This post is probably not what you would guess based on that headline. Before I go any further, let me tell you what you won’t be reading here. This post is not going to bash Trump. For those of you unfamiliar and are wondering, the short explanation of my views is that I don’t care for Trump, but understand his appeal. This post also is not going to bash the vast majority of Trump’s supporters. Yes, he has the unenviable endorsement of the KKK, but contrary to what the Radical Left likes to believe, not every supporter of Trump’s is some xenophobic bigot. Actually, that’s not a fair statement about our Lefty pals – a handful believe that not all Trump supporters are racist, they see the rest as being ignorant rubes who fail to see the seductive bliss of the bread lines that Bernienomics promise. So if this post isn’t to bash Trump or his supporters, what is it about? In the words of the great Damien Sandow, allow me to beg your indulgence…
National Review’s James Kirchick just wrote a piece called “Among the Thugs”. It’s byline reads “Donald Trump, White Nationalists, and the politics of the crowd”. Unfortunately it’s in print and the digital version is mostly behind a pay wall that even a subscriber like me can’t read online without paying extra (WTF, NR?). At any rate, I’ve transcribed the parts that caught my attention. First off:
Crude expressions of bigotry are generally frowned upon; today’s white supremacists sound much like the campus social-justice warriors the claim to despise, the major difference being their disagreement as to which racial group deserves top-victim status. You need simply substitute “white men” for “African Americans”, “women”, “trans-gendered”, ad infinitum in leftist jeremaids about the plight of “marginalized” peoples and you pretty much have the entirety of identarian talking points. The language of “oppression” is much the same, regardless of who is complaining about it.
Kirchick goes on to quote one of these groups’s leaders, Bill Rehnery:
…he bemoaned the conservative movement for having “too much involvement with the mechanics of Old America, the Constitution, bromides…” Asked to elaborate, regnery replied that “the Brits have done pretty well without a constitution and maybe this country would do well without a Constitution.”
I was rather surprised by this open disrespect for America’s founding document, especially from someone to the right of Genghis Khan. But it turns out the Constitution is largely unloved, if not outright disdained, among identitarians, who despise it primarily for extolling te virtues of egalitarianism. Writing on the website of Spencer’s Radix journal, a contributor denigrates the Constitution as a “primitive article of antiquity” that “will not solve the problems we face in the 21st century.” Proposing that “cucservatives” who speak reverently of the Constitution be denigrated as “paper worshipers”, “vellum supremecists”, and “parchment fetishists”, he argues that the object of their admiration “has ceased to be a vehicle for progress and has instead devolved into a major obstacle to our future.”
I think that everyone reading this can agree that these White Supremacists are the worst of the worst that come out of the right – rabid identarians that have zero tolerance for any outside of their unique, superficial traits along with a disdain for a system of laws that prevents them from achieving “progress” as defined by their narrow views. Contrary to what too many on Radical Leftists fantasize, this is a small, fringe element on the right, and one that most of us would prefer didn’t exist and choose not to associate with.
But look at this on the other side – identity politic bigotry? Disdain those who do not embrace their notions of identity-driven superiority? Contempt for a legal system seen as outdated because our founding fathers failed to see the need for a power system centered around a handful of self-selected bigots? As Kirchick pointed out, these philosophies that are no different from the various Feminist / BLM/ LGBQwerty groups. But where on the conservative side this is the fringe, on the left these views are considered completely mainstream.
One of the equally irritating and amusing elements I’ve noticed about Leftists is their ability to project their ugliest traits onto Conservatives without the slightest hint of irony of how much said trait exists with them (A great current example is their howling that Trump has this cult-like following behind some substance-less authoritarian, while apparently suppressing all memories of 2008). It says a lot that this fringe element on the right has had a few appearances in the news while the fact that the same element is mainstream on the left has not.
Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook
Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog
Bob, . . . This might help you out, . . . . Black Female Executive Speaks Out About Working For Trump Family
David Duke’s ”endorsement” of Donald Trump was mirrored almost exactly by Indiana Gov. Pence’s ”endorsement” of Ted Cruz.
All that was said was, I, personally, will be voting for X or Y.
What YOU do is your business.
After Trump beat Cruz in Indiana, Gov Pence was all in for Trump.
@Nanny G
So in your effort to excuse Trump supporters, you try to equate Mike Pence’s endorsement to David Duke’s by reference? How low are you willing to stoop, Nan?
