This site uses cookies for analytics and to improve your experience. By clicking Accept, you consent to our use of cookies. Learn more in our privacy policy.

“Proud Boys” May Be Wrong, But They Are Not Racist

Oct 30, 2020 | Politics

If the "Proud Boys" organization is a white supremacist, neo-nazi group why do some of them marry black women and have black children? In addition, the Canadian founder of the Proud Boys founder is married to an American Indian (Native American) and has 3 kids with her:
"I've made my views on Indians very clear...I actually like [American Indians] so much, I made three."
How is inter-racial mixing white supremacy?This does not mean the views of the Proud Boys are correct. I have not taken the time to know what their views are. But, I do not think the group can be labeled white-supremacist. Racism does fit the rhetoric of many so-called "Black Lives Matter" organizations and so-called "Anti-Racists."

White Supremacist Richard Spencer For Biden, Socialism, and Much of The Democrat Agenda

Oct 2, 2020 | Politics

White supremacist, an advocate of national health care, and socialist Richard Spencer one of the organizers of the 2017 Charlotteville White Nationalist rallies had this to say on Twitter:
“I plan to vote for Biden and a straight democratic ticket. It’s not based on ‘accelerationism’ or anything like that; the liberals are clearly more competent people.”
Spencer also stated elsewhere why he approves of the Democrat stance on government support of abortion for the poor as it serves as "eugenics":
“The people who are having abortions are generally very often black or Hispanic or from very poor circumstances.”
Spencer, a critic of America's founding fathers, is a socialist ("I'm not opposed to socialism when done right") who is an advocate for socialized "universal" healthcare, is also opposed to the principle of individual rights, and believes that rights are ultimately "collective" and that the "ultimately the state gives rights to you."Though D'Souza is wrong that Trump is a "free-market capitalist" (Trump is a mixed-economy nationalist), he does give a breakdown of Spencer's views:   

California Gavin Newsom Puts The Dagger in MLK’s Color-Blind Dream

Oct 1, 2020 | Politics

A new bill signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom will physically force California companies to put non-heterosexual-white people on their corporate boards.According to the Los Angeles Times:
Many California corporations will have to increase the diversity of their boards of directors under a new law signed Wednesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom to address a shortage of people of color in executive positions. The law requires some 625 publicly held corporations headquartered in California to include at least one person from an underrepresented community by the end of next year, with additional appointments required in future years.
Continues the Times:
Under Assembly Bill 979, publicly held corporations headquartered in California are required to have at least one director from an underrepresented community by the close of 2021. By the end of 2022, corporate boards with four to nine members must have two people from underrepresented communities, and those with more than nine members must have at least three people from those communities. Directors from an underrepresented community include those who self-identify as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaska Native, or who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
A glance at Newsom's bio and photo reveals that he is a very white, wealthy, male member of an "overrepresented" community (he has not self-identified himself as bisexual), therefore we believe Newsom should practice what he preaches and immediately resign. 
“Fine People on Both Sides”: Thoughts on Trump and the Charlottesville Riots

“Fine People on Both Sides”: Thoughts on Trump and the Charlottesville Riots

Sep 22, 2020 | Politics

There is a claim by Democrats and anti-Trumpers, that during the Charlottesville Riots, President Trump was expressing support and approval of white supremacists and neo-nazis. I’ve heard this mentioned by some prominent Objectivists in their condemnation of Trump, and I assumed it was true. But I wanted to know first-hand (or at least not fifth and sixth-hand) and here is what I found so far: Trump did bungle this, but he does not support white-supremacists.Here is Trump’s statement that is a point of contention:
“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.  But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.  You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did.  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
The Democrats — and their allies — claim that the entire side of the pro-statue group in Charlottesville consisted of Nazis and White Supremacists, so by Trump saying there were "fine people on both sides," Trump was defending the White Supremacists.Here are some of the statements repeated in the press (quoting from a National Review article):
In a back-and-forth with Joel Pollak of Breitbart, Biden defended his attack on the Charlottesville statement: “let’s get this straight — he said there were very fine people in both groups. They were chanting anti-Semitic slogans, carrying flags.”Kamala Harris tweeted in June that Trump “called neo-Nazis ‘fine people.’” Other Democrats have piled on, following the El Paso shooting. Elizabeth Warren: “He has given aid and comfort to white supremacists. He’s done the wink and a nod. He has talked about white supremacists as fine people.” Cory Booker: “He is responsible and sowing these kinds of divisions to hate-mongers, in fact failing to even condemn them where we saw in Charlottesville where he talks about there being good people on both sides.” Julian Castro: “He didn’t step up right away and condemn the neo-Nazis after Charlottesville.”
Are these claims true?I think the last point by Julian Castro that Trump “didn’t step up right away and condemn the neo-Nazis after Charlottesville” has some merit (he took 48 hours to release a statement), but I now believe that the other positions do not.

