, my unhingedness was due to other factors not necessarily you or Anton. However, I have little confidence in Anton and those like them. Strauss and Machiavelli did not intellectually build the United States, Locke, Bacon, and some British trade corporations did. But, think about what you said:

            “You argue the true answer is found not in a specific declaration about the defining 21st century issue, but rather within the 418 pages of a 19th century thesis….when your intellectual posturing has left you surrounded by a dominant demographic that doesn’t give a damn about your dead white males, or their theories or your insistence of their relevance.”

            From my perspective, you are already part of those demographics, way to go – your heritage is too important to listen to those considered your heritage – hence my opposition to democracy, keeping people like you as far from influence as possible. Your anti-intellectualism will get you nothing, even if you attain power (or your ‘tribe’) because you won’t know what to do with it. Why are you even reading Anton’s interview? Isn’t it too high brow? Or is it just not too long?

          • CJinPA

            I am truly trying to discern your diagnosis of the problem and your preferred cure. It would help if you could make your points without referencing political philosophers I haven’t read (but whose ideas I am familiar with), and will not be reading in the course of our discussion. (I’m actually busy running for local office, so I’ll be a tiny contributor to the solution, or the problem.)

            Can you make your points based on the strength of your argument alone? Seems like you can and it would help if you try. If you can’t – or feel such a request is “anti-intellectual” and unworthy of your time – I’ll wish you well and move on.

            I think I get this point:

            “The US is undeer and attack from international philanthropy to denationalize US identity and to wear down people’s respect for their heritage. So many people who think they are defending heritage are foolishly going to throw away the United States, which is the constitution and mechanisms that make the US unique.”

            You’re saying demographics don’t matter if the native citizens themselves are denationalizing US identity, and have moved the federal government so far from the founders’ intent as to be a completely different nation, regardless of demographics. Is that close? I’d respond that if the demographic change is allowed continue, you have no chance, none, of successfully promoting “Jefferson’s definitions of equality and democracy.”

            In other words, every argument you make is moot without addressing demographics.

            “Further, look around the literature on international law; we are under an attack on all fronts to give up control of US law to international definitions from the UN. That’s what these courts are doing in opposing Trump, transposing an international legal doctrine over the US constitution, obviating basic legal words like “citizen.”…”

            And you think Anton supports this, and is shrewdly using Trump to bring it about?

            You’re right, we’re on the same side. Though you might find me insufficiently versed in political philosophy to consider an ally, and seem to have put folks like me on your growing list of political heretics. Your tone is that of a citizen resigned to his fate, surrounded by well-meaning dolts who can’t keep up with the three-dimensional political chess match and therefore can’t grasp any solution beyond the superficial.

            That could be correct or it could be an excuse to rail against all sides, accept defeat, and find comfort in the belief that you are among an elite group of thinkers who can explain in detail the death of our nation while offering no realistic strategy to prevent it. I could be wrong. But I’m going to identify a realistic path for saving my country and take it.

          • Em_ptySkin

            “I’d respond that if the demographic change is allowed continue, you have no chance, none, of successfully promoting “Jefferson’s definitions of equality and democracy.””

            I agree with that. However, my concern is still present. And there are other things about basic demographics I will cover below.

            “Anton supports this, and is shrewdly using Trump to bring it about?”

            No; Anton’s adherence to Strauss implies that he views moral doctrines as installed by elites. His is Straussian, i.e., esoteric. I don’t know what it is. He can tell me, but I there is no logical reason for me to believe him. It means he favors certain myths about the political culture, which are manipulated according to an agenda, also dictated by elites.

            “Your tone is that of a citizen resigned to his fate, surrounded by well-meaning dolts who can’t keep up with the three-dimensional political chess match and therefore can’t grasp any solution beyond the superficial.”

            Yes and no. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, as you stated, no, in the sense that local politics should be where the most relevant political power is held – that’s not superficial. It is easier to homogenize empirical desires of local communities, and it limits the jurisdiction of the power structures. Sheriffs, city councils, juries, etc. The local legal systems should the center of protection – the law is an expression of the identity of the people. The chess game includes ideologies; Straussians will be the first ones who realize that keeping people ignorant makes them easier to manipulate quickly and in mass. Local polities are considered in those manipulations; city/state jurisdictional conflicts, local judges (which is why juries and local education about their powers is incredibly important). My concern with the elite comes from my readings of academic works, which I know no one reads (something else that requires reform is academic publishing). So, it is just a “know your enemy” thing.

