The Anti-Social Network - By Thomas Luongo

Dear ,

“I thought we were gonna get television. The truth is… television is gonna get us.”
—Dick Goodwin, Quiz Show

When Mark Zuckerberg went to Capitol Hill earlier in the year I knew Facebook was in serious trouble.

Ostensibly, he was there to apologize to us about how Facebook used customer data so cavalierly.

But, really he was there to explain how everything had gone so wrong.

Facebook was designed to be the enforcer of social norms pushed by the political and corporate establishment.

It was built with Wall Street’s decade-long access to cost-free money to invest in the technologies to create a voluntary layer of social control.

How to Disappear: Eras...Frank Ahearn, Eileen H...Best Price: $5.51Buy New $8.65(as of 02:00 EDT - Details)

The Fed is pulling back the punchbowl and Wall St. already cashed out most if its chips, leaving the retail “muppets” holding the bag.

Facebook, along with Twitter and Google, were outsourced by the real power brokers to erect a web of censorship platforms which circumvent the 1^st amendment, because they are ‘private’ companies.

Like Alex Jones or hate him, he brings a lot of traffic to Facebook.  Traffic the company doesn’t want, apparently.

It doesn’t need people who like Alex Jones…

But they still want your data.  

Just like the payment processors Stripe, PayPal and VISA are all private companies which can kick you off their platform and deny you a business and a livelihood because you’re not ‘woke’ enough.

The blockchain will fix this in the future, but right now things are dicey at best.  People like me are very vulnerable to running afoul of these people.

But, like I told my subscribers last fall, the moment of Peak Facebook would arrive soon enough.

Why?

Because it’s all fake interactions by increasingly fake personas we have to erect lest we get shouted at by someone looking for a dragons to slay to bring meaning to their otherwise pointless lives.

And sometimes those people are our very best friends.

Facebook was built on the false premise that we want to be in contact with all of the people we ever met ALL THE TIME.  But no, we really don’t.  We all, as T.S. Eliot put it, “prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet.”

And once the bloom is off the digital rose, once the social environment becomes toxic, what’s left to do on Facebook?

Cat videos, Huskies arguing with their owners (my personal favorite) and food porn.

So, it came as no shock to me that Facebook finally hit the earnings wall in Q2.

And the shock was immense.

And it gutted the stock 20% to hit short-term support.

But, the big damage was done back in Q1, with the blow to Facebook’s credibility.

How to Be Invisible: P...J. J. LunaBest Price: $5.83Buy New $13.99(as of 10:50 EDT - Details)

Most people don’t want to believe in ‘conspiracy theories.’  Their default position is to put themselves in the shoes of the person or group and project their behavior onto them.

nd, that’s why when Zuckerberg spoke to Congress and came off like a stiffer version of Data from Star Trek, millions of people finally figured out what was happening.

You can’t fake body language for very long.  Mark Zuckerberg isn’t a psychopath, he’s a just a creepy, stalker kid, way out of his depth with an over-inflated sense of his importance.

In short, he’s a bad liar.

And that’s why Facebook is where it is.

And why, in my mind, the stock will drop further this week as it targets medium-term support near $150.

The pump and dump on Facebook by Wall Street began at the beginning of the year.

They could see the numbers then, the chart spells it out candle by candle.

I’d almost go so far to say that once Cambridge Analytica’s malfeasance got out, Zuckerberg was thrown to the wolves.

So far, he got himself a $3.5 billion golden parachute, selling that much stock after those hearings.

And to give you an idea of how much he cares about his company he had Facebook buy back $3.2 of his stock at now 20% over the market price.

This is the essence of insider-trading.  Publicly selling billions in stock while operating a stock buyback program with company money at prices you know will be lower once earnings come out?

It’s the essence of dishonest.  I told you Zuckerberg was a bad liar.

It only makes the case against Facebook that much stronger.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/thomas-luongo/686651-2/

Is There a Cure for the Modern University? - By David Solway

So much has gone wrong with the modern university that one scarcely knows where to begin.  Innumerable books have been written on the subject, from Hilda Neatby's 1953 So Little for the Mind to Michael Rectenwald's 2018 Springtime for Snowflakes.  Articles abound in the thousands.  As a former laborer in the educational vineyards, I have attempted a modest contribution to the literature, consisting of three books and dozens of essays and articles, to no particular avail.  The academic outlook continues to degenerate, following an agenda that seems to be unstoppable, as if programmed by some ideological Doomsday Machine.

