GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

How silly are racial categories? At least this silly

September 13, 2017 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

Recently I heard about Irish Latino people. The concept has to do with Irish immigration to Mexico. These people are genetically Ginger, politically and linguisticially Mexican.

Not to be confused with the Black Irish, which is any non-ginger or dark-haired Irish person, sometimes said to be descended from Spanish navy who were shipwrecked in Ireland hundreds of years ago.

They’re all fine people with valid identities. I like Irish, I like Mexican, I like gingers, I like the dark-haired. But, do you see where this is going? In today’s society you can be translucently pearl-white with family originally from Ireland – and, if you wish, claim Hispanic identity. Which is, supposedly, a “race” like any other.

“Race” is an example of an anti-category: A classifier that actually confuses people and harms rational thought, because it based on an arbitrary mix of concepts: part national origin, part skin tone, part birth language or language of your last name, and part personal choice. It’s as silly as if I were to categorize fruits based on whether they’re yellow, a type of apple, picked on a Tuesday, or something I like to cook with.

We should immediately drop all racial categories and move to a post-racial society.

Filed Under: Identity Politics, Political Correctness, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux) Tagged With: hispanic, identity politics, irish, Political Correctness, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux)

We condemn racists – and violent socialists

August 17, 2017 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

Racism is stupid and wrong.

Violating others’ rights to their own life, liberty and property is stupid and wrong.

Therefore, slavery is stupid and wrong. Discrimination is stupid and wrong. Crime is stupid and wrong. Tyranny/dictatorship is stupid and wrong. And socialism is stupid and wrong.

We condemn and disavow the racist, criminal and/or tyrannical beliefs and actions that manifest among neo-Nazis, KKK, white identitarians, any of the #WhiteLivesMatter types of U.S. citizens.

We condemn the racist, criminal and/or tyrannical beliefs and actions that manifest among the Antifa, #BlackLivesMatter or any other left-wing types of U.S. citizens.

We condemn and disavow criminal violence wherever it manifests, whether among Alt Left demonstrators, Alt Left nutcases (like that guy who shot up Congress), Alt Right demonstrators, or Alt Right nutcases (like that guy who rammed his car at counter-demonstrators).

To the extent that they can keep it non-violent, we support both the Alt Left and Alt Right in exercising their First Amendment right to demonstrate. However stupid or offensive their statements may seem.

We support Liberty under the Rule of Law, including the First Amendment. #AllLivesMatter

We note that the Democrat party is the party of institutional and historical racism in the U.S. And the party of socialism. As such, we call upon all Democrats to disavow the violence and bigotry that manifest among the Antifa and #BlackLivesMatter types of people; which, at present, most Democrats are busy denying or excusing.

In a saner world, all of the above statements would be obvious and non-controversial. Perhaps not even needing to be said.

Filed Under: Civil Discourse, Democratic demagoguery, Democrats & Double Standards, Free Speech, Identity Politics, National Politics, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Socialism in America, There - We Said It, Violence on the Left, We The People Tagged With: #AllLivesMatter, #BlackLivesMatter, #WhiteLivesMatter, antifa, civil discourse, Democratic demagoguery, Democrats & Double Standards, Free Speech, identity politics, National Politics, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Socialism in America, There - We Said It, Violence on the Left, We The People

Racism and violence are left-wing, part II

August 15, 2017 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

Our leftie commentors’ response to yesterday’s post on this was interesting – by what they never said. First, only 2 showed up. (Not that we have many to begin with, but on something big and controversial, usually they’ll support each other a bit more.) Second, they made zero effort to address the post’s main points:

  • that Nazis were/are socialists.
  • that, in all of American history (including today), the Democrats/Left have been the side of racist thinking (or racial categories), racial segregation, so-called “eugenics”, etc.
  • that there is nothing right-wing about the so-called Alt Right of 2017; excepting alone their choice to *claim* that they are somehow rightist.
    • (In 2016 or earlier, some actual rightists did adopt the “Alt Right” label thinking it was kicky and fun, but discarded the label when the #WhiteLivesMatter racists took it over.)
  • that, despite appearances, it’s ideologically and psychologically easy for white supremacists and hard leftists/Democrats to change into each other, pretend to be each other, etc.
  • Because the essence of both sides is tribal collectivism and the desire to punish one’s dissenting or dissimilar neighbor.