            “That could be correct or it could be an excuse to rail against all sides, accept defeat, and find comfort in the belief that you are among an elite group of thinkers who can explain in detail the death of our nation while offering no realistic strategy to prevent it.”

            I don’t see myself the way you do. I’m very optimistic, especially with recent events. This locale, a comment box on article, is just not the place for these conversations. Ironically, the above quote is an accurate characterization of both Brooks and Henry Adams, two of the great grandchildren of John Adams (speaks volumes to how badly the 20th century hit even the US). Brooks Adams’ book The Law of Civilization and Decline is where I would send you: https://archive.org/details/lawofcivilizatio00adam – that’s where I am at on the alarmism level with demographics; just read the preface and last chapter. Part of increasing domestic demographics (which seems to be a secondary element of ‘fixing’ them) is having morale as a society. Having morale requires art, literature – reasons for people to care – reasons for people to respect the past, to want to have children, and to want their children to respect the past. Straussians are Marxists in that ‘religion is the opium of the masses’ – that’s how they want to do it; play up religious eschatology. Geopolitical realities make it a local imperative that our population grows – otherwise there is nothing we can do to combat the growth of China and the entire Islamic world from Turkey to Indonesia (our birth rate is 1.6; in many cases Islamic families have 8-10 children per family; China is simply huge and has a stable birth rate). Religion is probably a necessary component of that, but so is learning and bringing back the relevance of old US history – breaking through PC, so Americans can be proud of people like Jefferson or Jackson or Polk. Again, not Leo Strauss. Our problems need long term structural outlook, otherwise we are simply, like Russia, biding time.

            “But I’m going to identify a realistic path for saving my country and take it.”

            I’m all for it. Don’t trust philanthropy.

    • QET

      Sedgwig?

      • Em_ptySkin

        My bad: Theodore Sedgwick, Jr.

  • Dave Edwards

    Heck of a job, “Decius”: http://gizmo.do/WQiG1sx

    • CJinPA

      Pro Tip: Don’t cite “gizmodo” in a serious public policy debate.

      • Dave Edwards

        Okay. What legal authority do Trump’s tweets have? Are they like signing statements?

        • CJinPA

          I would think they carry no more or no less weight than any of the thousands of quoted statements a White House will release over time. A news release headlined “President Obama Gave the Following Statement on SB 45 today:” is not seen as a signing statement. (I don’t think even gizmodo raised this issue.)

          Trump’s been in office for all of three weeks. People rush to draw broad conclusions based on presidential transitions. They almost always turn out to be silly in retrospect.

  • Senhorbotero

    “Race is not a nation…” then you go on to pick three examples of nations built by race.

    I would love to read some discussion on what a nation is actually. In my observations it is exactly the contributions of the original race that defines the nation and when that race and it traditions, history, etc is diminished the nation of origin is no more. The problems of this country are showing up precisely because the originating race has weakened itself and has allowed the fractions of others to attack and destroy. This is why we are losing the country. We have allowed inside people not of our tradition and who are not members or admirers of our tradition. Thus they will not uphold it.

    This is all propagated by the myth of equality which is an obvious fraud and a beleif that there is a universal sameness of mankind. By now if we have not proven thru empirical evidence that these are terribly flawed assumptions then preserving the west is a fruitless effort because what made the west what it was has been the particular views of a specific race and this idea that we are to be open to everyone is nothing more then suicide.

    • Last in Line

      No, the French, Chinese, and Navajo are not races. You are mistaking ethnic groups for race. Traditional Europeans belong to the Caucasian race, but they divide up into many ethnic groups, many but not all of which formed their own ethno-states, more commonly referred to as nation-states (England, France, etc.), but which now are devolving into multiracial states with their immigration influx from the Muslim world. China is multiracial but is dominated (>90%) by a single ethnic group, the Han. Their race is Mongoloid (or more politely, East Asian). The Navajo are an ethnic group. They belong to the race of Native Americans (or Amerindians). They are large enough to be described as a nation (= a tribe on a larger scale), but they do not have a state of their own, even if they are semi-autonomous.

      • Senhorbotero

        Are you kidding me….you do not consider the french, the navajo and the chinese to be three different races….seriously….well then using your own point the usa is a multiracial country founded and maintained by over eighty percent caucasian for the majority of its existence. I dont care what you name them, the french are caucasian, the chinese are han and the navajo are amerindians…three separate nations built by three separate races.