The reasons for the precipitous decline in academic rigor, standards, and outcomes are many and have been thoroughly canvassed.  It may be worth bulleting some of them here to suggest the scope of the problem:

• the emergence of a therapeutic culture absolving the individual from the demanding and sacrificial pursuit of excellence, valorizing feeling over thought and leading to an observable dumbing down of student capacity and performance.  As Philip Rieff wrote in his magisterial The Triumph of the Therapeutic, "the cry of 'one feels' [has become] the caveat of the therapeutic."

• political factionalism accentuated by the rise of the postmodern left more interested in indoctrination than scholarship.

• the scandal of affirmative action based on criteria of race and sex coupled with quotas placed on qualified white male and Asian students – a numerus clausus rationalized by an ethos of guilt reparation.

• equity hiring protocols, the professional counterpart of affirmative action, favoring women, blacks, and indigenous candidates regardless of discipline-specific competence.  In Rectenwald's words, such "blatant tokenism in hiring and promotion jeopardizes the integrity of higher education."

• the incursion of gender politics and the social justice movement into the academic "space" where it has no business being.

• the curtailing of academic freedom, which, as Frank Furedi writes in What's Happened to the University?, has been "devalued through the sanctification of other values" – coercive regulation of conduct, speech codes, politically correct decrees against giving offense, sexual policing, etc.

• opening the gates to a vast and intellectually unprepared student clientele in part for reasons of subprime pseudo-justice – everyone deserves a university education irrespective of native ability – and in part for crass monetary purposes – prohibitive tuition fees and per student government grants.  This latter goes hand in hand with the industrialization of the university as a corporate enterprise seeking profit rather than truth.

• the transformation of a reading culture into a visual and digital culture, rendering students progressively incapable of mastering the nuances, complexities, and semantic rules of written language as well as the habit of, like, coherent, like, conversation.  Like, I kid you not, dude!

I have just been perusing a towering stack of student essays that my wife, a university prof, has been grading over the last week.  The spectacle of ineptitude, ignorance, and tactical evasion of once standard commitment is light-years beyond belief.  According to my reckoning, perhaps four fifths of the students registered in both her arts undergraduate courses and graduate seminars exhibit one or several of the following deficiencies.  To put it in bullet form, they:

• lack interest in anything apart from their congenial pursuits, a phenomenon demonstrably less evident in precursor generations.

• lack coping ability with real-world events, against which they seek not engagement, but insulation – the infantile or "snowflake" mentality that has grown so prominent.

• have little knowledge of English grammar and concinnity.

• suffer from impoverished vocabularies.

• cannot follow text or topic directions.

• are given to outright plagiarism from online sources, which, extrapolating from the submissions I am examining, is a tactic adopted by approximately one fifth of the cohort in question.

• claim exemptions on grounds of disability where almost anything, from exam anxiety to memory failings to agoraphobia to time management issues, counts as a certified disability in the current permissive and anti-scholarly climate.

• are incapable of reading text with understanding or of discriminating among narrative planes – i.e., cannot tell the differences among the view of the author, the view of the narrator, and the view of the characters in the novel under discussion.  The almost complete absence of hermeneutic discernment is pervasive.  Reading, as Furedi points out in Power of Reading: From Socrates to Twitter, connotes more than literacy, "involv[ing] interpretation and imagination" in an effort to "gain meaning."  Of course, reading in Furedi's terms depends upon literacy, so it is not surprising that these mature students tend to function on a grade eight level.

Admittedly, many of my wife's students are of foreign extraction and simply lack the language skills necessary to perform passably.  They would require immersion and ESL courses, which the university in its greed for numbers and mural irresponsibility has failed to provide.  What is far more distressing is the brute fact that the majority of native English-speakers are equally challenged.  It is dispiriting to reflect that they represent the social, cultural, economic, and political leaders of tomorrow.

