Ann Coulter and Jesse Lee Peterson, together at last. Enjoy!
I don’t know a great deal about it. This is a post where I’m not presenting information, so much as asking for it.
But, to set up the question: Via Instapundit we have this from The Hill: Breitbart News planning lawsuit against ‘major media company’.
Breitbart News is preparing a lawsuit against a “major media company” over claims that it is a white nationalist website…
The website has been under intense scrutiny since President-elect Donald Trump named Stephen Bannon as a senior White House counselor and strategist. Bannon is the former executive chairman of Breitbart News…
“…Breitbart News rejects racism in all its varied and ugly forms. Always has, always will,” [said a statement.] “The diversity of the company’s news coverage and its staff continue to embody Andrew Breitbart’s colorblind, distinctly American commitment to ‘E pluribus unum’—out of many, one.”
Critics have taken aim at the site’s coverage in recent days. While Bannon was executive chairman of Breitbart, the website published a story by David Horowitz referring to conservative commentator Bill Kristol as a “renegade Jew,” something that has been mentioned repeatedly in media coverage calling Breitbart a white nationalist website.
So, here’s what I “think I know”, at present.
- Breitbart.com was one of the first to go all-in for Trump. They are pro-deportation of illegals, but in no way white-supremacist.
- Just as the media’s knickers are in a twist over Trump and over the Alt-Right, they’re in a twist over Trump keeping Bannon as a senior, Karl Rove-type advisor.
- But it’s ridiculous. If all that the media has is one Jew (David Horowitz) slagging another Jew (Bill Kristol) over something to do with Jewishness, on Breitbart.com while Bannon presided, let’s face it: They’ve got nothing.
Correct? Agree/disagree? What I would be most interested in here, is actual evidence – not mere assertion or opinion – that Steve Bannon and/or Breitbart are “white nationalists” or white supremacists. If any exists. (I have a gut-feeling against it.)
UPDATE – I didn’t see this coming: Trump Wants To Deport [Only] As Many Undocumented Immigrants As Obama Already Has.
UPDATE: Spengler (David P. Goldman) describes Bannon as “100% pro-Israel” – which would be unusual for a white supremacist. And the worst against Bannon that Jonah Goldberg can muster, is that Bannon is part of the alt-Right. Yawn, so is Milo. Sorry, Jonah. I do love you, most of the time.
I am open to a point suggested in the comments, that under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart.com has declined journalistically. But that’s a different matter. Being a poor journalist (arguably) doesn’t make you a racist.
…at some point, I predict. For now, they’re simply abandoning English.
The more that countries leave the EU (except Germany), the larger Germany looms in it.
Different subject (via Instapundit and Betsy Newmark): It seems that al Qaeda has gone politically-correct, or rather, what the Left would consider racially-correct:
Lone wolf jihadists should target white Americans so no one mistakes their terror attacks for hate crimes unrelated to the cause of radical Islam, Al Qaeda writes in the latest edition of its online magazine.
Sadly, we must consider what this portends for future tragic massacres by ISIS / al Qaeda of the U.S. gay community.
- Will they again target gays? (from their Islamist gay-hatred and/or the tendency of ‘visible’ gays to be white)
- Or grant us a sort of ‘exemption’? (so that the meaning of their next attack can’t be obscured, as the Gay Left obscured the Islamist nature of Omar Mateen’s attack)
When someone who is lost in a maelstrom of demented falsehoods (leftism) glimpses even a fragment of truth, even if that person has a long way to go, that little glimpse makes the angels sing.
Today, it’s Cindy Sheehan.
Tuesday on NewsmaxTV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show,” anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan said in 2005 Nancy Pelosi and top Democrat leaders in the House and Senate said to her face that if she helped them get elected they would end the wars completely, but now they have stopped supporting her…
Sheehan said the left anti war movement is being ignored by the democrats because they are “reverse racists” who are supporting Obama only because he is an African-American.
She said, “I think that there are some people on the so called left, who might say we have to circle our wagons around the first African American president, and to me that is racism in reverse because his policies are actually still the racist policies of empire.”
So… Nancy Pelosi lies to people’s faces and uses them? Obama is what the Left always accused Bush of being? Democrats are racists who only voted for him on skin color? What goes around, comes around?
My, oh my.
William Nicholson complains that his movie, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, didn’t get him the accolades he was aiming for, because another movie used up audiences’ racial guilt that year:
“Unfortunately it didn’t get the kind of acclaim that I wanted. It didn’t get Oscars,” Nicholson said, because 12 Years a Slave “sucked up all the guilt about black people that was available.”
