Category Archives: Politics
Watch “Jordan Peterson: The fatal flaw in leftist American politics | Big Think” on YouTube
Leftist Critics are Misreading Antifascism: The Course of a Crusade
Authoring a book comes with its usual praise and criticism and my latest book, Antifascism: Course of a Crusade, is no exception. One of my critics is the Canadian journalist and columnist at The Nation, Jeet Heer. His review leaves me wondering whether he has actually read my work, which charts the historical roots of the modern antifascist movement.
According to my critic, I—along with others like writer John Vella, who wrote a legitimate review of my book in The American Conservative—are laboring to rehabilitate Italian fascism. Those who have actually read my monograph will realize that I have not produced a lament for the lost glories of Mussolini’s Italy. Although I deal with the Italian attempt to build a fascist state, I am also quite critical of Mussolini’s career, especially his involvement with Hitler’s Third Reich and the unfortunate anti-Semitic laws that Il Duce issued in September 1938.


But Heer is irritated that still I notice the gigantic differences in degrees of tyranny between the nasty Third Reich and the authoritarian Italian fascist state before its takeover by Nazi Germany in 1943. I have no idea why my failure to denounce fascist Italy in a way that would please my critic constitutes a whitewash.Antifascism: The Cours…Gottfried, PaulBuy New $34.95(as of 06:14 EDT – Details)
Also, to Heer’s obvious displeasure, my book tries to show why Italian fascism became an attractive model for interwar national movements, including black and Jewish ones. I examine why young nationalists, who did not intend to murder minorities and who had no interest in making alliances with the Third Reich, were deeply attracted to Italian fascism. Explaining such matters may be as worthwhile an activity as clarifying why the woke left continues to venerate Communist mass murders and outspoken homophobes, a subject that my book most definitely explores. Has Heer ever wondered, as I have for decades, why the woke left continues to pay tribute to Castro, Che Guevara, and Mao, all mass murders who committed much worse crimes than did Mussolini?
If Heer had carefully read my monograph, he would have noticed that I did not produce a screed from the crazy right. Indeed, the second chapter of my book even pays fulsome tribute to those Marxists who treated fascism in a coherent, systematic way. I view these leftist theorists as models of critical analysis and praise the thoroughness with which they examined fascism as a counterrevolutionary movement allied to the capitalist class. Although I am not of their persuasion, my book has nice things to say about German Marxists who came up with usable explanations for Hitler’s dictatorship. But these facts do not faze Heer. Instead, he focuses on the fact that I knew Richard Spencer and collaborated with him on an anthology. Never mind that this collaboration occurred before Spencer went off the deep end into white nationalism; Heer presumes in his brief that my past association with Spencer is a clinching argument.
What irks Heer, and other leftist critics of my work, is that I diss their brand of antifascism. I dislike their hysterics and their efforts to brand those on the right who disagree with them as “fascists.” Moreover, I don’t play the game that I hear on Fox News of presenting the woke left as the grim return of the Marxist Communist monster. The modern antifa leftists are no more Marxists than Dodo birds; they are just loudmouthed bullies who vent hatred on normal people. They entirely lack the mental discipline and bourgeois morality that characterized the Marxists of my youth.
Nonetheless they are bona fide antifascists, as my book demonstrates. Woke leftists deny unchangeable specificities, such as definite ethnicities or sexualities. Antifascist woke leftists believe that, in contrast to fascism’s ascription of fixed identities, human persons have totally fluid essences that can be changed from one minute to the next. The only practical exception to this rule that has emerged concerns the right to call oneself black, which apparently is so exalted a victim category that it cannot be attached to someone who is not inherently of the black race.
Paul Gottfried
Another Vaxx Mandate Bites the Dust
More bad news for tyrants–meaning, good news for human beings. This is why we have courts: to limit the power of tyrants. However, our federal executive branch, Congress and bureaucracies are littered with tyrants. Until or unless the courts can remove them from power, stop them from violating our Constitution and prosecute them (from Biden on down), we have to do all we reasonably can to ignore and disobey them.