By contrast – What is it, to be conservative or right-wing? I’m no expert but the answers usually given will boil down to:

  1. Standing up for tradition. E.g., Catholic or other Christian rightists (whom, by the way, the Nazis hated). In the UK, it could mean monarchists supporting the Queen.
  2. Standing up for Liberty under the Rule of Law. In America, this means a love of everyone’s constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

Neither are what white supremacists stand for. What they stand for is their approximation of racism-with-socialism; in other words, left-wing politics.

When will we start labeling them, not on the basis of what they *claim* to be (for some horrible marketing purpose of their own), but on the basis of their actual views? “Alt Left” would be closer.

For dessert: Steven Crowder on The Top 3 Ways in which Antifa and white nationalists are the same. In brief:

  1. Both readily disregard the law and Constitution.
  2. Both promote identity politics and play the Victim card.
  3. Both support Big Government / left-liberal policies (e.g., both want nationalized / single-payer health care).
  4. Bonus round: Both hate Israel.

Also, V the K’s comment:

The other truth that must not be spoken: The left is absolutely thrilled and delighted with what happened in Charlottesville.

The only way it could have made them happier is if their Antifa protesters had been shot by an NRA member.

Filed Under: Hysteria on the Left, Identity Politics, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mean-spirited leftists, Misrepresenting the Right, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Socialism in America, Violence on the Left Tagged With: #WhiteLivesMatter, antifa, charlottesville, Hysteria on the Left, identity politics, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mean-spirited leftists, Misrepresenting the Right, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Socialism in America, Violence on the Left

The truth that must not be spoken: Racism and violence are left-wing

August 14, 2017 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

Commenter Sarah kindly pointed us to this report about Jason Kessler, a leader of the #WhiteLivesMatter Charlottesville march.

Rumors abound on white nationalist forums that Kessler’s ideological pedigree before 2016…point[s] to involvement in the Occupy movement and past support for President Obama.

You do have to take it with a grain of salt, because it comes from the highly-dysfunctional Southern Poverty Law Center. Still, it’s plausible when you remember that in 2008, white supremacists tended to support then-Candidate Obama. (Original Esquire article here; in case that ever goes away, my comment here captures some bits.)

OK, so why would white supremacists (whether full-fledged, or just potential ones) align with left-wing causes, such as Occupy Wall Street and Barack Obama? The answer is in the linked Esquire article. In brief,

  • White supremacists know a fellow racist when they see one. (They admired President Obama’s “racial consciousness”.) And,
  • They admire fellow socialists.

That’s right. Racism and socialism go together, as the Nazis proved. The Nazis were socialists; if you don’t believe me, check out the list of evidence in this earlier post.

We also know it from American history. Democrats fought to preserve slavery (whereas the Republicans freed the slaves). Democrats formed and manned the KKK; instituted the Jim Crow laws; invented Planned Parenthood specifically to abort black babies (look into Margaret Sanger sometime); and defended racial segregation well into the 1970s. And the youngest, most “progressive” lefties are bringing back racial segregation, here in the 2010s.

At some point, Democrats did flip the racist script and turn into brown supremacists (rather than white supremacists), but the dynamic is the same: An obsession with racial categories and race preferences/stigmatizing. It stems from Tribalism, which goes hand-in-hand with Collectivism, which is the philosophical root of socialism.

That’s why racism is left-wing. As to the violence: The essence of the socialist or “progressive” project is the use of force – that is, violence – to punish one’s neighbor for being better-off AND/or for not submitting enough to leftist nonsense and virtue-signalling.

