Category Archives: Europe

Oy Vey, Owens: Candace’ Nationalism Arguments Are Confused

Argument, Europe, Fascism, Logic, Nationhood, Political Philosophy, Reason, Republicans, War

As appealing as she is as an activist, Candace Owens is no clear thinker. She certainly manages to confuse with her default definition of nationalism vis-a-vis the Trump Revolution.

The setting: Some moronic, white-nationalism Congressional hearings.
There, Owens roughly asserted that “Hitler killed his own people hence he was not a nationalist,” which is a non sequitur.

Ms. Owens here is proceeding from the asserted premise—for she doesn’t argue it—that nationalists do not “kill their own people.” This may be true (but would further depend on definitions; what is meant by “own people”), although I very much doubt it. Nevertheless, it appears that Owens’ thought process is something like,

“I like nationalism [check], and, therefore, Hitler, whom I most certainly don’t like, and who was a monster, could not have been a nationalist.”

Consider: Like all Republicans, Owens, no doubt, adores Lincoln. But would she call Honest Abe a nationalist? Why not? I mean, nationalism is a good thing and Abe, say Republicans like Owens, was a good guy.

Well, there is the pesky fact of Lincoln having killed “his own people” … hmmm. By Owens’ seemingly dogmatic definition of nationalism (not killing your own people), Lincoln, at least, does not qualify as a nationalist.

Just so we’re clear.

What preceded Owens’ odd assertion above was an even stranger comment, again, about Hitler. (This was at the same moronic, white-nationalism Congressional hearings.)

“If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well — OK, fine,” she says. “The problem is … he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German.”

The problem with Hitler? Heavens! Where does one start? It was not that he was a “globalist.” (Is that the kind of “globalist” George Soros Citizen of The World is, Candace?)

How about that Hitler is synonymous with conquest, subjugation, slavery and industrialized mass murder in the service of world hegemony, which, he truly believed, would make Germany  indisputably the greatest power?

the presumed successor of the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (the First Reich) and the German Empire of 1871 to 1918 (the Second Reich)


Is The Economist Bewailing That America Is Becoming A Minority-Majority Country?

America, Europe, IMMIGRATION

The transatlantic relations are worth fighting for, laments the Economist, a progressive news magazine. Europe and America must work to stop their relationship from unraveling.

Just about in every issue, the same progressives (excellent journalists, for sure) celebrate that America is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country.

It’s inexplicable, then, that the economist proceeds to bitterly bewail the fact that, “America is becoming less European. A century ago more than 80% of its foreign-born population came from Europe; now the figure is only 10%. Surging economies in Asia are tugging America’s attention away.”


Europe inevitably counts for less in American eyes than it once did. The generation that formed bonds fighting side-by-side in the second world war is passing away and even the cold war is becoming a distant memory.

READ: “Europe and America must work to stop their relationship unraveling.”

Trump is certainly not retarding the trend:

A Brief Word On A Short-Lived Brexit

Britain, Conservatism, EU, Europe, Nationhood, Secession

By Sean Gabb

I suppose I should write a formal essay, only I’m presently too worn down by the pantomime to think again at any length about our failed departure from the European Union. So here is a comment I placed last night on FaceBook:

John Pate is right. There will be no Brexit. The parliamentary stalemate will continue into January, when everyone will agree to a deferral of the leaving date from March to December.

The stalemate will then continue until everyone “reluctantly” agrees to a new referendum. This time, the Sheeple will vote as told. This is the only likely outcome. No preparations have been made for leaving without a deal. Some degree of chaos is inevitable – inevitable because planned. The only deal on offer is worse than staying in. If asked, I will vote again to leave. But enough will vote to stay.

This is, I confess, a disappointing outcome. On the other hand, it is better than having lost the first referendum. Enough people will know we have been defrauded this time for the Conservative Party to be ripped apart. And that will be a reasonably positive outcome.

MORE from Sean Gabb.

UPDATE II (12/15/018): Ambassador Richard Grenell Sets The Immigration Debate Back On Tucker’s Show

Conservatism, Europe, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Nationhood

There wasn’t a plan. There was no Plan. It wasn’t implemented with a Plan.

Over and over did U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell repeat those words, on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show. His goal was clearly to reinforce the long-held safe position on immigration into the West. So long as it’s legal and there’s A Plan, it’s all good.

The only problem Grenell sees with Angela Merkel’s opening Germany to the influx of 1 million Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East was that … there was no plan, whatever that means. The implication: were there a plan, whatever that means, there would be no issue.

But there was A Plan. The Plan was to import 1 million Muslims and teach the German people about values à la Brussels.

Richard Grenell, no different to Rush Limbaugh, in his stated opinion about immigration, has a plan to stay on the side of the angels. Continue to support the influx of 2 million immigrants into the US, annually, since they are legal. Legal immigration will not change the country in bad ways; only the illegal variety does this.

Yes, that’s an unbelievably dumb position. I know.

The exclusive emphasis on border security and legality in the immigration debate is the conservative scoundrel’s bid for respectability.

Open-border advocates are helped immeasurably by the Grenells of this world. Everyone (and his dog) currently concurs that we have no problem with legal immigration, only with the illegal variety. It’s now mandatory to pair an objection to the invasion of the American Southwest with an embrace of all forms of legal immigration. The sole emphasis on border security has, in all likelihood, entrenched the status quo. Americans will never assert their right to determine the nature of the country they live in and, by extension, the kind of immigrants they welcome. The security risk newcomers pose and The Plan to absorb them are the only permissible topics for conversation.

You have to have a Plan, a heart, remain open to lots of immigrants. So long as they’re legal. That’s the safe position.

Tucker Carlson’s position, when he sticks to it, has been that a country is allowed to determine who lives in it and whether it needs a break from the incessant influx because, hey, diversity is killing us as a people.

Read my “Disunited States Of America … “


How does Grenell propose to deal with the hate crimes against little German children at school, from aggressive, empowered Arab kids, whose culture is comfortable with such displays of power? What’s the Plan?

UPDATE II (12/15/018): Dave Rubin, really?