Some may do well in the comparatively abstract disciplines such as math or computer-related technologies, but they will inevitably make indifferent citizens, simpleminded voters, historical illiterates, uninformed parents, and poor readers of the world.  Meanwhile, the university will continue to deteriorate until, bloated with mediocre and unequipped students, politically motivated professors, unqualified hires, morally lame administrators, and an epicurean debauch of diversity-and-inclusion officers, it must submit to institutional collapse.  Despite our best intentions, it is unlikely that the university can be reformed by a disparate collection of legislative measures or the academic version of a market correction.  Boasting only emeritus status, it has long passed its expiry date.

Academia is by this time too radically compromised and too extensively diseased to be revived.  Clearly, this is not a happy scenario.  Some few exceptions to the general rout will survive – a Hillsdale College, for example, and perhaps a university here and there will manage to halt or at least delay its subsidence into irrelevance and desuetude.  But the university system as we know it has signed its death warrant.  The sooner it disappears, the sooner we can begin rebuilding from the foundations – assuming the culture has not stagnated beyond salvage.  Sometimes collapse is the only remedy.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/is_there_a_cure_for_the_modern_university.html

Trump is using tariffs to advance a radical free-trade agenda - Marc A. Thiessen

Give President Trump credit.

When he chastised NATO allies over their failure to spend adequately on our common defense, his critics said he was endangering the Atlantic alliance. Instead, his tough stance persuaded allies to spend billions more on defense, strengthening NATO instead. 

Now, Trump is doing the same on trade. At the Group of Seven summit in Quebec, Trump was roundly criticized for publicly berating allies over their trade practices and provoking a needless trade war. Well, once again, it appears Trump is being proved right. 

On Wednesday, he and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced a cease-fire in their trade war and promised to seek the complete elimination of most trade barriers between the United States and the European Union. "We agreed today ... to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods," declared the two leaders in a joint statement. 

Zero tariffs. Wednesday's breakthrough with the European Union shows that, contrary to what his critics allege, Trump is not a protectionist; rather, he is using tariffs as a tool to advance a radical free-trade agenda.

In a little-noticed interview with Fox News's Maria Bartiromo earlier this month, Trump revealed that during the G-7 summit he made a sweeping proposal. "I said, 'I have an idea, everybody. I'll guarantee you we'll do it immediately. Nobody pay any more tax, everybody take down your barriers. No barriers, no tax. Everybody, are you all set?' ... You know what happened? Everybody said, 'Uh, can we get onto another subject?'"

Trump offered to eliminate all trade barriers -- and his supposedly pro-free-trade allies passed. Right before his meeting with Juncker this week, he repeated the offer, tweeting, "The European Union is coming to Washington tomorrow to negotiate a deal on Trade. I have an idea for them. Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers 

and Subsidies!" Trump knows that most of our trading partners don't really want free trade; they want managed trade, where they can get access to U.S. markets while protecting certain industries from U.S. competition. Trump's strategy to get them to drop these protectionist barriers is to impose crushing tariffs. 

At a rally earlier this week, Trump explained his strategy for getting to zero tariffs. "You know, other countries have tariffs on us. So, when I say, 'Well, I'm going to put tariffs on them,' they all start screaming, 'He's using tariffs,'" Trump said. "I said [to the European Union], 'You have to change.' They didn't want to change. I said, 'Okay. Good. We're going to tariff your cars.' ... They said, 'When can we show up? When can we be there?' [Laughter.] 'Would tomorrow be okay?' Oh, folks, stick with us. Stick with us."

Now Trump's hard-line trade strategy is being vindicated. Not only is the E.U. negotiating zero tariffs, but also it agreed to immediately buy more American soybeans -- which helps Trump in his trade battle with China. After Trump imposed tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods, China responded with retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products, including soybeans.

Beijing knows that China is the single largest importer of U.S. soybeans, and that about 96 percent of U.S. soybeans are grown in 18 states -- all but two of which voted for Trump in 2016. Their tariffs left soybean farmers none too happy with Trump and gave a political boost to vulnerable Senate Democrats in soy-producing farm states such as Heidi Heitkamp, N.D., Joe Donnelly, Ind., and Claire McCaskill, Mo. 

Now, Trump has enlisted the European Union to help U.S. soybean farmers to counteract the repercussions of Chinese tariffs, in addition to the $12 billion in aid he has promised for U.S. farmers. That's three-dimensional trade chess.