***

Here is the statement Trump made two hours after the Saturday car attack (before all the information about the event was released), while rioting I assume was still going on:
[W]e’re closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Va. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It’s been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. This has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America . . . I just got off the phone with the governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, and we agree that the hate and the division must stop, and must stop right now . . . Above all else, we must remember this truth, no matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country. We love our God. We love our flag. We’re proud of our country. We’re proud of who we are. So, we want to get the situation straightened out in Charlottesville, and we want to study it. And we want to see what we’re doing wrong as a country where things like this can happen. . . . We must love each other, respect each other and cherish our history and our future together. So important. We have to respect each other. Ideally we have to love each other.
Two days later (approx. 48 hours), on Monday, he issued a statement via the White House:
[B]ased on the events that took place over the weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, I would like to provide the nation with an update on the ongoing federal response to the horrific attack and violence that was witnessed by everyone. I just met with FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the deadly car attack that killed one innocent American and wounded 20 others. To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable. Justice will be delivered.As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.Two days ago, a young American woman, Heather Heyer, was tragically killed. Her death fills us with grief, and we send her family our thoughts, our prayers, and our love.
It would have been better if Trump got out his statement against the KKK faster than 48 hours, but he said as President, he needed time to get all the facts correct (yes, Virginia, he said this!):
THE PRESIDENT:  When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened. In fact, a lot of the event didn’t even happen yet, as we were speaking. This event just happened. Before I make a statement, I need the facts.
(If only he followed this policy all the time before he tweets!!!!)

***

After the statement, Trump was grilled by reporters (full transcript here).Some highlights:
Q    Senator McCain said that the alt-right is behind these attacks, and he linked that same group to those who perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville.THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he’s talking about. But when you say the alt-right, define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead.Q    Well, I’m saying, as Senator —THE PRESIDENT:  No, define it for me. Come on, let’s go. Define it for me.Q    Senator McCain defined them as the same group —THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at …the, as you say, the alt-right?  Do they have any semblance of guilt? Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs?  Do they have any problem?  I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day.Q    You’re not putting these —THE PRESIDENT:  Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day —Q    Sir, you’re not putting these protestors on the same level as neo-Nazis — Is the alt-left as bad as white supremacy?THE PRESIDENT:  I will tell you something. I watched those very closely — much more closely than you people watched it. And you have — you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group — you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent.[…]THE PRESIDENT:  Those people — all of those people –excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.[…]Q    Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this:  You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs — and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left — you just called them the left — that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.Q    (Inaudible) both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the —THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides — I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say.Q    The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —THE PRESIDENT:  Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group.Q    (Inaudible.)[…]THE PRESIDENT: And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay?  And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group.Q    Who are the good people? Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?  I just don’t understand what you were saying.THE PRESIDENT: No, no. There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people — neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest — because I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country — a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.
According to Trump’s questioner, the entire side of those on the right present consisted of white nationalists. (Also note that Trump is incorrect here, as it is reported, that the only group that had a permit were the white nationalists.)According to Trump, both sides were mixed:(1) On the ‘keep the statue up’ (right) side (which I believe is the wrong position), you had violent Nazis and peaceful, non-white supremacists.(2) On the ‘remove statue’ (left) side, you had violent Antifa thugs, and you had peaceful remove the statute/anti-white supremacists (similar to the BLM protests today).(For the record, I think Lee’s statue belongs in a history museum, or on private property, and not in a public – government – setting.)