“A federal judge in Georgia issued a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on federal contractors, temporarily shutting down the last remaining vaccine requirement by the Biden administration.
U.S. District Judge Stan Baker in Savannah, Georgia, said Congress did not clearly authorize the president to use procurement to impose a vaccine requirement on contractors that will have “vast economic and political significance.”
The lawsuit was filed by the states of Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia as well as a trade group for contractors.” [Newsmax 12-7-21]
Will Biden even acknowledge or listen to these court rulings? Not likely.
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
McConnell Caves Again
Having thrown away what little leverage the Republican Party has in this one-party government, GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) compounded his felony by rolling over once again in the face of Democratic efforts to raise the debt limit with no conditions attached.
Democrats, of course, can raise the limit anytime they want because they would not need a filibuster proof majority for a budget bill under the Byrd Rule. But they want to share the blame for doing so with Republicans, so they won’t raise the debt limit alone.
And, obliging as ever, McConnell caved in and agreed to let them do it covered by a fig leaf of bipartisanship. He previously bailed the Democrats out over the summer and vowed not to do so again, but he can’t help himself and he rolled over again.
The Republicans could have exacted any number of commitments in return for their votes. They should have asked for an additional cut of $1 trillion in the Build Back America package. They could have insisted that the package have no language on immigration. For all their wails of outrage at the unilateral, arrogant Democratic refusal to consult them, McConnell led his troops in a total surrender — again.
Why don’t he and Manchin both switch parties and put their respective party establishments out of their agony?
Dick Morris
How Obama Subverted the American Military
Editors’ note: This article on the subversion of the American military is one of a series Daniel Greenfield has written on what is probably the greatest and most immediate threat to America’s security and survival. It’s a subject surrounded by silence. See the Freedom Center’s articles on this issue at its new campaign site, Committee for a Patriotic Military. Also make sure to read Daniel Greenfield’s booklet, Disloyal: How the Military Brass is Betraying Our Country.
By the time Barack Obama left office, every branch of the military was smaller than it had been on September 11. But the change in size concealed the true impact of America’s most left-wing president in undermining our national security and weakening us in the face of our enemies.
“I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” Obama famously boasted. He used the pen to unleash a blizzard of executive orders and memorandums. Some led to outraged protests, but some of his most devastating penned assaults on our nation’s military flew under the radar.
One of those took place during the end of his last year in office. His memorandum, “Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce”, created the woke military of the Biden administration by putting identity politics, diversity quotas, and political indoctrination at the heart of the military’s mission.
Obama had always resented the military. Even former General McChrystal, an Obama loyalist fired for describing his boss a little too aptly in the presence of a Rolling Stone reporter, described him as “uncomfortable and intimidated” by generals. But Obama’s parting shot at the military cut the generals down to size by transforming them into community organizers.
His order redefined diversity as the military’s “greatest asset” and reinvented national security as a system for maximizing employment diversity by race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and every identity politics metric, but not the military metrics that truly mattered, readiness, competence, and a willingness to wage war in defense of the homeland.
Along with transforming the military into another quota-based federal employment agency in which skills and capability mattered much less than being a disabled transgender Eskimo, the order also demanded that national security agencies should make “implicit or unconscious bias” training mandatory for “senior leadership and management positions”. Divisions that didn’t earn sufficiently high IQ (Inclusion Quotient) scores would also be hit with bias training.
Implicit bias training is a form of political indoctrination which asserts that all white people are racist. Its sessions force participants into accepting its radical racial worldview or be treated as obstacles to the new organizational mission. Implicit bias training has succeeded in forcing out talented executives from corporations and officers from the military, replacing them with political activists and bootlickers cowardly enough to repeat Marxist dogma for the sake of their careers.