In other words: leftism is violent inherently. In its nature, left-wing politics is a wish to see violence being done to those of your neighbors who won’t be or do or say what you want. Whereas pro-liberty or genuine right-wing politics is a wish for people to be able to avoid each other when they want.

All of this makes it wrong to claim that violent racists are from the Right. And that is part of why I keep calling the Charlottesville march a #WhiteLivesMatter thing, rather than using the false and misleading “Unite the Right” name given by its organizers. What those guys stood for has nothing to do with the Right’s love of life, liberty and property.

But leftists will claim that violent racists are rightists anyway. Because every American knows instinctively that racism and political violence are both bad. To stay in business, the Left must, at all costs, deflect and project-away the blame for it.

Thus we get the accusational, virtue-signalling frenzies like the one against President Trump today, which I just noted.

Filed Under: Hysteria on the Left, Identity Politics, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mean-spirited leftists, Misrepresenting the Right, Occupy Wall Street, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Socialism in America, Violence on the Left Tagged With: #WhiteLivesMatter, antifa, charlottesville, Hysteria on the Left, identity politics, jason kessler, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mean-spirited leftists, Misrepresenting the Right, nazi, Occupy Wall Street, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Socialism in America, Violence on the Left

Antifa and #WhiteLivesMatter deserve each other

August 12, 2017 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

#WhiteLivesMatter is the term I’ll use here for the conglomeration of different “white identitarian”, “white nationalist”, “alt-Right”, “KKK”, “neo-Nazi” or “neo-Confederate” people who marched together in Charlottesville, VA on Saturday – and got into fights/riots with Antifa-type counter-marchers.

Gov. Terry McAullife declared a state of emergency shortly before 11 a.m. ET, moments before the rally was scheduled to begin at noon at Emancipation Park in Charlottesville, according to a tweet sent from the Democratic governor’s Twitter account. Using megaphones, police declared an unlawful assembly at about 11:40 a.m., and gave a five-minute warning to leave Emancipation Park, where hundreds of neoNazis, Ku Klux Klans members and other white nationalists had gathered to protest the removal of a Confederate statue. They were met by equal numbers of “counterprotesters,” including Black Lives Matter activists…

Apparently, the detestable Richard Spencer was there, got sucker-punched and/or maced, and that set off some of the melee. Several people reported other attacks by the BLM/Antifa side. Most horribly, someone from the #WhiteLivesMatter side drove a car into the BLM/Antifa crowd and injured people. (It’s unclear to me, how much related these incidents may be.) And two State police were killed in a helicopter crash.

Here’s my overall take.

  • Robert E. Lee is one of the important and fairly-honorable figures in American history; traditional statues of him either should not, or at least need not, be taken down. As such, the #WhiteLivesMatter types may have a point on that one, little issue.
  • Having said that: I run with #AllLivesMatter. I have no problem denouncing white nationalism or white ethnic identitarianism (like I did, here). Especially if the people turn violent. I hereby denounce it again.
  • And of course, I denounce Antifa and #BlackLivesMatter, especially if they turn violent.
  • An ideal outcome might be if any/all of those who committed crimes Saturday, on either side, will have to spend some jail time together. Paired in cells, if possible.
  • To the extent that many people (on either side) did NOT commit any crimes and expressed themselves peacefully: Kudos. Although, again, I probably don’t agree on many issues with either side.
  • President Trump has condemned hatred, bigotry and violence coming from any side…whoa, looks like I agree with Trump again! How does that keep happening?

P.S. The Controlled Media and the Left (but I repeat myself) are much to blame for what happened today, because they have pretty consistently failed to denounce Antifa, BLM, or violence coming from the Left. (Unlike we on the liberty-loving #AllLivesMatter Right, who have no problem denouncing violence from any or all sides.)

When the Left won’t properly stigmatize or denormalize violence from lefties, then both violent lefties and their krazier #WhiteLivesMatter type of opponents are going to feel agitated, and these fights will break out easily.

As always, feel free to post your take in the comments.