Earlier this week, Trump tweeted, "Tariffs are the greatest! Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs. It's as simple as that." Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't. 

Trump is a long way from a final deal. And in trade, nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. But this is a surprisingly positive first step.

If Trump succeeds in using trade wars to bring down European and Chinese trade barriers, he may end up being one of the greatest free-trade presidents in history.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0718/thiessen072718.php3

Vox Popoli: The name is Arkhaven (On affecting the culture - comics - yes, comics!)

As I've pointed out before, the Right has no idea how to cooperate or play follow-the-leader:

I'm in Chuck's comics circle online. I really feel like ALL OF US trying to do our Right Wing comics need to band together to form our own "Marvel" because it's EXTREMELY hard to make comics without having any name. Here's my AltRight web comic.

The alternative to Marvel and DC has already been created. We are well into the process of building the necessary infrastructure at Arkhaven. While we're getting excellent support from both comics fans as well as culture warriors, and while we're building key strategic relationships with a variety of partners, we still have relatively little support from a) the conservative media, b) the social media stars, or c) the aforementioned comics circle.

Now, just to be clear, that's absolutely fine. I'm not complaining about it. We never counted on it. We have always been of the Gideon mindset; it's better to have 300 warriors at your back than 10,000 counter-signaling moderates.

There are a number of obstacles to what this gentleman wants to accomplish. First, the attention-seekers can't stand for anyone else to be the leader, no matter who it is. See: Comicsgate. Second, right-wingers are individualists who tend to focus on maximizing their personal situation at the expense of building institutions and organizations capable of supporting them. See: Milo Inc's abortive attempt to create a publishing house. Third, moderates will not accept radical leadership for fear of rejection by the Left whose approval they still seek. See: Diversity & Comics and many indy authors.

Imagine where we would be if all those indy authors and social media stars and Baen authors had been willing to work out mutually beneficial deals with Castalia House. We'd already be in a much stronger position to defend the interests of everyone on the Right. Instead, it's just more dog-eat-dog competition in a negative-sum game as Amazon methodically drains the pool of available ebook money. It will almost certainly be the same thing in comics, with one or two big winners and everyone else scrambling for the scraps. Again, not complaining, merely observing and analyzing.

Now, there are those who have recognized the situation, bought into the vision, and gotten on board. As for the others, a few will do great on their own, although they will fail to build any lasting institutions, and the rest will muddle along in obscurity. And while not everyone will acknowledge it now, eventually it will become obvious that the right-wing alternative was born on the very first day of the Alt-Hero campaign.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-name-is-arkhaven.html

The Republican Party: Not Much of a Horse But the Only One in the Corral - By Jared Peterson

The tragedy of American conservatism is that its only electoral home is in a party most of whose funds come from those who agree with the globalist agenda and whose privileged position insulates them from its disastrous cultural consequences.  In short,  America’s corporate elite is making tons of money from globalism -- chiefly, mass immigration and manufacturing outsourcing -- while they experience no negative effects in their privileged and insular world.

Oh sure, they advocate a bit of border protection here, a little improvement in US trade deals there, but basically they’re on board for free trade, relaxed borders and mass immigration. They have a wealthy person’s distaste for excessive government regulation and high taxes -- hence, they are “Republicans” -- but, stem the flood of cheap labor immigrants? Why on earth would they want to do that?

The first economic consequence of mass immigration is lower labor costs across the economy, from lettuce pickers to computer programmers, and that pushes historic quantities of money up to America’s corporate owners and executives. The working and middle classes endure the economic downside in the form of fewer jobs and much lower wages.

This has all been discussed ad nauseam before. But it can’t be repeated too often: Mass immigration has been an economic bonanza for major owners and executives and an economic disaster for the other 80% of the population.

Looking away from the economic to the cultural consequences of mass immigration, the divergence between  America’s wealthy decision makers and the other 80% is even greater. Put bluntly, the American upper classes have yet to see the those consequences, let alone to feel pressured by them. They are Peggy Noonan’s “protected classes.”

It has been said before but cannot be said too often: America’s upper class hypocrites who have brought the joys of mass third world immigration to middle and working class America are, as yet, absolutely immune from its baleful cultural concomitants.