Obama’s memorandum led to the expansion of implicit bias within the military such as Army Secretary Eric Fanning’s infamous Directive 2017-06 ordering mandatory implicit bias training for “soldiers and employees in senior leadership and management positions” that was protested by chaplains for infringing on religious freedom. While the Trump administration later ordered a ban on such abusive training in the military, by then Obama’s order had long since been circulating in its cultural and organizational bloodstream, and was quickly restarted by Biden.
Biden’s first executive orders not only rescinded the ban, but doubled down on making the military more woke, more racist towards white Americans, and more incapable than ever. The new equity push went even further by attributing any failure to meet racial, gender, and other identity politics quotas to the grand hoax of “systemic racism” –a practice outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Meeting these quotas became the foremost task of senior leadership.
China might beat us in the hypersonic weapons race, but America’s top military brass would pull out all the stops to make sure that they had the most diverse arrangement of people, preferably in senior leadership positions, to establish their progressive credentials.
The ‘wokening’ of the military was not a bottom-up, but a top-down phenomenon, imposed at every step from branch leaders to academy superintendents, after originating from the White House. Obama’s “Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce” was one of the final building blocks for his key administration goal of bringing the most conservative arm of the federal government into compliance with the political agendas of the radical Left.
Obama’s former NASA administrator, Charles Bolden, had caused a stir when he frankly told Al Jazeera that his boss had given him three top priorities, none of which involved space, but one of which was Muslim self-esteem. No military leader had come out with an equally honest assessment, but Obama’s priorities for the military was looting its physical resources for environmental gimmicks like the Navy’s disastrous biofuels programs, and its human resources for a massive community organizing and Marxist indoctrination effort under the flag of diversity.
Obama didn’t just leave the military smaller in size, but smaller in spirit, its leadership class no longer dedicated to national security, but to the identity political agendas of the radical Left.
Can Your Kids Answer These Questions? If Not, Why Not?
Sheriff Clarke Says the Root Cause of Police Deaths is Criminal Justice Reform
Former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke stated on Monday that the number of law enforcement officers who are being killed in ambush assaults is “staggering,” and is likely growing due to certain criminal reform measures that are enabling career criminals to stay on the streets.advertisement — content continues below
“Sixty officers killed in ambush attacks in 2021,” Clarke went on to say during an interview on Newsmax’s “National Report.” “You’re looking at a 130% increase in assault ambushes on law enforcement officers. Those are staggering figures.”
The former sheriff’s remarks come just after a shooting in Mesquite, Texas where Officer Richard Houston, who served 21-years on the force, was killed while in the line of duty just outside of a local grocery store last Friday.advertisement — content continues below
via Newsmax:take our poll – story continues below
- Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?
Clarke also commented that reform measures have weakened law enforcement because police officers are left to “second guess themselves.”
Further, over-aggressive and political prosecutions of officers for incidents in which they should not be held criminally liable is causing police to hesitate on the scene, which Clark said is “very deadly.”advertisement — content continues below
“There is a number of things that contribute to this, but the fact that this goes on tells me that the war on police is alive and well,” Clarke remarked.
The veteran lawmaker also spoke out about the smash-and-grab robberies that have been taking place across the nation and said he can’t believe police officers and business leaders aren’t forming task forces to fight back.
“What I would do is I’d get a combination of armed private security and off-duty law enforcement officers, armed in uniform,” the former sheriff stated. “You post them at the door, about a half dozen of these officers at the door. They’re armed with course, their sidearm, but they’re armed with pepper spray, they’re armed with tasers, they’re armed with collapsible batons or nightsticks. That would be a deterrent to these crews that come in. They’ll see it right at the door that this is not going to be tolerated.”
Clarke then said he doesn’t understand why there’s so much “hand-wringing” concerning this particular issue.
“There’s a lot to be done,” he commented. “It’s basic stuff. But you need a plan. And I would say you know what? Shame on the police. Leaders who haven’t gotten together with the business community, the Chambers of Commerce, and saying Hey, look, we’ve got an idea.”
Michael Cantrell
Putin to Biden: Either Finlandize Ukraine or We Will
Either the U.S. and NATO provide us with “legal guarantees” that Ukraine will never join NATO or become a base for weapons that can threaten Russia — or we will go in and guarantee it ourselves.