        • Last in Line

          You need to learn to read. What you argued originally and I denied is that the French, Chinese, and Navajo are races. They are not. They are ethnic groups, and the former does not equal the latter. Put differently, members of an ethnic group will also be members of a particular race, but not all members of a race will be members of the same ethnic group. Hence the English, French, Germans, Spanish, Italians, etc. Try telling an Italian that he is the same ethnicity as a German and be prepared for a fight.

          And no one is disputing that the USA is multitracial. Re-read the OP: “…the American people are multiracial.”

          Now, whether there can ever be a nationalism that is transracial, as Michael Anton asserts, is another question altogether. I kind of doubt it.

          • Senhorbotero

            i will rephrase my point since you require specificity. Do you dispute that caucasians built france, that hans built china and amerindians built the navajo nation. My real point is that races have specific characteristics that comtribute to the structure of nations, when those races are replaced, the nation itslef will change. Other factors play out as well but race, i think is fundamental starting point. The british may be ethnic but they were caucasians first. The french may be ethnic but they were caucasians first. The british and the french may have differences in national display but they have similarities as well….

          • You are confusing culture with biology. There are many varieties of humans, which nonetheless are all one species, and many cultures, in which any variety of human can participate. The two are only coincident by reasons of history. It is hard to understand how an educated adult can possibly make this elementary mistake. /Mr Lynn

          • Senhorbotero

            Nope, my premise is that race is one of the drivers of culture and based on human nature a primary one since it is upon race that people form groups in the first place and from that culture follows.

            As to my educational status i would suggest to you that you are a victim of one strand of thought and that it is located only within a rather narrow time window in the long course of history. You are to my mind a victim of an obsession that really has come into this country only heavily since around 1965. It is also the strain of thought that has afflicted the west and is one of the main factors for its current degradation.

            The false concept of human equality and the universality projected from that suggests in itself the very undermining of any idea of human diversity. If we are all the same then we should all arrive at the same destination at once…..bye bye to all ideologies and thoughts since our essential similarities disparage differences….we then march toward the communist ideal….There is no equality and culture is heavily influenced by race or biology. Every race has unigue characteristics that influence its operating structures. If you doubt that then evolution is false, or God wasted His time and race is only color driven by the level of sunshine and you have never spent any time around other peoples. If you can extrapolate from that you might see why i propose that a nation, a term i am using interchangeably with culture for the moment is at risk of failure when its orginating race allows itself to go into demise or is forced to.

          • This is sheer poppycock. Homo sapiens is one species, with a lot of phenotypical variation; the term ‘race’ is a construct derived from observations of regional constellations of visible variation, and thereafter enshrined in ideological dogmas of one sort or another. What the hell does “Every race has unigue characteristics that influence its operating structures” mean? It’s just bafflegab.

            Evolution of course occurs in regional breeding populations, which accounts for much of the physical variation, but the history of the world’s cultures has nothing to do with that variety. An infant from anywhere in the world reared in a given culture will be as much a part of that ‘nation’ as anyone else.

            That a culture or ‘nation’ (nation-states are a relatively recent innovation) can be overwhelmed by others (acculturation) and lose its original character (values, ideas, ideologies, whatever) is obvious, and demonstrated many times historically. What informs the United States is not its ‘originating race’ but the culture of its Founders, and yes were are in danger of losing that, not from some kind of biological miscegenation, but from succumbing to radical ideologies, like those from the mind of ‘Caucasians’ like Karl Marx. /Mr Lynn

          • Senhorbotero

            I am not a scientist so i will copy paste from the site of someone who knows more then me about genes.

            “After 1945 in the Western world it became politically correct to claim that “race” is a social construction that does not correspond to any biological reality. This is essentially a Marxist view. In the last five years, advances in gene sequencing technology and new archeological finds have destroyed this left-wing myth of human racial equality. It turns out that there were multiple co-existing Hominid species, which were vastly unequal in significant respects such as their cognitive abilities. So-called Homo Sapiens did not neatly and cleanly follow these extinct species in evolutionary history. Rather, different groups of Hominids that are now extinct mated with certain populations of Homo Sapiens and not with others. For example, many Europeans have Neanderthal genes but no Africans do. Many Africans and South Indians have genes from an extinct Hominid called the Denosovan, but no Europeans have Denosovan genes. Racial difference is real, and it matters. That Africans have an average IQ of around 75 whereas whites have an average IQ of around 100, and Africans who have mixed with whites (for example in North America or South Africa) have an average IQ of around 85 has to do not with education or social conditioning, but with different genetic inheritances from extinct Hominid species.”