Filed Under: American Embarrassments, Civil Discourse, Democrats & Double Standards, Identity Politics, Liberal Hypocrisy, Misrepresenting the Right, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Unhinged Liberals, Violence on the Left, Virginia Politics Tagged With: #AllLivesMatter, #BlackLivesMatter, #WhiteLivesMatter, American Embarrassments, antifa, charlottesville, civil discourse, Democrats & Double Standards, identity evropa, identity politics, Liberal Hypocrisy, Misrepresenting the Right, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Unhinged Liberals, Violence on the Left, Virginia politics

Against ethnic identitarianism

April 30, 2017 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

First, let’s catch up on some lingo. Nathan Damigo, the guy who punched Moldylocks, founded something called “Identity Evropa” (meaning European). I visited the website and I did not find any statements that call for white supremacy; only for white/European identity.

Think of it this way. We have accepted identities such as African-American, Latino-American, Asian-American, Jewish-American, etc. In general, those identities don’t intend full-on Black or Latino or Asian or Jewish supremacy. They may sometimes achieve special privileges (for example, quotas or differing standards for the alleged races). But the majority of people holding to those identities don’t intend anything like a hard apartheid (or internment camps, etc.) for the other identities. In that sense, they usually aren’t “Black supremacists” or “Latino supremacists” or “Asian supremacists”, etc.

Damigo and company seem to be saying, we can get along with those identities but let’s have one for whites, too. They reject the term “white supremacists”. In the Rebel Media interview linked above, Damigo describes himself as a “white identitarian” and says that hysterical claims about his being a Nazi, a racist, etc. are just “anti-white hate speech” to shut down conversation.

It may sound almost reasonable until you remember that all identity politics are harmful. These guys are going in the exact wrong direction. They are doing a “Me, too” on racial identity politics. Like the others, they offer a cheap identity – “join the fraternity”, says their website. A San Diego Union-Tribune article says:

[As a Marine in Iraq, Damigo] saw firsthand the conflicts between the country’s ethnic and religious groups. “I said, ‘This is dumb. Why don’t … each one of them have their own country and they can all express themselves and … they’re not, you know, fighting with each other,” he told the Los Angeles Times in December.

In other words: Damigo might not want to harm or subjugate the other identities; but he thinks that both the Middle East and America should be even more ethnically-divided than they already are. Not good.

I believe in a melting-pot, American identity based on America’s founding principles of Human Freedom under Limited Government and the Rule of Law. Yes, the Left has pulled us all away from it with cheap, divisive identity politics. So let’s restore it.

When I come across identity-politics material of any kind (white, black or otherwise), the word “stupid” keeps popping into my head. I’ve been thinking about why that is. First, here is how I define the term. Interactions between 2 parties will have one of four outcomes.

  • I win, you win: That’s smart.
  • I win, you lose: That might be justice; if it’s not, then it’s predatory on my part, masochistic on your part.
  • I lose, you win: That might be justice; if it’s not, then it’s masochistic on my part, predatory on your part.
  • I lose, you lose: That’s just stupid.

With identity politics, everyone loses. Even the hucksters who gain financially from it are still losers – because they’re hucksters. If it’s stupid when Blacks or Asians or Latinos do it – and I’m afraid that it is – then it is equally stupid when whites do it.

All identitarians oversimplify their group’s history, and Identity Evropa is no exception. Their materials highlight Western civilization with majestic Greco-Roman-appearing figures next to slogans like “Let’s become great again”, “Serve your people”, “Discover who you are”, “Protect your heritage”. Fine. I like greatness and heroic art. But these guys seem unaware that Jesus was a Mediterranean Jew, and that the Greco-Roman civilizations (I dare not say “races”) were highly mixed, with a good deal of Mediterranean, Semitic (Phoenician), African and European heritage together.

They seem to forget that *culture is culture*. It isn’t about ethnicity, or tribe, or race, or genes, or color. It’s ideas; principles; the arts; laws and legal practices; philosophy; sciences; means of production and trade; food; ethics; things that can be adopted by anyone, of any ethnicity, at any time.