***

Writing on August 16, 2017, Robert Tracinski writes:
The important thing about this is that there is not a scrap of evidence that any of it is true. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. The rally in Charlottesville was called “Unite the Right,” which despite its name made no real attempt to bring together any recognizable strains from the mainstream American political right. Instead, it drew from a spectrum ranging from the Neo-Confederates to the Neo-Nazis to the White Nationalists to the White Supremacists—various ideological shades so indistinguishable from each other that you don’t need a special dispensation from Mike Godwin to just call them all Nazis.
Two years later in 2019, Robert Tracinski, writing in the Bulwark, further writes:
What if there really was another group of protesters there that day, and that’s who Trump was referring to? Well, there’s the problem. No such group exists. This mythical second group of protesters is like the “second shooter” in conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination. I’ve found people who insist to me that such a group was there because the “Charlottesville Hoax” mythology requires it to exist—but I haven’t found a single shred of actual confirmation. It’s almost as if they have adopted a false memory.That’s what originally set me off about this Trump claim. I live in the Charlottesville area, and I know very fine people who oppose the removal of the monuments based on high-minded notions about preserving history. I’m one of them. So I know that we weren’t there that night. Only the white nationalists were there.
The New York Times, to their credit, reported on August 16, 2017:
“Good people can go to Charlottesville,” said Michelle Piercy, a night shift worker at a Wichita, Kan., retirement home, who drove all night with a conservative group that opposed the planned removal of a statue of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee.After listening to Mr. Trump on Tuesday, she said it was as if he had channeled her and her friends — all gun-loving defenders of free speech, she said, who had no interest in standing with Nazis or white supremacists: “It’s almost like he talked to one of our people.”Conservatives like Ms. Piercy, who have grown only more emboldened after Charlottesville, believe that the political and media elite hold them and Mr. Trump to a harsh double standard that demands they answer for the sins of a radical, racist fringe. They largely accept Mr. Trump’s contention that these same forces are using Charlottesville as an excuse to undermine his presidency, and by extension, their vote.
In fairness to Tracinski and others who hold his view, it is unclear if the peaceful pro-statue side was at Charlottesville on Friday (Saturday was the day of the car attack). Trump tends to mumble and misspeak at times so he can be interpreted to be mixing the Friday and Saturday events together.Also, a lawsuit was filed against American Warrior Revolution and similar groups to keep them and other “paramilitary groups” out of Charlottesville.Melanie Morgan at Media Equalizer profiled Piercy at the time:
Michelle Piercy, who travelled to Charlottesville to participate as a neutral peacekeeper for American Warrior Revolution, a group that stands up for individual free speech rights and acts as a buffer between competing voices, knew there was going to be violence, but went anyway.“We were made aware that the situation could be dangerous, and we were prepared.” Piercy says. The Wichita night-worker for a Kansas retirement home said that “the situation was completely disorganized, the police were responsible for herding white supremacists on the street where Antifa and BLM were located. All chaos broke out. I witnessed police officers say, ‘that’s not our problem’ and ‘you shouldn’t have come’ and refused to help the injured.”Piercy says that she doesn’t support white supremacy, Naziism, or alt-right causes. Nor does she believe the president has that in his heart.“My partner is a black man who travelled to Charlottesville for the same reason I did [to protect free speech]. We were in groups and he’s a very good man. What we were trying to do is talk to Antifa and Black Lives Matter and let them know that the way they were protesting is the wrong way to go about it.”*
* Note: I’m not sure why “[to protect free speech]” in the original quote is in square brackets which is unfortunate.

***

In regards to waiting for all the facts, I wish Obama did the same in regards to George Zimmerman and the shooting of Trayvon Martin. If Obama did his homework he would have learned that the “racist” George Zimmerman had black ancestry through his grandmother’s side and that he volunteered to help black people in his free time.