          • Citation? Who’s the author? The possible presence of Neanderthal and Denosovan DNA in Sapiens populations has some factual basis, but the IQ stuff is nonsense. Aside from the idea that ‘IQ’ measures anything outside of specific upbringing, it is meaningless to talk about average ‘Africans’ or ‘Whites’. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand that. /Mr Lynn

          • Senhorbotero

            I would suggest to you mr lynn that you start to think outside of your conditioning. If a group has a higher IQ then it might signify some rather interesting outcomes in the way problem solving occurs. A group may be more able to process data in abstractions and as well juggle scenarios in different ways and to come to more complex conclusions based on their mental processes.

            Now you may choose to invalidate IQ information if you wish but i have seen that date referenced many times. It is often shutdown due to political correctness as perhaps you may be trying to do but i doubt this is a service to anyone. The merging of different racial types may force nothing more then a certain unhappiness due to living under conditions that do not suit them. This to my mind may explain the tensions that exist within this country between various minorities and the dominate racial people….as we begin to recognize reality then we may be better able to improve the lives of the people with whom we engage and stop making false conclusions and prescribing solutions that now have shown they do not work. But instead of approaching matters differently we hunker down, entrench ourselves into ideology and attack and flail in the wrong directions and in the end no one comes out the better.

          • Senhorbotero

            Mr lynn

            Adding a bit more for you….

            … researchers have found that frequency differences in specific behaviorally associated alleles can (statistically) explain some of a number of interesting national, regional, and ethnic sociocultural differences,90 including the following: collectivism (Way and Lieberman, 2010; Luo and Han, 2014; Kitayama et al., 2014), life history (Minkov and Bond, 2015), moral looseness (Mrazek, Chiao, Blizinsky, Lun, and Gelfand, 2013), self-expression (LeClair, Janusonis, and Kim, 2014), academic achievement and cognitive ability (Piffer, 2015a; Piffer, 2015b; Minkov, Blagoev, and Bond, 2014), corporate leadership style (Kong, 2014), long- term orientation (Minkov and Bond, 2015), and life satisfaction (Inglehart et al., 2014; Kashima, Kent, and Kashima, 2015). Others have found that genetic similarity can (statistically) explain national differences in cognitive ability (for example: Rodriguez-Arana, 2010; Rindermann, Woodley, and Stratford, 2012), happiness (Proto and Oswald, 2014), and risk preference (Becker, Dohmen, Enke, and Falk, 2014).

            I would ask you would you support immigration for any reason other then that which we recognize as coming from the chamber of commerce which is to provide low cost labor pressure for the elites to maximize personal wealth or to provide harbor for politcal refugees. Your arguement refutes the idea of diversity since you conclude that anyone embedded in a culture long enough becomes the culture, thus we simply crank out copies of ourselves and diversity is nothing more then individual variants, in which case a population of one hundred percent asian people raised under principles of western civ would be indistinguisable from the the original caucasian population, so one or the other is interchangeable.

          • AEJ

            I don’t see what, in Mr Lynn’s responses, leads you to this conclusion: “Your arguement (sic) refutes the idea of diversity since you conclude that
            anyone embedded in a culture long enough becomes the culture, thus we
            simply crank out copies of ourselves and diversity is nothing more then
            individual variants, in which case a population of one hundred percent
            asian people raised under principles of western civ would be
            indistinguisable (sic) from the the original caucasian population, so one or
            the other is interchangeable”

            I’ve been following this discussion with interest btw.

          • Senhorbotero

            Well if we are in the end all equal and thus possess the potential for interchangeablity then why expect any different outcome based on race or ethnicity or whatever. In the end all will blend into the culture and manifest essentially the same things. The only diversity then would be based on life experience and if that is the case anybody will do….you may get a short term disruption or change in your system as new peoples enter but over the longer term according to mr lynns reasoning as i understand it the disrupting differences level out. One is thus stuck in a never ending loop that is just one immigrant disruption and then leveling to the next…..frankly i do not see a reason for immigration at this point. It made sense when the country was wide open and needing people but today the opposite has happened….now the freeways are clogged, the open spaces disappearing and the resources over taxed. And i suspect we might all degree the quality of most lives is deteriorating. I only ask why do this to,yourselves on the basis of ideology or some abstract moral reasoning that is clearly during my lifetime failed to acheive the goal. The old idea of the melting pot seemed only to really work when the immigrant felt a solidarity with the dominant population an this was probably a racial matter….as race became less an issue the melting as well became less an issue and we now have a country tearing itself apart based on differences which primarily eminent from racial tensions….why….differences exist between people that ideology refuses to acknowledge and until we do we will probably increase the severity of alienation and loneliness and unhappiness in ones homeland….