I am a Western supremacist. That is: I think that the Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman-Lockean/Enlightenment civilization, while not perfect, is better than the others; it has the most elements from which an ideal civilization could be built. And I want to spread those good elements, by example and persuasion, to all ethnic groups (in America and the world).

It’s about the ideas/principles, and the individuals everywhere who may hold them. I couldn’t care less about the survival of *any* ethnicity as such. Ethnic identity is a sideshow, a rabbit hole where everyone loses, if we keep going down it.

And sorry Mr. Damigo, but if it does turn out that you’re one of those people who dwells on racial categories and uses them to pre-judge your fellow human beings: then yes, at that point you would be a racist. If you don’t want to wear that shoe, kindly make sure it never fits.

Filed Under: American Exceptionalism, Civil Discourse, Ideas & Trends, Identity Politics, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Social Issues, There - We Said It, We The People Tagged With: American Exceptionalism, berkeley riots, civil discourse, Ideas & Trends, identity evropa, identity politics, moldylocks, nathan damigo, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Social Issues, There - We Said It, We The People

A study in contrasts

November 11, 2016 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

Two black women support LEGAL immigration (as do I), border security and Donald Trump. About a year ago they felt angry – and expressed themselves peacefully. (h/t CrayCrayPatriot for telling me about them)

YouTube Preview Image

That’s good.

Now for the contrast: Shamefully, two black men this week beat up a (perceived? real or imagined?) Trump voter. (h/t Zero Hedge and InfoWars)

That’s a disgrace.

The difference here isn’t race. Isn’t era. Isn’t oppression-privilege “experience” or dynamics. Isn’t anger level. Probably isn’t even gender, all that much (since some women do fight, and many men don’t).

The key difference is IDEAS – and MORAL CHARACTER.

As Aristotle is supposed to have said:

Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.

Exit question: Are Hillary or President Obama out there, telling people in no uncertain terms to calm down and accept the election’s outcome? (If yes: I’m glad, and feel free to post the link in the comments.)

UPDATE: Via ZH, a high school girl is attacked (by another high school girl) for supporting Trump. Pathetic!

YouTube Preview Image

Filed Under: 2016 Presidential Election, Democrats & Double Standards, Donald Trump, Identity Politics, National Politics, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Violence on the Left Tagged With: 2016 Presidential Election, Democrats & Double Standards, diamond and silk, Donald Trump, identity politics, National Politics, political violence, Racism (Real, Reverse or Faux), Violence on the Left

The Book of Matt – and how myth is made (and unmade)

December 8, 2014 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

When President Obama signed a federal “hate crimes” law in 2009, many people at the time were calling it The Matthew Shepard Act. There was just one problem: The murder of Matthew Shepard, while horrible and grotesque, wasn’t a hate crime (i.e., crime of bias). It had nothing to do with anti-gay bias until after the fact, when it suited many persons’ interests to make it seem like it did.

Matthew Shepard was a methamphetamine addict – and possibly a small-time meth dealer/courier – who was well-acquainted with his chief killer, Aaron McKinney. “Well-acquainted” meaning that McKinney and Shepard had done meth together more than once, had conducted business as small-time meth dealers/couriers, and yes, had occasionally even had sex with each other.

It’s probable that Shepard didn’t know the other convicted killer: McKinney’s then-recent acquaintance, Russell Henderson. But there’s evidence that Henderson wasn’t homophobic and, on the night of the killing, may have even taken a knock from McKinney as Henderson spoke up for Shepard (against McKinney’s raging, meth-fueled violence). Which, if true, would make Henderson’s *murder* conviction unjust. (He would still deserve a lesser conviction as an accessory.)

Shepard’s killing was most likely a criminal-style ‘debt collection’ by McKinney that went wrong because McKinney was a troubled and cruel person coming off of a multi-day meth binge. So, who fabricated the myth of a hate crime perpetrated on Shepard by two homophobic total strangers, and why? It was a combination of personal and political interests.