They live in elegant neighborhoods, behind gates and walls, protected as often as not by private security; their children attend the finest private schools where a learning environment still exists and the risk of being beaten up or shaken down for lunch money is zero; their family members and friends don’t have to ride BART, or the subway, or the bus in the middle of the night to or from poorly paid jobs; the members of their swank clubs look like they did in 1980 and all speak English; and their mode of transport is the first class cabin or private jet.

I begrudge them none of this. My quarrel is that much of their wealth and ease comes from a globalism whose detriments are inflicted solely on the bottom 80% of Americans.  But the cultural concomitants of mass third world immigration are well known to that bottom 80% of Americans.

All over urban America, parents struggle to scrape together the money to buy a house in a neighborhood where the public schools have not been destroyed. In small town America, parents warn their kids about drug pushers from South of the Border who have discovered and targeted the once-safe American countryside. Illegal immigrants commit crimes at rates hugely in excess of those legally present. For 2014 the Sentencing Commission of the US Justice Department reported that of all crimes for which convictions were obtained and sentences imposed, illegals made up 13% (if the 11.2 million figure for US illegals is correct, illegals constitute slightly more than 3% of the population)

And on and on.

None of this reaches the neighborhoods of those who brought it to us.

But It is the decision-making elites of these neighborhoods that fund the Republican Party. And therein lies the rub for this fall’s election:

The Democratic Party, in its lunatic, massively unpopular stands on illegal immigration and border protection, has been leading with its chin as perhaps never before. Abolishing ICE, opening America’s southern border, and supporting sanctuary cities that shelter criminals and drug dealers may be the most toxic brew of Democratic Party electoral poison that party has yet concocted. It begs for brutal, repeated, brass knuckle exposure. This well could be the issue that turns an off-year election into a historic Democratic wipeout.

Will the funders of the Republican party seize one of the most inviting opportunities in US electoral history to deliver a knock-out blow? Or will they wuss out?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/the_republican_party_not_much_of_a_horse_but_the_only_one_in_the_corral.html

How Mitch McConnell Stole the 2016 Congressional Elections - By Michael Bargo, Jr.

On November 8, 2016, the nation was gripped by the suspense of whether the outsider Donald J. Trump or the favorite Hillary Clinton would win the White House.  At the same time, voters chose their states' congressional representatives, while one third of the states also chose their two senators.

While the major television networks held Super Bowl-size coverage, showing maps of all the states, disputed congressional districts, and exit polls trying to narrow down who may win the White House, what the nation did not know, and still does not know, is that Mitch McConnell had his own scheme for running Congress. 

While everyone in Washington knew the plan McConnell had, and knew that it was standard procedure in Washington, few voters suspected that when they voted for their member of Congress and the Senate, their vote had no influence on the final result.  They did not know and did not suspect that Senator Mitch McConnell was soon to nullify the results of the 2016 national election.  He did not plan to influence vote-counting at the precinct level or use his influence to choose the Senate committee chairs.  His plan was far more comprehensive.

He did not plan to use the Russians to hack into election results computers in every state, or delay election results through lawsuits.  His plan was far more insidious: he would simply allow the election to take place, to have all the votes counted and counted equally, and if the Republicans kept the majority in the Senate, that was all he needed to put his plan to nullify the 2016 election into action and negate the results of every House and Senate election in America.

How he did this is simple.  In 2017, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell simply refused to have the Senate vote on 569  bills passed by Congress.  Since the Senate did not vote on a bill, those bills had no influence on congressional policy.  All the hopes and dreams American voters had to see programs of their choice realized through the House and Senate were quashed by one person. 

The reason McConnell's scheme worked is simple and is found in the very heart of the American representative form of government.  In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders of the U.S. stated that they would no longer allow one person, the king of Great Britain, to decide by himself what laws took effect in the colonies.  They declared on July 4, 1776 that government obtains its authority to govern only through the consent of the people. 

What followed was the U.S. Constitution, written by representatives in 1787 and ratified by a majority of the 13 states in 1791.  The Constitution carefully describes how the consent of the people will flow through the members of Congress, both the House and Senate, to the desk of the president, and then be signed into law.  This is how the U.S. government is supposed to work. 

