More light

Publius Decius Mus, the name behind which Michael Anton wrote some of the most enlightening articles during the election, has now not only been brought out into the light, but is on that account also on the high intensity receiving end of the usual slanders of the left. Only we on our side of the divide will ever listen to what he has to say, but he has turned out to be one of the most insightful persons in this Age of Stupidity, helping to clarify the political issues of our time. Below I excerpt from Decius Out of the Darkness: A Q&A with Michael Anton but you do need to read it all.

On being called an anti-Semite

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.

On the notion of America First

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.

On immigration

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.

Much more at the link.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to More light

  1. Phill

    I have grave doubts that Trump can reverse the cultural damage of the gramscians. Perhaps the most appropriate single word to describe why many voted for him is “revenge”.

  2. Driftforge

    More Decius.

    Caesarism is worse than constitutionalism. But Caesarism—if Caesar be ours and not theirs—is manifestly not worse than foreign conquest, slavery, or techno-totalitarian tyranny. A prudent man may prefer Caesarism on precisely the ground that Pinkoski suggests in his closing remarks: that, by ensuring a measure of continuity, Caesarism may support the continuance of serious thought by a serious few.

    And the piece by Carlo referenced but not linked to in that post.

  3. Infidel Tiger

    Bill Kristil who is a dishonest scumbag tried to out him during the campaign.

  4. The elites are the radicals. They believe in mainstreaming the novel, the untried and the extreme. They believe in conformity, force, deception and haste.

    The elites are the mob.

  5. NewChum

    Did he out himself or did someone do it to him?

  6. BorisG

    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.

    don’t the right also do this?

  7. Mother Lode

    don’t the right also do this?

    That is not an argument either.

  8. Razor

    “don’t the right also do this?

    My smear is bigger than yours said the tortiose to the hare.

    This is often thougt to be the only way to combat dirty politics – return fire and hope that attention is diverted. If it is a lie it seems that that does not matter. But I argue that many times the best response is to stay above the gutter. Trump selectively does this. At times he will defend the defensible and other times let reason take place.

  9. Driftforge

    Did he out himself or did someone do it to him?

    Not sure, but looking around it appears he was outed on some of the forums in November, but it wasn’t generally reported.

    The recent news cycle stuff was I think his own choice.

  10. Shy Ted

    In the end everyone has to eat and drink, clothe and house themselves and if you reduce or cease government funding to those individuals and organisations there’s less time to Tweet.

  11. Bruce

    What makes these self-styled “elites” in any way “elite”?

    The use of the term is yet more bolshevist word-play, and nothing more than just your basic dialectic drivel. It is a power-play on the overworked use of the term often used to describe “high-level” sports performers, but ONLY those participating in “approved” sports. Such folk strive to push themselves to, and often beyond, physical and psychological limits: the self-proclaimed and/or “anointed” political “elites”? Ho, f–king Ho!.

    Words along the lines of; scumbags, totalitarian sociopaths, degenerates, psychotics, megalomaniacs, (or all of the preceding), etc., seem more appropriate and, conveniently, accurate, to boot.

  12. Roger

    On immigration: The proper basis is what is best for the existing citizenry—period, full stop.

    After all, they foot the bill.

  13. testpattern

    Curtis Yarvin is another nutter of the Anton type

Comments are closed.