  • McKinney’s higher-up meth connections wanted to remain hidden, and they would be able to kill McKinney (even in prison) if he squealed on them. Which meant: McKinney would desperately need to avoid naming them. Which meant: McKinney needed to hide his own meth dealings, and therefore, the true nature of his relationship with Shepard.
  • As a short, little guy (135 lb) headed for prison in the late 1990s, McKinney also needed to hide his own bisexuality. Which, again, meant: hiding the nature of his relationship with Shepard.
  • McKinney, his girlfriend and his lawyers all thought (at the time) that a “gay panic” defense, however unfaithful to reality, would be McKinney’s best shot at acquittal (or reduced charges).
  • Certain friends of Shepard may have also wanted to distract people from their, and Shepard’s, meth use and dealings.
  • Gay activist groups – ranging from GLAAD and HRC to what is now the Matthew Shepard Foundation – obviously gained benefits, both political and financial, from the myth.
  • The media gained a big “story”.
  • Once the public/media frenzy started over the (perceived) Shepard hate crime, Bill Clinton got involved in it – at least partly to try to blunt the impact of his Monica Lewinsky scandal. Shepard was attacked on 10/6/1998 and died on 10/12/1998 – roughly around the time Kenneth Starr released his reports and the House of Representatives opened its impeachment inquiry on Clinton.

All this, and more, is cited or documented in The Book of Matt, by Stephen Jiminez. It was published in 2013 and V the K posted on it. I had the book and recently, after talking with liberal friends who were still unaware of the revelations about Shepard, I finally read it.

Despite the horror of its subject, the book is a powerful work of investigative journalism. No such book can get everything right. But this one is readable, gripping, and honest about Jiminez’ own fears and doubts as he slowly comes to understand the falseness of the Shepard “hate crime” myth. The book weaves together a wealth of recollections and coherent detail from dozens of sources who knew Shepard or his dealings, including two of Shepard’s more important boyfriends. The book evaluates the credibility of its sources and, where that may be lacking, provides multiple sources for key claims. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Bibliophilia / Good Books, Gay America, Gay Media, Gay Victimization, Identity Politics, Liberal Lies Tagged With: aaron mckinney, bill clinton, Gay America, Gay Media, Gay Victimization, GLAAD, Good Books, hate crimes, hrc, identity politics, Liberal Lies, matthew shepard, meth, methamphetamine, russell henderson, Stephen Jiminez, the book of matt

Matthew Shepard Martyrdom Story Gets Snoped

October 30, 2013 by V the K

Matthew Shepard was a gay 21 year old college student, who was beaten to death in a terrible hate crime because… homophobia.

Status: False.

Stephen Jiminez – not a right-wing Christian apologist, but a gay investigative journalist who values the truth above ‘The Narrative’ – has published a book: The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard.

Shepard’s tragic and untimely demise may not have been fueled by his sexual orientation, but by drugs. For Shepard had likely agreed to trade methamphetamines for sex. And it killed him.

And for daring to undercut the narrative with inconvenient little things called “facts,” Jiminez has been vilified by those who profit from promoting a narrative of imaginary hate.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch blog recently accused Jimenez of serving as a lapdog of “right-wing pundits, radio hosts and bloggers.” In Washington, DC, gay activists pestered bookstores to cancel Jimenez’s appearances.

In a world with a properly functioning moral compass, Matt Shepard’s story would be a cautionary tale with the moral: “Don’t leave a bar with strangers to have sex and do drugs.”

But in the twisted world where only ‘The Narrative’ matters, Shepard was a complete innocent whose death is useful in villainizing people who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Filed Under: Gay America, Gay Media, Gay Victimization, Identity Politics Tagged With: Gay America, Gay Media, Gay Victimization, hate crimes, identity politics, matthew shepard, Stephen Jiminez

About that Fox News interview…

July 30, 2013 by Kurt

If you know a lot of leftists, as I do, chances are you’ve encountered a link to this interview of Reza Aslan by Lauren Green at some point in the past two days or so.  They see the interview as an example of the evil of Fox News.  They claim it illustrates the bias of the network, and that it illustrates how “smart” the author is and how he “totally pwns the interviewer’s assumptions.”