Political ideology aside there is something seriously wrong with a man the age of Donald Trump that would mock and make fun of a disabled person. If we saw one of our children doing such a thing we would give them a good kick in the backside. Mental stability is highly questionable.
http:http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-mocks-person-disability-again
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appears-to-be-mocking-the-physical-condition-of-a-reporter-during-a-south-carolina-rally-2015-11
@James Raider: I never put that much stock in those individual testimonial stories either way. That said, it never even crossed my mind that Trump might be a racist. There are a number of reasons I don’t like him, but that isn’t one of them. I could go into them, but that’s not what I’m trying to do with this post.
Even though I’m not a fan of Trump, I think it would be more constructive if we kept what both sides stand for in perspective. I also think that Hillary’s “loose cannon” analogy isn’t an unfair one, but it raises a bigger question. While nobody likes the idea of what a loose cannon might hit as it fires wildly, is it worse than the cannon that’s firmly secured to the deck and pointed straight at your ship’s own hull, as Hillary would be?
@Brother Bob: it’s indeed hard to discuss Trump without going into the many shortcomings of the fraudulent charlatan but it’s also hard to accept blind partisanship and nothing more than hatred of liberals as a justification for his endorsement.
I don’t like Hillary and I’m not sure I can vote for her but I damn sure cannot vote for Trump. Your loose canon comparison just isn’t realistic. Trump’s views on deportation is a canon pointed directly at our economic structure. His ideas of defaulting on our debt is a canon pointed at the global economy. I could go on and on but there just isn’t a comparison on a leader with policies you hate and a leader like Donald Trump.
@Ajay42302: The alternative is 4-8 years of Hillary and everything that goes with it. Would whatever Trump brings down that hurt us be any different than Hillary if only on a shorter timeline?
As I’ve said before, I’m not a fan of Trump and there are no easy answers here.
@kitt:
Is the NY Times saying there is something about one of their reporters that is being mocked? Just what does the Times think is the ‘problem’ that is something that someone would mock? Isn’t calling attention to a person’s problem a problem within itself. Isn’t that reporter just another reporter? Why is the Times calling attention to his problem? Apparently Kovaleski has been working with and around Trump since 1987, if he is ‘offensive’ to him, the world is a big place. Move along and work with someone you like better. Don’t play ‘the victim’.
@Ajay42302:
So you’d prefer the supreme court judges she would appoint over the ones Trump would appoint?
1.Name one great quality that you admire in Hillary.
2. Name one absolutely objectionable quality of Trump.
3. Be truthful.
@Redteam: Sooo you want a President that behaves pre-prepubescent mocking a disability, you saw the replay there is nothing about what he did that is ok. If you defend that you are not ok, you are mean and your parents should have taught you to achieve a higher level of empathy. I dont care where the man works, at least he has a job.
so pffffft
@Redteam:
Bingo!
It isn’t so much that it’s Hillary v Trump but it’s just partisan or ideology driven. It doesn’t matter how evil or nasty or dishonest or unqualified or destructive a candidate is as long as it isn’t a Democrat. Or perhaps it’s just a competition thing that goes something like “as long as they don’t get a win” which seems to be the governing style of today’s GOP leaders.
Could you or Brother Bob possibly vote for O’Malley over Trump had he won the nomination? Biden? John Kerry? Any Democrat? And to what extreme of disgust would a GOP nominee be before you or BB would not vote for them? How about Kim Jong(R) v Sanders(D) or the late Osama bin Laden(R) v Biden(D) or maybe a Charles Manson(R) v Elizabeth Warren(D)? While those comparisons are hypothetical and ridiculous, Trump is an absolute disaster, a con man who has no business in the WH and an absolute danger and disgrace.
To answer your question, yes I would rather have Hillary nominate a SCOTUS nominee over Trump (and again, that’s unsettling). I would by far rather have Hillary in charge of our nuclear arsenal over Trump and I would rather have her as top diplomat with other countries.
Um, no Brother Bob, Trump doesn’t. That false narrative is based on (1) A false claim that David Duke disputes that his preference was Trump (Trump said he doesn’t want Duke’s “endorsement”) and (2) Democrat protesters at Trump rallies who were only pretending to support Trump (aka propaganda, also put forth by the rabid left). The KKK did however state their support for Hillary.
We know you don’t like Trump Brother Bob, but spreading Leftist propaganda that have since been proven to be only propaganda, does not help your anti-Trump arguments
I don’t consider Politico or ProgressNow to be legitimate and unbiased “news” sources.
