Populism vs. Liberalism: Or How Bannon Schooled Frum In A Debate

America’s elites are still grappling with the rise of Donald J. Trump. The Deep State is still at war with the people, doubling down on the need to figure out how a man like Donald J. Trump managed to defeat Hillary Clinton in the US Elections. In one step towards understanding this phenomenon they call Trumpism, the elites of Canada, in Toronto, in what is known there as the Munk Debates invited two emissaries: one from Trump’s camp, who needs no introduction, the notorious Steve Bannon, and the other from the camp of the ruling elite, the insufferable David Frum.

The man widely regarded as Trump’s elections kingpin, a founder of Brietbart News, a man who had worked in the US President’s White House, Steve Bannon defeated David Frum in the Toronto Munk Debate by swinging a net of 15 percent of listeners to his side. Frum was a speechwriter for US President George W. Bush. The debate was about the future, specifically about whether the future belonged to populist politics or to liberal politics. Bannon argued that the future belonged to populism. Frum was tasked by his fellow ruling elites to argue the exact opposite that the future belonged to a continuation of western styled liberalism.

The fact that Frum was appointed the man to debate Steve Bannon raised some eyebrows among liberals on the left—and in some instances it drew angry protests from the left—particularly because on one hand, Frum is an identified Republican. On the other Frum, who later wrote in an Atlantic article, claimed that he was advised by his fellow angels to not engage the devil, Steve Bannon.

Yet, the very apparition of Frum on the side of liberal politics goes to cement the validity of Bannon’s redefinition of the debate that the waves of populist politics were sweeping through both parties in the United States. That it wasn’t limited to the Republican Party alone. Bannon argued that liberalism in the same vain as the populism of today had long garnered supporters on the right and the left. That liberalism was the cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine, the Clinton Doctrine and the Obama Doctrine. Liberalism and populism were not immune to party politics, and in this respect, Bannon believed that populism was the reasonable reaction to decades of failed Bush, Clinton and Obama doctrines both inside the US and outside of it.

Bannon argued quite emphatically, demarcating a clear distinction between the elites (people he regards as the liberal elite who had failed the country) and the ordinary man (the people he regards as populist nationalists whose immaculately-innocent-shoulders this elitist betrayal fell upon). Consequently he believed that the debate was more about whether populist nationalism (for which Trump remains a “very imperfect instrument”) was going to defeat populist socialism (for which Bernie Sanders remains a biased instrument who reverently proclaimed his belief in Jewish German Reparations but who opposes African American Reparations).

Frum, on the other side of the argument, could barely define liberalism, and more alarmingly, which liberalism he came to defend. In an article on the Atlantic, after the debate he lost to Bannon, Frum continued to insist on what he thought that liberalism meant “in the broadest sense of the word liberal,” without actually caring to give a definition of “liberal.” What followed in Frum’s arguments is anyone’s guess—appeals to emotion: We are good, they are bad; we are angels, they are devils; we have a plan, they don’t have a plan; we know what we are talking about, they have no idea; and on, and on, and on.

At the beginning of the Munk Debate, 78 percent of the audience in the 2800-seat theater were on Frum’s side. At the end of the debate, it was no surprise that 15 percent of Frum’s supporters had switched to Bannon’s side. However, at the news offices of the Atlantic, where Frum is a senior editor, the news did not sit well with the board so the paper decided to publish what they deemed a correction of the Munk Debates official results, which they claimed were wrong. They called the debate results a draw in the same way that almost all US Papers have called all US Wars in foreign lands in the past: Vietnam was a draw; Iraq was a draw; and so on. All have one thing in common, after-the-fact representations of draws.

What remains unnerving however, is that Frum is unable, after a Bannon defeat at a debate and after a badly written article, to clearly tell his audience what on earth he has been asked, or rather tasked, to defend. David Frum, brandishing a law degree from Harvard, has still to define what liberal politics is and how one might identify it. It is simply not enough to say something is good. What is necessary is a stipulation of the convening characteristics that convinces an audience that something is good, and good enough to be chosen over another.

Which is what Steve Bannon did, and did very well. According to Bannon the inciting incident for populism in America began not even under a Democratic president. It started under W. Bush. The day was September 18, 2008, when representatives of the Deep State (men of government, Menogovs, who know so much about the United States government that they cannot be held responsible for any part of it; they cannot suffer the direct consequences of their own actions) entered the oval office and ordered the President to write a check and bail out the Banks. They terrified the US president about an impending, explosive, catastrophic economic downturn, the likes of which would dim the sun forever, and the president of the United States had no power but to kowtow to the whims and caprices of these elites.

Bannon asserts that the populist national movement begun from that single incident. Ordinary Americans quickly came to the realization that they no longer mattered in the calculations of the Deep State. That inside the professed rugged capitalism in the US, where good behavior was supposed to be rewarded and mistakes punished by the invisible hands of the free markets, there were Menogovs who couldn’t fail. And these Menogovs were backed by the Banks, hence the Banks also could not be allowed to fail, no matter their mistakes.