This is the message Russian President Vladimir Putin is sending, backed by the 100,000 troops Russia has amassed on Ukraine’s borders.
At the Kremlin last week, Putin drew his red line:
“The threat on our western borders is … rising, as we have said multiple times. … In our dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on developing concrete agreements prohibiting any further eastward expansion of NATO and the placement there of weapons systems in the immediate vicinity of Russian territory.”
That comes close to an ultimatum. And NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg backhanded the President of Russia for issuing it:
“It’s only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. … Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence trying to control their neighbors.”
Yet, great powers have always established spheres of influence. Chinese President Xi Jinping claims virtually the entire South China Sea that is bordered by half a dozen nations. For 200 years, the United States has declared a Monroe Doctrine that puts our hemisphere off-limits to new colonizations.
Moreover, Putin wants to speak to the real decider of the question as to whether Ukraine joins NATO or receives weapons that can threaten Russia. And the decider is not Jens Stoltenberg but President Joe Biden.
In the missile crisis of 60 years ago, the U.S., with its “quarantine” of Cuba and strategic and tactical superiority in the Caribbean, forced Nikita Khrushchev to pull his intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which could reach Washington, off of Fidel Castro’s island.
If it did not do so, Moscow was led to understand, we would use our air and naval supremacy to destroy his missiles and send in the Marines to finish the job.
Accepting a counteroffer for the U.S. withdrawal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, Khrushchev complied with President John F. Kennedy’s demand. Russia’s missiles came out. And Kennedy was seen as having won a Cold War victory.
Now it is we who are being told to comply with Russia’s demands in Ukraine, or Russia will go in to Ukraine and neutralize the threat itself.
The history?
When the Warsaw Pact collapsed and the USSR came apart three decades ago, Russia withdrew all of its military forces from Central and Eastern Europe. Moscow believed it had an agreed-upon understanding with the Americans.
Under the deal, the two Germanys would be reunited. Russian troops would be removed from East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. And there would be no NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.
If America made that commitment, it was a promise broken. For, within 20 years, NATO had brought every Warsaw Pact nation into the alliance along with the former Soviet republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
Neocons and Republican hawks such as the late John McCain sought to bring Ukraine and two other ex-Soviet republics, Georgia and Moldova, into NATO.
Putin, who served in the KGB in the late Soviet era and calls the breakup of the USSR the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century, is now saying: Enough is enough.

Translation: “Thus far and no further! Ukraine is not going to be a member of NATO or a military ally and partner of the United States, nor a base for weapons that can strike Russia in minutes. For us, that crosses a red line. And if NATO proceeds with arming Ukraine for conflict with Russia, we reserve the right to act first. Finlandize Ukraine, or we will!”
The problem for Biden?
In Ukraine and in Georgia, as we saw in the 2008 war, Russia has the tactical and strategic superiority we had in 1962 in Cuba. Moreover, while Ukraine is vital to Russia, it has never been vital to us.
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized Joseph Stalin’s USSR in 1933, Moscow was engaged in the forced collectivization of the farms of Ukraine, which had caused a famine and the deaths of millions. We Americans did nothing to stop it.
During the Cold War, America never insisted on the independence of Ukraine. Though we celebrated when the Baltic states and Ukraine broke free of Moscow, we never regarded their independence as vital interests for which America should be willing to go to war.
A U.S. war with Russia over Ukraine would be a disaster for all three nations. Nor could the U.S. indefinitely guarantee the independence of a country 5,000 miles away that shares not only a lengthy border with Mother Russia but also a history, language, religion, ethnicity and culture.
Forced to choose between accepting Russia’s demand that NATO stay out of Ukraine and Russia going in, the U.S. is not going to war.
Biden should tell Putin: The U.S. will not be issuing any NATO war guarantees to fight for Ukraine.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”
Watch “Jordan Peterson: The collapse of our values is a greater threat than climate change | Off Script” on YouTube