          • AEJ

            Some of your conclusions on the need for and wisdom of immigration at present might well align with Mr Lynn’s views and with mine. It’s your idea that Race decides what makes potential for a good citizen is where I leave your road.

          • Senhorbotero

            Race is a double edge sword to my way of thinking. If there are not unigue racial characteristics then why not only allow people of your own race which are familiar and apparently more easily assimulated, especially since the probability is that they come from a western society and are already predisposed to some degree toward ones ways. If races do have unigue and desirable characteristics then if diversity is your goal then you take them in based on race because those differences perceptively improve something of your societies position. It is all based on judgement as to what kind of country, culture, society you want. As i understand what we have now is race based immigration designed to change the ratios of whites to all other races….if everyone is equal what is the point….

            I would be interested in hearing your veiws if you would take a moment…or at least your conclusions….

          • “. . .race based immigration . . .”

            What the hell are you talking about? Are people from Central and Latin America (the bulk of current immigrants) a ‘race’? Who are members of “your own race”? Swedes? Italians? Lithuanians? Spaniards? Oh wait, all those ‘Hispanics’ are Spaniards, by descent.

            I repeat (for the last time): Forget the word ‘race’. Immigration, especially illegal immigration, is a big problem, and a pause (as in the 1920s) at this point is warranted. We need people (from wherever) to assimilate, to become Americans, learning our language and culture, and learning to understand and value the unique concept of a nation founded on “Unalienable rights . . . to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The poisonous myth of ‘race’ has no place in the discussion.

            /Mr Lynn

          • Senhorbotero

            Okay mr lynn…i am glad this is your last repeat because i am finished with you as well. You appear to me to be similar to those kids in berkely. You apparently know everything and there is no room for discussion. In the future i will simply read your comments and comply with your august perspective…you are too stubbornto attempt to listen and understand, too conditioned to be able to step out of your box and i am getting too long winded in my posts attempting to be clear to you with plain spoken language that is apparently unable to reach you.

          • “i am getting too long winded in my posts attempting to be clear to you with plain spoken language that is apparently unable to reach you.”

            That’s because you make no sense. You are spouting a garbled version of 19th-century ‘racialism’. Long- or short-winded, gibberish is still gibberish.

            /Mr Lynn

          • Senhorbotero

            You are one helluva a guy mr lynn….that i am aware i never spoke any insulting word to you and your arguements back to me rely on domineering language and a pretentiousness that seems unwarranted. I was looking for a discussion not a lecture….to my mind the logic of your argeument is self refuting and that is what i tried to expose to you.

          • Just to be clear, Senhorbotero, I did not insult you, just your arguments. /Mr L

          • Senhorbotero

            Well mr lynn….what are my arguements if not a reflection of myself.
            You seem to think yourself above discussion. You generally pontificate rather then explain and you work from assumptions and then go around in circles…race is real, if observation does not reveal that to you and science cannot explain it to you then on what basis do you stand….something written by jefferson which you must certainly know you have removed from its social context.

            Our country and our civilization are being torn apart and it is generally due to flawed thinking about race. You may denigrate the nineteenth century and the entire past if you wish, you may denigrate honest researchers seeking truth but these people may just see or know something you miss entirely. The price you are paying is gojng to be the demise of that which presumably you are trying to save.

          • I thought this off-topic thread was dead, but, quickly:

            Senhorbotero: “Well mr lynn….what are my arguements if not a reflection of myself.”

            I assume you are a fine, upstanding citizen of good character. This does not make your arguments any more sensible or valid.

            Senhorbotero: “Here is an article written for you. I hope you read it and actually hope you can understand it. . .”

            I assume you are not the author, and it was not written for me in particular, but no matter. I find it a tendentious and scholastic attempt to elevate ‘racial identity’ some kind of abstract principle. I think it is completely wrong-headed, and manages to obscure a perfectly valid conservative critique of progressivism and globalism in an obnoxious fog of faux philosophy.

            In any case, the original post here was about Michael Anton, whom I don’t know, but I suspect he would find the views in that article objectionable.

            /Mr Lynn

          • Senhorbotero

            I thought the topic dead as well. Perhaps we should just leave it at this point. I do not know why you simply cannot address the subject intellectually but apparently given your comments about the article i sent you do not consider that a worthy approach. So there is no area here where we can find common ground though i am a bit suspicious that we might come to similar conclusions about other things.