“[America] were so exhausted feeling guilty about slavery that I don’t think there was much left…”
Nicholson, however, also laid blame with…the civil rights hero’s “boring” rhetoric. “I know it sounds outrageous to say a thing like that, but when he came out of prison he made a speech and, God, you fell asleep,” he said.
- Nicholson doesn’t think all that highly of Mandela.
- He made the movie to get an Oscar.
- His intended tactic was to manipulate people, specifically their sense of guilt.
- The world cheated him of his Oscar, since another movie got to people’s guilt, first.
Umm, what about art?
Clearly, a life of dependency on the government is not literal slavery – but is the metaphor / comparison valid? I’ll state my view (which is basically “no”), and people can disagree (or whatever) in the comments.
The essence of slavery is lack of self-ownership. You’re someone else’s property in a direct way, where they tell you what to do, seize all the products of your labor, and violate your body (or worse) at their option.
Excepting criminals (people deprived of rights under due process and for heinous acts), I think that if the government can either conscript your labor, or seize more than half of the product (the wealth/income) of your labor – and jail you or worse, if you don’t comply to the government’s satisfaction – then metaphors/comparisons of slavery begin to apply. Because the conditions for slavery have been met in part, even if the government gives you “freeman” status and a lot of lifestyle choices.
One of the lifestyle choices that you face, as a non-slave, is the extent to which you live off of government-provided benefits – in other words, the extent & duration of your being a government dependent. I don’t think that government dependents can be compared to slaves. Because, while the dependent may indeed be lulled into a lifestyle which is passive, limited and degraded, they still keep the right/option to change and become less dependent.
Thus, comparisons to slavery may be valid when speaking of government mandates on people, oppressive levels of taxation, and denials of rights (e.g., right of free speech). That is why we speak of Communist nations as “slave nations” and so forth.
But it’s not valid to compare voluntary government dependency to being a slave. If anything, the person who lives a lifetime of voluntary dependency on the government is closer to being a slave-master; someone who (partly, or metaphorically) uses other people as slaves.
And that would be another reason that I find fault with Cliven Bundy’s recent remarks. (While defending, of course, his right to make them – and the pro-liberty movement in general.)
To suggest that government dependents are like slaves is to suggest that their dependency isn’t voluntary. In other words, it’s to suggest that government dependents somehow didn’t choose their situation. And if you really believe that, then you deny their natural human power of choice; you believe implicitly that they are sub-human, or the moral equivalent of children. And I don’t believe that.
The people who are partly like slaves are not the government dependents, but rather, the productive working people whom the government forces to pay for its dependents.
A few interesting reads.
First, Gov. Bobby Jindal on “The End of Race”. He gets it. “There is no more shallow, hollow, or soulless way to think about human beings than in terms of their skin color. It is completely inane.” RTWT.
Next, Charles C. W. Cooke on the Oberlin College mess, in which left-wing activists terrorized the Oberlin campus with acts of overt racism – while university officials, who knew their true identities, did nothing.
People speak of ‘fake hate crimes’ or ‘a hoax’ there, and I understand why, but I find it superficial. I wonder how fake they were?
You see, the Left has a long history of being deeply racist. In earlier times, Democrats or other left-wing progressives defended slavery, gave America the KKK and Jim Crow, created Planned Parenthood for eugenics purposes, praised Mussolini and Hitler (who were themselves avowed socialists), segregated Japanese-Americans into internment camps (that was Franklin D. Roosevelt), resisted integration, etc.
21st-century leftists, such as Dylan Bleier and Matt Alden of Oberlin, try to race-bait in the opposite direction now (with whites to be put down, rather than made superior). But it’s still just the Left’s crude obsession with classifying and judging people by race. Bleier and Alden, I believe, merely found an indirect, progressive-activist, politically-correct way to act out the repressed racial hatreds of their own hearts.
Finally, Jonah Goldberg on “The ‘Race Conversation’ Network: MSNBC has mastered the art of making unracial things racial.” A quick run-down of those fun-loving TV hosts who somehow, endlessly, manage to hear racist dog whistles in every political expression or viewpoint they don’t like.
UPDATE: William A. Jacobsen summarizes the Oberlin race hoax, with good links. As I watched some of the video, I couldn’t help wondering for a brief moment if “concerned” progressives are some of the stupidest, most gullible people ever. (ADDENDUM:) But then I also thought of the adage, “hindsight is 20/20”.