Replies

DISCLAIMER: Right up front, I honor Peter Navarro for having the principles to go to jail, ostensibly on principle, but just as much to demonstrate to people that tyranny does indeed exist in this country if they don't believe it. I simply don't agree with his blanket characterization. I would agree with Tench_Coxe that if I hear someone like Peter Navarro make a statement, I am more inclined to listen with an agreeable ear than to not. But that does not mean I find him infallible. I have listened to him speak several times, and I most certainly do NOT agree with every thought process he has just because it came from his lips. I maintain we should be cautious.

I would caution people about taking to heart the word of one person who is being leveraged to discredit something the Left wants desperately to be disparaged.

Think about that statement for a second, and everyone should be asking the question every time you read an article regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the content in it: Who is telling me this? (As conservatives, we are REQUIRED to do this ALL the time. Leftists have no such mandate, they can simply accept what is told to them and parrot it)

In that context, you should ask yourself: "Who is the website "The Liberty Sentinel"? I have been intensively surfing the conservative Internet for a couple of decades at least, and never heard of them, but that isn't at all a given, I am human like everyone else, and can't be everywhere and see everything. And note that I am NOT saying they ARE a "front group". I am just saying we need to be very careful.

I assume we can all agree on that concept: We need to be very careful.

Just as an example of context, of the types of things to be aware of: When I read the article, this is the very first paragraph in the article linked to:

Former Trump advisor Peter Navarro blasted The Heritage Foundation’s “terrible” Project 2025 in a new interview on the Liberty Report with Liberty Sentinel CEO Alex Newman, adding a colorful repudiation to a mountain of criticism already pronounced against the controversial policy proposal."

Do you notice there is ONE link in that first paragraph that outlines the premise of this article, that specifies a mountain of criticism"

That jumped out at me. I was very interested in the "mountain of criticism", to see what it really was, other than a primal scream of rage from the mouths of Leftists. So I clicked on that link to see what the "mountain of evidence" was, or at least one example of that mountain. However when I clicked on that link, it brought me to a Politico article: "It Was Supposed to Be Trump’s Administration in Waiting. But Project 2025 Was a Mirage All Along. The inside story of how Project 2025 fell apart."

I encourage all of you to read the article. I did. It is talking about the infighting that took or is taking place, NOT an article about the "mountain of criticism" of the content of Project 2025.

The point is, there are dozens of "Advisory Boards", dozens of "Authors", and what appears to be hundreds of contributors. Some of these authors no doubt disagree with the content of the works of other "Authors" as Navarro apparently does, not to mention the hundreds of "Contributors" who may disagree with any number of things. There is much in the linked article that deals with the humorous concept of "The People's Front of Judea" who despise the members of an opposing, yet similarly sounding group of "The Judean People's Front".

So, if you wish to download it and read it, be sure to keep that in mind and remember: This is a white paper from a Think Tank (The Heritage Foundation). Reams and reams of documents issue forth from these Think Tanks every year from all over the country (and even the world) and while a think tank may have someone like Peter Navarro on it, he does not speak for the Trump Campaign, and may or may not be angling for a spot in the prospective administration.

Having read many pieces from the Heritage Foundation over the years, I don't doubt that there are elements in Project 2025 that are overtly globalist or could be construed that way. And I do not dispute there may or may not be globalists maneuvering to do an internal takeover of the Heritage Foundation. As a matter of fact, having paid particular attention to communist tactics and front groups dating back to the 1930's in my historical readings, I would be surprised if they were NOT attempting to infiltrate these things and take control from the inside.

Unlike many, I have actually begun reading the document and am only about a 10th of the way through. But you don't have to read that far to get to things that DON'T sound at all "globalist" to me. And this is just one small part:

Excerpt from Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership-The Conservative Promise
Progressive policymakers and pundits in America either fail to understand this premise or intentionally reject it. They enthusiastically support supranational organizations like the United Nations and European Union, which are run and staffed almost entirely by people who share their values and are mostly insulated from the influence of national elections. That’s why they are eager for America to sign international treaties on everything from pharmaceutical patents to climate change to “the rights of the child”—and why those treaties invariably endorse policies that could never pass through the U.S. Congress. Like the progressive Woodrow Wilson a century ago, the woke Left today seeks a world, bound by global treaties they write, in which they exercise dictatorial powers over all nations without being subject to democratic accountability.