            The funny thing to me is that my arguement actually supports diversity and allows for racial differences to exist and thus honors those differences in the honest ways they manifest themselves where yours simply discards all racial unigueness and thus undermines diversity at its core….but either my words fail to communicate this or you refuse to consider the possibilities…..thanks for engaging, though i do wish you could have done so in an open minded way without the snide comments. Misunderstanding a persons points is quite understandable arguing against them, fine, but diminishing and dismissing them is a whole other thing…that is a tactic of the left.

          • Senhorbotero: “I thought the topic dead as well. Perhaps we should just leave it at this point . . .”

            Yes, we should.

            Senhorbotero: “I do not know why you simply cannot address the subject intellectually but apparently given your comments about the article i sent you do not consider that a worthy approach.”

            I do not know what you mean by ‘intellectually’.

            Senhorbotero: “The funny thing to me is that my arguement actually supports diversity and allows for racial differences to exist and thus honors those differences in the honest ways they manifest themselves where yours simply discards all racial unigueness and thus undermines diversity at its core. . .”

            The problem is the archaic term ‘racial differences’, which hits the delicate and complex mosaic of human variation with a sledgehammer, shattering it and dumping the pieces into a few huge bins loaded with generations of malice and opprobrium. It has as much empirical validity as ‘witchcraft’ or ‘sorcery’.

            Senhorbotero: “Misunderstanding a persons points is quite understandable arguing against them, fine, but diminishing and dismissing them is a whole other thing…that is a tactic of the left. . .”

            Sorry, but if I think an argument is foolish or gibberish, I will say so. On my own blog I might go to the trouble to explain why, but such analyses are not justified on comment threads, even on such an estimable site as American Greatness. Don’t take it personally.

            On to the next topic!

            /Mr Lynn

          • MUltan

            Race exists, and can easily be identified from DNA, as can more detailed information about regional origins and mixtures of origins. The myth, no, lie is that it does not exist.

            The United States was not founded on the idea of equality, as the history of that time clearly shows. That line from the Declaration was a rhetorical flourish. Rather note the preamble of the Constitution: it is explicitly for the posterity of the founding fathers.

            The American people do not stand in need of replacement, sir, and efforts to that end over the past fifty years are treason against the American people.

          • “The United States was not founded on the idea of equality, as the history of that time clearly shows. That line from the Declaration was a rhetorical flourish. . .”

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident. . .” You denigrate Mr. Jefferson, sir, to call that merely a “rhetorical flourish.” And you misunderstand the foundational principles of the American Republic. /Mr L

          • Cutting and pasting fragments of references from unknown sources tells us nothing. Nor does this topic have anything to do with immigration. Most of the immigrants from south of the border are of European descent (Spain and Portugal). So?

            You need to get the archaic notion of ‘race’ out of your vocabulary. Populations in various parts of the world share similar characteristics, but there are many more such populations than were thought to be ‘races’ by our ignorant ancestors. Are the Nilotic peoples of North Africa the same ‘race’ as the Bushmen of the Kalahari? The polar Eskimos the same as the Yanomami of the Brazilian rain forest? Don’t be ridiculous. /Mr Lynn

          • MUltan

            ” Most of the immigrants from south of the border are of European descent (Spain and Portugal).”

            Mexican Mestizos are ~40% European ancestry on average, but they are primarily descended from Mesoamerican Indians as well as some more northerly tribes. Many of the Mexican and Central American immigrants to the US have little European ancestry, some have none at all. The pure European ancestry Mexicans don’t emigrate as often; they are the ruling class of Mexico.

            Your point that there are many finer genetic distinctions than race between peoples is well taken, but it argues for recognizing those differences between peoples rather than ignoring them.

          • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

            It’s not a question of distinct races, it’s a question of racial relatedness – a relatedness that genetic and forensic studies unfailingly detect. Let that sink in: unfailingly detect. There’s simply no question that some groups are closer and other are (much) farther, and that this fact has important social, economic and political implications.

            We’ve been lying about racial reality for generations now. Isn’t it time to give racial realism a try? Contrary to what you may suspect, that’s not a call to go “full nazi” on anyone.

          • MUltan

            You have been misinformed. The research is vast and consistent. Intelligence is real, it is measurable, it matters a great deal at every level, it varies between peoples, and its variation in adults is 70%-80% due to genetics and very little or not at all due to the sort of environmental differences you find between households in the US (“shared environment”).