@Ditto: You are right Ditto Hillary fought tooth and nail for the normally in the bag endorsement of the KKK and beat Don out of it http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon
The coal miners gave her a touching salute as she drove out of one town giving her your our #1 sign.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/02/hillary-clinton-hears-wr
Just wish she would get this warm reception everywhere she slimes along http://www.westernjournalism.com/bill-clinton-heckled-after-being-warned-n
There was a puckish quality to the crowd at the Utah Trump rally I attended.
I learned that some of the younger Trump supporters are from what they call the ”alt-right.”
I had never even heard of that.
So, why is that relevant to this discussion?
The alt-right are, by their own admission, pushing the limits of both the politicl correctness of the Left as well as the prudishness found in many on the right.
Thus, to quote them:
Then a critic of the alt-right adds this:
All quotes from:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/05/meet-milo-yiannopoulos-the-appealing-young-face-of-the-racist-alt-right.html
My point is that some of these alt-right’ers are messing with people.
As they try to bend the discussion to race, gender, religion and feminist issues, they do so with an irreverence that pulls many off the target and into side issues.
Have fun.
But it might be good to learn about these alt-right’ers.
Excellent reader on this:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/
@kitt:
I didn’t see it, so I don’t defend it or not defend it. Is that more objectionable than Hillary defending Bill’s rape of several women?
How do you know that? Did you accept their word for it?
@Redteam: Changing the subject..typical.
pfffft
I linked to it twice in#4
@Ajay42302:
Who is O’malley? Is he running for something?
I wouldn’t vote for Cruz or Rubio because they aren’t eligible. Biden is a blabbering idiot and Kerry is a traitor to the US? Would you vote for him?
So you freely admit to being a blubbering idiot. Enuff said.
@kitt:
I checked out both links, both of them clearly say ‘alleged’. I’ll allege that guy was an idiot to hang around pestering folks. I saw no reason to consider him as an invalid.
Talking about changing subj, etc, I notice you dodged my question about Shrillary in 9.
@Redteam: Using the Hillary defense “alleged”, they have him on film.
He wanted no questions about his eye witness account of muslims celebrating 9/11 or was it 7/11.
You have deep problems Red that post wasn’t directed at me. #9
@Redteam: So if you wouldn’t vote for Cruz or Rubio because they arent eligible, would you vote Biden or Kerry or Hillary if either were running against them? Or would you just stay home and not vote. Again, is there any Democrat you would vote for?
@retire05: Let’s not forget that Al Sharpton endorsed hilldabeast!!
@Ditto: This piece was written quicker than I would have liked, was relatively short and the only piece I’ve gotten out in the last month – been really busy lately. My real bone withe the Trump/KKK dustup was his halfhearted attempt to distance himself. As for Hillary’s endorsement from the Klan, I had meant to include it but forgot to in haste, so thanks for being the first to post a link to the story on this thread.
@kitt & Redteam: Trump’s making fun of a disabled reporter was deplorable, as was Hillary’s laughing about a rape victim. And that’s kind of the point of this post – we have someone running as a Republican and his wrongdoing is getting plenty of criticism from the right. Contrast that with Hillary, and note that nobody on the left is even acknowledging that what she did happened, much less giving her the criticism that she deserves. I’m still no fan of Trump, and however much I dislike him it’s insane that he takes fire for bad behavior while similar bad behavior from Hillary gets ignored outside of a few Conservative sources.
@Brother Bob:
@Redteam: C’mon, man. When we start unconditionally defending the candidates we support we’re no better than the Lefties. If we don’t call out our own when we misbehave then we get nobody better than Democrats
@Brother Bob: The only problem with that is that I’m not a Trump fan. I’m not defending him, just looking at him the same as I would Hillary or Bernie. The only reason I’m probably going to vote for Trump is that he is far superior to Hillary and Bernie and he’s earned a paycheck in his lifetime.
@Redteam: The sad part is that I think we’re in total agreement on that
@Redteam:
I agree. I doubt Trump even knew about the “reporter’s” medical background. Bashers will dig for things to bash and purposely misinterpret in order to support their trolling points. Br’r Bob doesn’t like Trump, so he is adopting ProgressiveNow’s tactics.
Agreed. At this point, people have to ask themselves if they would rather have Hillary or Bernie as the Tyrant in Chief, or Trump who at least is promising to give conservative and moderate voters what they have been demanding for decades. Are they going to be petulant whiners who in their pride will allow the progressive socialist-fascist Democrat party to finish their destruction of our nation and the Constitution they hate so much. Or will they vote vote in Trump and a Conservative congress to keep him in line.