Of course the celebrity president Mr. Obama, followed Bush in suite, writing more checks to bail out more and more of the mistakes of failed Banks, while ordinary Americans were asked to bear the direct costs of their actions in investing in Banks that failed. Ordinary Americans quickly understood that the elites, the ruling elite, right or left, and center, to be exact, were aspiring globalists, aspiring Open Hemisphere queen-mothers, who had dreamed up scenes of a liberal world over which they could rule as omniscient Gods.

Bannon affirms that Brexit and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro election could all be linked to the popular detest that ordinary people in the United States, Britain, and Brazil, for instance, have come to feel for an elite that has become greedier, more gluttonous and more power drunk, much to the detriment of the poor. Even on the left, the rise against the Clinton Campaign cannot go unnoticed among the lovers of Bernie Sanders, although in that case the Democratic Party elite succeeded in rigging elections for the Clintons in a palace coup. The Clintonites barely failed to accomplish the same feat against Donald Trump nation-wide.

What is left of the United States since that Elite Attack on American soil, by the corporate, financial and permanent political class (the Menogovs) is that Donald J. Trump on January 20th, 2017 inherited 4.3 Trillion Dollars in Debt, upward from 800 Billion in US debt before September 18, 2008. The Menogov has become a more virulent, and a more menacing threat to the sovereignty of the United States than even the Soviets ever posed in decades during the Cold War. The result of that is that more than half of all Americans cannot come up with 400 dollars in cash, or sell property worth 400 dollars in order to foot a bill. All this rides at the back of (1) the over 7 Trillion Dollars spent, and counting, on unnecessary foreign wars by the US government, (2) the de-industrialization of the US, which culminated in the shipping of American jobs to China, and which directly induced Mass Incarceration of African Americans, particularly working men, and which America is still paying for in the new Opioid Crisis, and lastly (3) the financial debacle of 2008 when the Banks were bailed out with tax payers money.

It is in this light that populism must be viewed: A reasoned revolt against the Party of Davos (the global Menogovs). Bernie Sanders’ movement on the left, the populist socialists (democratic socialists) and Bannon’s movement on the right, the Tea Party, are two sides of the same coin that is sweeping through both political parties in the United States. The way to clearly identify both is rooted in three vital issues: (1) A revolution against the crony capitalist state, (2) a revolution against the overly complicated globalists and their liberal agenda and (3) a dismantling of the overt administrative state.

The issue then has little to do with what David Frum knows or does not know about liberalism, it seems, after all. Thank goodness! The issue and the entire debate seems to point to the more vital debate: Which populism will win out? Is it populist nationalism (the belief in coupling the ordinary man to all levels of the benefits from rugged capitalism, in which no one gets bailed out when they make mistakes) or will it be populist socialism (the belief that the United States can look more like Norway)?

In that debate the likes of Frum have no place. And it shows.

What is Liberalism outside of the United States?

Liberalism perhaps should be interested in granting freedoms: to bodies, tribes, nations and continents. Liberalism, you would think, should focus on cementing individual liberty, and with that national sovereignty, too.

But it does not! It hates national sovereignty and loves rugged individualism. The USA does not believe that Ghana has a right to self-determination but insists that the individuals of Ghana must fight for their self-identity! (Being Ghanaian is not a part of that identity but being Ghanaian should still be part of the identity at the same time). Meaning: So long as Ghana is an American colony, and the individuals of Ghana look to the Supreme Court of the Yankees to prescribe their freedoms, then liberalism wins.

The goal is to make Ghana look like the USA: whites on top, not working (lazying about in leisure and pleasure), and Blacks at the bottom (slaves), producing all the niceties of the Free World. The kind of Judaic Outlook you read about in the Torah.

That vision is not lost on the Yankees: Hence we have USAFRICOM building a Military base in Ghana right now to enforce the liberty of the individual while it tramples upon the liberty of the nation, Ghana.

What this entails is simple: Liberalism is predicated on one thing: to obfuscate the claim, which white supremacists and their sympathizers find unnerving, that a human being cannot be judged by the color of their skin alone.

Liberalism says: If you don’t want to be judged solely by the color of your skin, then no one (since everyone can claim multiple identities) should be judged at all. By this they obfuscate the very essence of eradicating racism. For instance, if you say you should be hired to do the job because you have a higher IQ, that is discrimination as well. If you say you should be hired because you are more beautiful, that is discrimination as well. If you say you should be hired because you are more qualified, in essence, is also discrimination.

Liberals have found a way to obfuscate an evil that needs eradicating by appealing to our tribal (real & primitive) proclivities. They never wanted to hire the Black man for the job anyway. So if Blacks call for representation, they say, “Well, those white cripples also need representation; those white witches also need representation; those white this and that also need representation.”

In the end, the Black man never ends up with any representation except now he’s well beaten by the paralogism of the wicked. And he has very little room to wiggle out of the trickery.

It works: Call the “African American struggle for equality” anything but that, call it Civil Rights. Even then develop new phrases to obfuscate it some more: Women’s Rights, Gay Rights, Housing Rights; etc. as if the first struggle never included the latter. Again, the attempt is to obfuscate and remove focus on the real issue at hand. This is the way to further entrench White Supremacism. Liberalism is the way to entrench white supremacism in the twenty-first century.

People just don’t see it, yet.