I watched the interview, and I encourage you to do the same, but my main reaction to their claims about it is to think:  Excuse me?  Did we even watch the same interview?  I believe neither the interviewer nor the guest came off particularly well in this exchange.

YouTube Preview Image

Lauren Green comes across as someone who likely hasn’t read the book, but who has read many reviews of the book, and is trying to provoke a response from the author. Reza Aslan, though, comes across as the ultimate disingenuous academic who says, “I am just a historian, I have no agenda whatsoever.”  He keeps reiterating that he is an academic with a PhD, as though that is an adequate defense against bias.  Green could have done a more skillful job challenging his assumptions or his arguments; her questions only serve to make him defensive, and so the interview doesn’t appear to accomplish much for either party.

Nevertheless, I didn’t view the interview as a complete failure for Fox News.  Quite to the contrary, I thought it illustrated that there is more journalistic spirit alive at Fox News than at most of the mainstream press outlets who have interviewed the author or reported on the book.  Why do I say that?  Because, the other morning I had to endure this NPR interview with the same author of the same book, and I heard a lot of claims by Aslan about his book, and his beliefs, but no one challenged those claims or tried to interrogate Aslan’s motivations for writing the book that he wrote.  The NPR interview was so concerned with helping him make his points, that it could have just as easily come from the public relations office of his publisher.

Not surprisingly, the other day NPR’s website featured this story entitled “Reza Aslan Hearts NPR”: “Author and religious scholar Reza Aslan is one of those people who’s at NPR West so often that he blurs the line between guest and employee. We always joke with our regulars that they should have a punch card, and when it’s full, they get their own cubicle.”  Even less surprisingly, today NPR has this sympathetic story about the reaction on the left to the Fox News  interview.

When you compare NPR’s very sympathetic pieces helping Aslan promote both his book and his talking points, with Lauren Green’s somewhat awkward attempt to interrogate him, though, it’s pretty clear to me which “news” outlet is more interested in informing its viewers and letting them decide for themselves.   Green’s interview told us much more about Aslan than NPR’s pieces: it showed us something of his character, it introduced us to some of the controversies surrounding the book, and it raised the question of his worldview and its influence on his writing.

And as it turns out, there is a lot of reason for controversy, as Pamela Geller Robert Spencer points out in her his own detailed post about the controversy (hat tip: Pamela Geller).   Geller Spencer writes:

I don’t care about his scholarly credentials. Even if everything he had said about his degrees had been true, it would confer on his book no presumption of accuracy or truth. I am constantly assailed for lacking scholarly credentials, but as it happens, when it comes to writing about religion I have exactly the same credentials as Aslan, a B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, and an M.A. in Religious Studies. His other two degrees are in other fields.

But anyway, it doesn’t matter: there are plenty of fools with degrees, and plenty of geniuses without them. My work, and Aslan’s, stands or falls on its merits, not on the number of degrees we have. Aslan’s pulling rank on Lauren Green and starting to reel off (inaccurately) his degrees was a sign of insecurity: it implied that he didn’t think his book could stand on its merits, and had to be accepted because he had a lot of degrees. And indeed, his book doesn’t stand on its merits.

I encourage you to be sure to read Geller’s Spencer’s whole post.

To my mind, the reaction on the left tells us more about their fondness for credentials and their disdain for Fox News than anything else;  that the same people who view this interview as an instance of intolerable bias think nothing of the swill served up regularly by NPR and MSNBC should tell us all we need to know.

Filed Under: Faith, FDS (Fox Derangement Syndrome), History, Identity Politics, Liberal Dhimmitude, Media Bias, War on Christians Tagged With: Christianity, fox news, history, identity politics, media bias

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Categories

Archives