          • MUltan

            Humans’ last common ancestor was about 200,000 years ago, and selective pressures on different groups have been different from each other, causing them to evolve apart at an increasing rate, particularly over the past few thousand years. Culture and peoples co-evolve, genetics creates cultural dispositions and national character, culture creates selective pressures and affects who marries whom. Every trait is heritable to some degree, and nearly every trait has most of its population variation due to genetics and little or none to differing environment.

          • Senhorbotero

            Multan, Thank you for your comments. Your information has been most helpful to me as I try and think this thru….i feel like we are stuck so deeply in political brainwashing that we cannot any longer see or beleive reality. Between politics and a misguided understanding of morality we have shut down avenues of thought that would actually help in this discussion and prefer to keep doing the same things over and over and over getting nowhere but deeper into anger, intolerance and alienation.

          • MUltan

            Creation of a culture is a epiphenomenon of the collective genetic temperament of the people who built it, in much the same way that a mind is an epiphenomenon of its neurons all with the same shared genetic code. Europeans would not and could not create a Japanese culture, nor the other way around. They can live in each others’ cultures and assume some of the outward trappings, but their interior lives, their natural reactions and impulses, are too different for them naturally to build the same sort of culture.

            The dogma of tabula rasa has proven wrong. Culture is not like software that can run on any computer, all peoples are not essentially the same in temperament and can not be adopted as infants into any culture with success equal to the natives of that culture. Shared environment, including culture, has virtually no effect compared to genetics. If you want a polity with a shared culture, the more genetically disparate its peoples, the harder it will become to hold it together, as the US has seen over the past fifty years.

          • Senhorbotero

            Thank you Multan sir, i think you made my point in a more straight forward way then i apparently did…..much appreciated.

      • MUltan

        “Race” in its older meaning is a synonym for both “ethnicity” and “nation”.
        “Nation”: “an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.”

        Americans are not a nation but more like a multi-ethnic empire, though “empire” isn’t quite the right word. White Americans aren’t a nation, either, but a large fraction of them might start to behave as one under pressure from competing groups who treat them as a bloc. Especially likely to come to regard themselves as a nation are non-elite Whites in a future US where they are a minority .

  • Epaminondas

    America, without a core ethnicity, will never survive. The historic American nation is British and Anglo-Celt. If that core ever gets swept away, you had best look out below. Things will come apart quickly, including any consensus on how to “interpret” the constitution. Ethnic nation states exist because within those self-selected cultural parameters we have consensual agreements on subjects such as ethics, religion, and foreign relations. Absent such a core ethnicity, a “nation” becomes a bickering miasma of varying regional and identity groups competing for power. And the whole thing is held together by political force. And that never lasts.

    • roastytoasty

      Ethnicity without a good education is ignorance. Before FEDGOV administrative state took over local education, little kids of every ethnicity were taught very well what it means to be an American. Before centralization & corruption of local school public education kids who could not speak English learned to speak English and were proud to be Americans. I’m not talking down to Scots-Irish, German, French, Italian, Greek and all the other nations of Western Europe. What I’m saying is that when America was young and the Liberty of America burned bright in the hopes and dreams of people all over the world, becoming an American was something to strive for and how to become an American was taught, hard, in local public schools. Go sit in a 3rd grade class room today. You’ll sit there a long time before you hear the teacher talk about what a privilege, honor and duty it is to be a citizen of the United States of America.

    • mikeMRB

      That is a baseless conflation of ethnicity and culture. What would be accurate is to say America is at its core based in Anglo culture constructs of rule of law, and representative government. A movement away from those values would destroy what America is, and arguably what makes it “great”. It is not an ethnicity in any way beyond the origins. America has actually moved quite a bit away from Anglo culture adopting much stronger values around egalitarianism and meritocracy.
      There is no “core ethnicity”. To say such is frankly racist, implying that non-Anglos are capable of furthering American culture. That would be quite a shock to the prior waves of immigrants from Germany, Italy, China, etc. Those immigrant waves have all assimilated and adopted American culture.

      • Epaminondas

        It is not baseless. It is a foundational truth. The fact that you cannot see or understand what is happening to us tells me everything I need to know. Assimilated Americans are fine people. But we must be honest in our assessment. The Irish and German immigrants who came to our nation in the 1840s did not bring with them a knowledge or sympathy for America’s republican form of government. It took many decades for them to absorb what kind of nation they were in. Many of them never assimilated, and never liked the form of federal, states rights system they found themselves in. To this day many of their descendants remain hostile to many of the founding concepts of our nation. They are over there in the Democrat party agitating for a “living” constitution as I write. Do you think for a second that this nation’s venerable traditions would continue if the Anglo-Celtic British segment of our country were to disappear? You can bet we would no longer be America were that to happen. Sorry you hate the truth, but there it is. And if I could get the worthless Scandinavians out of this nation, I would do it in a heartbeat. Most of them are liberal and of no help. They need to go home. Men like Hubert Humphrey and Earl Warren, both of Scandinavian descent, come to mind.