That’s why today’s progressive Left so cavalierly supports open borders despite the lawless humanitarian crisis their policy created along America’s southern border. They seek to purge the very concept of the nation-state from the American ethos, no matter how much crime increases or resources drop for schools and hospitals or wages decrease for the working class. Open-borders activism is a classic example of what the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace”—publicly promoting one’s own virtue without risking any personal inconvenience. Indeed, the only direct impact of open borders on pro-open borders elites is that the constant flow of illegal immigration suppresses the wages of their housekeepers, landscapers, and busboys.

“Cheap grace” aptly describes the Left’s love affair with environmental extremism. Those who suffer most from the policies environmentalism would have us enact are the aged, poor, and vulnerable. It is not a political cause, but a pseudo-religion meant to baptize liberals’ ruthless pursuit of absolute power in the holy water of environmental virtue. At its very heart, environmental extremism is decidedly anti-human. Stewardship and conservation are supplanted by population control and economic regression. Environmental ideologues would ban the fuels that run almost all of the world’s cars, planes, factories, farms, and electricity grids. Abandoning confidence in human resilience and creativity in responding to the challenges of the future would raise impediments to the most meaningful human activities. They would stand human affairs on their head, regarding human activity itself as fundamentally a threat to be sacrificed to the god of nature.

The same goals are the heart of elite support for economic globalization. For 30 years, America’s political, economic, and cultural leaders embraced and enriched Communist China and its genocidal Communist Party while hollowing out America’s industrial base. What may have started out with good intentions has now been made clear. Unfettered trade with China has been a catastrophe. It has made a handful of American corporations enormously profitable while twisting their business incentives away from the American people’s needs. For a generation, politicians of both parties promised that engagement with Beijing would grow our economy while injecting American values into China. The opposite has happened. American factories have closed. Jobs have been outsourced. Our manufacturing economy has been financialized. And all along, the corporations profiting failed to export our values of human rights and freedom; rather, they imported China’s anti-American values into their C-suites.

Even before the rise of Big Tech, Wall Street ignored China’s serial theft of American intellectual property. It outright cheered the elimination of American manufacturing jobs. (“Learn to code!” they would gloat.) These were just the price of progress. Engagement was at every step Beijing’s project, not America’s. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictated terms, only to break them whenever it suited them. They stole our technology, spied on our people, and threatened our allies, all with trillions of dollars of wealth and military power financed by their access to our market.

Then came the rise of Big Tech, which is now less a contributor to the U.S. economy than it is a tool of China’s government. In exchange for cheap labor and regulatory special treatment from Beijing, America’s largest technology firms funnel data about Americans to the CCP. They hand over sensitive intellectual property with military and intelligence applications to keep the money rolling in. They let Beijing censor Chinese users on their platforms. They let the CCP set their corporate policies about mobile apps. And they run interference for our rival’s political priorities in Washington. One side of Big-Tech companies’ business model is old-fashioned American competitiveness and world-changing technological innovation; but increasingly, that side of these businesses is overshadowed by their role as operatives in the lucrative employ of America’s most dangerous international enemy.

If you want to understand the danger posed by collaboration between Big Tech and the CCP, look no further than TikTok. The highly addictive video app, used by 80 million Americans every month and overwhelmingly popular among teenage girls, is in effect a tool of Chinese espionage. The ties between TikTok and the Chinese government are not loose, and they are not coincidental.

The same can be observed of many U.S. colleges and universities. Through the CCP's Confucius Institutes, Beijing has been just as successful at compromising and coopting our higher education system as they have at compromising and co-opting corporate America.

From what I have read in the first several dozen pages so far, it is indeed much upon the lines of this excerpt above. Does anyone see that as globalist? It could be I misunderstand the term "globalist", but I don't see much in there that is different in tone from the excerpt above. But this is my first pass, and I concede that I am no "expert" in nearly any of the subjects addressed in the document, so I may not have the depth of understanding that someone like Peter Navarro may have in a specific area.