But McConnell and those before him found a way to work around this: to allow everyone to vote on election day; pretend the votes are counted; allow the drama and excitement of the national election to play out on national TV; and then, by not allowing the Senate to vote on the complete spending bill passed by the House, to shut down the will of the people completely.  In this way, most of the House votes taken on November 8, 2016 were nullified.  The result is the same as if McConnell had his cronies visit every precinct in the U.S. and burned the ballots.

McConnell's scheme is clandestine, far more shrewd and effective.  His method was to allow everyone to vote, then cut off the input voters have on congressional bills at the Senate level.  If the House passes 768 bills and Senate Leader McConnell ties up 569 in the Senate, then 74% of those House bills may as well not exist.  And 74% of those who voted on election day may as well have stayed  home. 

Now came step two.  Senate leader McConnell, needing to pass a federal budget, met with the other members of Congress – House speaker Paul Ryan, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer – and wrote their own bill of appropriations, an "omnibus" bill.  Since the 569 bills passed by the House were never voted on by the Senate, they were not part of the omnibus bill.  The omnibus bill was written by the Washington oligarchy: the four leaders who practiced their two-step process of nullifying the House and Senate and writing their own bill.  Only when the four oligarchs had written the omnibus bill were the House and Senate allowed to have a vote.  Then, threatened with a government shutdown, the president gave in and signed it. 

When President Obama was in office, he had a more crude, direct way of ruling by oligarchy.  He blocked the Republicans from having any input on the budget process and installed 62 czars, bureaucrats, who decided how to appropriate federal budget funds.  President Obama's method, since it included historically high national deficits, was actually more unconstitutional.  This is because deficit spending not only deprives current voters of their opportunity to decide how their taxes are appropriated through congressional action, but forces future voters, by having to pay interest on the debt and pay down the debt, to have less influence on the national budget, since money that could go to policies of their choice is already spent on Obama's deficits. 

What McConnell did violates the constitution in the most direct way possible.  Since all spending every two years must be decided by the voters – this is why the entire House is elected every two years – for McConnell to deprive the voters a Senate vote on the House bills is identical to denying them their opportunity to express their will and consent. 

So while Alexander Tyler is reported to have studied democracies throughout history and conclude that a democracy will last only 200 years – after that amount of time, the electorate will vote themselves the treasury – he was half-wrong.  Today, it's the Congress, through the Senate actions of McConnell, who has taken over the treasury.  The voters under McConnell no longer have any say.  Their will and consent have been nullified.  The Democrat leaders, Pelosi and Schumer, are thrilled to go along with this.  Their main frustration is that they can't create 49% deficits, as they did in 2010 with Obama, and put a stranglehold on more future voters' will and consent.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/how_mitch_mcconnell_stole_the_2016_congressional_elections.html

Vox Popoli: The globalist war on America (And it is 'religious' - be sure to read the comments)

The attack on American nationalism long predates George Soros and Jordan Peterson. From page 143 of the book The Killing of Uncle Sam:

A SUBVERSIVE PURPOSE

In 1957, a congressional investigative committee revealed the following finding: “In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisers to government and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote ‘internationalism’ in a particular sense—a form directed toward ‘world government’ and a derogation of American ‘nationalism.’ The CFR has become in essence an agency of the United States Government [and its] productions are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalist concept.”

This subversive purpose has been verified by Foreign Affairs, the Council’s own publication, which has been called “the most influential periodical in print” by Time magazine. In its inaugural issue (September 1922), the journal condemned “the dubious doctrines expressed by such phrases of ‘safety first’ and ‘America first.’” In its second issue, Philip Kerr, a member of the British Round Table, declared: “Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind so long as it remains divided into fifty or sixty independent states. Equally obviously there is going to be no steady progress in civilization or self-government among the more backward peoples until some kind of international system is created which will put an end to the diplomatic struggles of every nation to make itself secure. The real problem today is that of world government.”

Notice that the attacks on the concept of ‘America first’ predate Donald Trump's slogan and trade policy by nearly 100 years. This has been a very long secret war waged against America. Ideology is now secondary, the only real struggle that matters is the conflict between globalist and nationalist.

It doesn't matter if a globalist happens to say things that sound good about open societies or cleaning your room. If you love America, if you love the country in which you live, the globalists are your sworn enemies.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-globalist-war-on-america.html