      • Will Windsor

        Someone should read Samuel P. Huntington before writing such claims that defy common sense. Ethnicity begets culture, you don’t create or maintain an Anglo-Protestant culture when there’s no more Anglos around. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6685dada12c44ff75bcd6c18e050624514ab09f974ac562688fed0894ebc9afd.png

  • Captain Mann

    Bill Kristol is a goat fuc…

  • Gaius1Gracchus

    Nice discussion. Mr. Anton is just the subject of Leftist attacks, just like Mr. Miller and Mr. Bannon and General Flynn. It is sad. They attempt to destroy out of fear.

    The Republican establishment rejected the concept of nationalism. For Jonah Goldberg and Bill Kristol, it is an evil.

    When I first read the Flight 93 Election, I was put off. Not because of anything in it, but because I saw President Trump as a very poor vessel for pushing back. Senator Cruz was much more my taste, who holds similar positions and beliefs as the President, but maintain composure much better.

    At this point, I admit that the President is a better vessel at this time. He better understood the needs of the Midwest. President Trump better connected to working class voters. There is a need for radical change and Trump can do it better.

    America has a dirth today of civic understanding and civic virtue. The Boomers destroyed the culture and education system.

    All the dictatorial fears of Leftists are projections of their own authoritarianism. They want to control and dictate to the Deplorables. They want to force their “enlightened” views on everyone else. They ignored Obama’s authoritarianism, his warmongering, his imperial presidency, his targeting enemies with the IRS, and encouragement of civil disobedience.

    I have thought for awhile that the world was headed to a real disaster, with a fall of globalization, as the house of cards fell. I still don’t know if President Trump can avoid this fate. He still lacks the temperment and composure needed.

    He is blessed with incompetent Democratic foes, at least. His Deep State foes are much more challenging…..

  • That was a fascinating interview, and satisfying to learn that I agree with almost all of Decius’s positions—except on Iraq, maybe: I don’t see President Bush’s decision to resume the war against Saddam as a ‘mistake’ except in how it turned out, both by occupation mismanagement and Obama perfidy; I don’t think W had any choice at the time. But that’s a quibble over the word ‘mistake’. Remember the saying about success and failure, fathers and orphans.

    Oh, and you didn’t ask the revealed Mr Anton about his new job: what exactly is “senior director of strategic communications at the National Security Council,” as he was described in an earlier post? And why do we have a such a council—a smaller bureaucracy to enable the President to ignore the giant ones ostensibly under the command of his Cabinet? Will ‘Decius’ have any influence in that warren? And what the dickens are ‘strategic communications’, if not a fancy word for flackery?

    /Mr Lynn

  • CincyGal

    I’m glad Decius is in the White House. I wish him and the Trump administration all the best. But frankly I remain pessimistic about the long term future of the nation. I see college students from the most elite schools being trained in strong-arm tactics and propaganda. They are learning that chaos and smears are valid, profitable political actions. These kids do not seem to realize how easily they can be manipulated. It does not take all that much to put a mob into motion. They do not appear to have the wherewithal to judge a moral value, and instead echo whatever slogan is shouted loudest.

    It is true, as previous commentators have noted, that America was founded on Anglo-Saxon values. But the use of the term race in these comments echo the European tradition that every nation is a separate race, while science tells us there are few actual races and they are easily identifiable visually. Previous immigrants have come from an assortment of nations, and even various races. Most were forced to assimilate, many willingly. It is that lack of assimilation that is hurting us today. As for the theory that we should willingly embrace immigrants antithetical to our customs and mores, that is cultural suicide.

    We don’t seem able to define who we are anymore, and it doesn’t seem we’re very proud of ourselves. So that is what I think Donald Trump’s slogan, Make America Great Again, really means. We need to remember who we are and to take pride in that again.

    • Clockhappy

      Nicely stated

  • Demerise the Deplorable

    It’s good to finally know his name and wonderful that he’s working on behalf of our country. Mr. Anton, I’m your biggest fan. Your essays saved my sanity during the campaign.

  • Will Windsor

    Strauss was a lifelong Zionist (Jewish Nationalist), what we need is the same thing: European/American/White nationalism to save our people.

    But I guess nationalism is only allowed for Jews not whites.