Well, at least some in the Moron Media have corrected course and are calling Richard Spencer a “white nationalist,” instead of a white supremacist.
Watching Richard’s performance at Auburn University, renowned scholar of the Right Dr. Paul E. Gottfried shared these impressions:
When I criticize him, I am not making moral judgments, except when I note his futile attempt to keep up with leftist Millennials by siding with gay rights and abortion. What I object to in Richard is his, well, strategic stupidity, not the fact that he has committed the “sin” of being a white nationalist. Since “educated” whites are taught to hate their own race, I can’t see how one can appeal to Millennials and leftist college students by calling for white nationalism. Nor does one win their sympathy by mimicking their positions on feminism and homosexuality while trying to convert them to a racialist ideology. What seems to me the only chance left to the Right to be effective is by mobilizing the “Deplorables” and then turning them against the social-cultural Left. I was delighted to see how the pro-Trump people took it to the Antifascists at Berkeley. And I knew these counter-demonstrators were on the side of the angels when David French at National Review began to rail against them.
My impressions? The young, white men in the audience seemed receptive, even enthusiastic, although Richard may be talking above their heads. What Richard was saying conjured an interview I gave, “Self-Segregation Trumps Imposed Multiculturalism.” My views are decidedly LIBERTARIAN, a slant Richard Spencer rejects:
Multiculturalism as practiced in the West amounts to top-down, centrally enforced and managed integration. Show me a historical precedent where forced integration has worked. As it works across the Anglo-American and European spheres, one group (the founding, historical majority) is forced by self-anointed and elected elites—no contradiction there—on pain of public and professional ostracism, to submerge its history, heroes, customs, culture, language, and pander to militant minorities, who’ve been acculturated by the same elites in identity-politics warfare. As a libertarian, I believe that the right to include or exclude; associate with or dissociate from, is inherent in the right of private property. Private property is a civilizing institution. How better to keep the peace than to respect the right of free private-property owners to keep their distance (or not)—to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will? This foundation of civil society is being dismantled for the sake of militant multiculturalism and policed pluralism.
An interesting new book, reviewed by one Barnaby Rogerson, makes the point that the Levant of the 18th century was peaceful and prosperous (and surprisingly libertine), because it was made up of “a grid of self-governing communities.” Integration between disparate communities was not enforced. And surprise, surprise: communities freely chose to live in complete segregation. This freedom fostered “remarkable tolerance” among diverse communities across the cities of the Levant of that time. “Deals before Ideals, City before State, Trade before Politics,” as the reviewer puts it. This freedom of association was the source of strength. These autonomous ethnic communities were free of the top-down, punitive, forced integration that has become the hallmark of the 19th-century nation-state that usurped their authority.
See: “Self-Segregation Trumps Imposed Multiculturalism.”
The logic is as simple as it is foolproof. An “air-tight free-market argument,” as I explained: “If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, men as a group would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. That entrepreneurs don’t ditch men en masse for women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.” (“The Week of Whining Womin”)
The logic is not, however, female proof.
Republicans are whinging about “how the media didn’t mind much when Barack Obama halted immigration, why are they making a fuss about the Trump refugee pause.” The whine amounts to one of those tit-for-tat, vacuous, non-arguments. It’s not an arguments of substance.
In fact, I dearly hope the Washington Post is correct and that it’s “facile” to “claim that Trump’s refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011.” Why my hope? Because, I don’t know about you, but I despised Obama’s immigration policy. If Trump is merely doing what Obama did, then that’s not a positive thing in my book—and it’s not an argument in defense of Trump’s welcome ban.
Moreover, if Obama already did what Trump intends to accomplish with his executive travel ban—then he wasn’t so bad, now, was he? See how the non-argument above can be turned on Republicans? If Obama already did what Trump is doing about refugees—and I hope not—then Republicans and their media were guilty of ignoring BHO’s “great merits.”
Yes, that’s what happens when you make a you-pulled-my-ponytail-first “argument.”
But since we know full well BHO was G-d awful—that he increased immigration overall, refugees and illegal aliens—it’s obvious he never came close to fulfilling the Trump promise of a Muslim immigration moratorium.
So what is the whine about? Is it to point out that mass media prefer Obama and didn’t hold him accountable? That’s a no-brainer! Better to offer a substantive defense of Trump’s positions on their merit than to keep disgorging dumb case after another to the tune that, “Hey, our guy is just like the other guy, it’s just that the media don’t like him for no reason.”
Our guy is not like Obama and I hope the media continue to hate him. That’s one measure of how well the president’s keeping his promises.
Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s pick for US secretary of state, instantiates the deep differences in intelligence and competency between politicians (those grilling him) and a top-performing individual, at the top of his game in the private sector (Tillerson). It’s night and day.
Impressive are Tillerson’s command of the issues, in-depth insights and meticulous, careful, logical approach. Tillerson’s confirmation hearing is what “no-experience-in-politics” looks like, when exhibited by a legendary top performer in the private-sector.
As historian Clyde Wilson has observed, politics is a degraded sphere. Poor pickings is all you get in politics (with negligible exceptions).
Marco Rubio delivers, during the confirmation hearings, a neocon laundry list & lecture about what the US government must do with its people’s taxes to liberate the world. America First, moron. #MAGA