An Evaluation of Trump Must Consider Negatives – and Positives

Sep 22, 2020 | Politics

In evaluating Trump one needs to look at both the negatives -- and the positives;  both are necessary for making a proper evaluation. Even on many of Trump's negatives, Trump is mixed.Take the claim that Trump is “anti-science.” The Trump administration’s policies are not anti-science in regards to energy or the “settled science” of climate change. For example, in the domain of energy, according to Alex Epstein, Trump is the pro-energy candidate, and Biden “will destroy American industry, impoverish American consumers, and jeopardize American security.” As far as I am aware, Trump also dropped out of any UN/EU climate change programs. As a policy that is “pro-science.”Take immigration: Trump is morally wrong to carry out the traditional Democrat policy of restricting immigrant visas to “save American jobs,” but he is right to secure the borders (see Amy Peikoff “Immigration, Borders and Screening under Capitalism“), and he is right on the importance of enforcing the law, as Harry Binswanger writes:
Selective enforcement of the law amounts to no law. Hitler could have killed all the Jews by announcing that he would not prosecute anyone who murdered a Jew.
Take trade and IP: One of Trump’s worst policies economically is tariff protectionism, as Raymond Niles correctly points out in President Donald Trump is a Classic Mercantilist:
Trump is a classic mercantilist. A mercantilist favors exporters over importers and the use of government tariffs to promote (or “protect”) less efficient, but politically favored “national champion” companies against their foreign competitors.Interestingly, one implication of this insight into tariffs is that a country is better off if it unilaterally reduces tariffs on goods even if its trading partners do not equivalently reduce tariffs and instead maintain them at a higher level.The United Kingdom followed this policy when it unilaterally lowered and eliminated major tariffs in the 19th century even when its trading partners often did not. The result was prosperity across the world as global trade expanded.
Keeping Nile’s arguments in mind, one insight to Trump’s perspective, according to free-trade “supply-side” economist Laffer, is that Trump sees tariffs as the only “bargaining chip” to force Communist China to open its borders to U.S. goods. According to Laffer:
“He’s said to me personally that he has very little leverage except by threatening tariffs and I have to trust him that he’s telling me the truth….I believe deep down that he’s a free trader….Any owner of an international business has to be a free trader if they know how to do business and he does.”
Trump also used this as a bargaining chip to stop the violation of the rights of U.S. patent holders. (One counterpoint argument is that certain national industries need protection for national security. I think that is a legitimate issue, but I do not believe tariffs are the way to handle it.)Take the media: According to C. Bradley Thompson, Trump’s attacks on the “Deep State” — which includes the media — are of major historical importance. Another positive “Trumpian” policy is increasing freedom in schools and education. Schools are the Regressive Left’s dominant source of intellectual power — Trump has broadsided them with his support for educational alternatives that increase liberty, ranging from charter schools and school vouchers to tax credits.As for “save the welfare state for Americans,” opposition to the welfare state politically would be political suicide — unless everyone in America reads and grasps Atlas Shrugged and Don Watkin’s excellent Rooseveltcare: How Social Security Is Sabotaging the Land of Self-Reliance.And let’s not forget the Supreme Court. Writing in The Ayn Rand Letter, “The American Spirit” on why Ayn Rand supported Nixon:
“There is, however, one promise of his 1968 campaign – perhaps, the most important one – which he has kept: the appointment to the Supreme Court of men who respect the Constitution. It is still too early to tell the exact nature of these men’s views and the direction they will choose to take. But if they live up to their enormous responsibility, we may forgive Mr. Nixon a great many of his faults: the Supreme Court is the last remnant of a philosophical influence in this country.”
Trump does not exist in a vacuum. What Americans have are two package deals. The choice is not Trump or John Galt; it’s Trump or the “Harris Administration with Joe Biden as President.”Trump may not be a laissez-faire capitalist. He may be an ogre. But many Americas do see him as representing the side of Americanism and Capitalism. Trump supporters use the words “Americanism” and “capitalism” as something to aspire to even though many of them do not fully understand the full impact of their meaning. Democrats use these words as curses or at best in apologies.In the present climate, a Trump loss might only be seen as a broadside for Americanism, individualism, and capitalism by a tiny minority of “Never Trumpers.”It will not necessarily be seen as a broadside against the vices mentioned above.It will not necessarily be seen as a broadside against “foreigners-taking-our-jobs” as Democrats want the union vote.It will not necessarily be seen as “saving the welfare state for Americans,” as Democrats will do the same and double down on it.It will not necessarily be seen as against “spend, spend, spend,” as the Democrats will reward every (mostly Democratic) governor, city, and state that has enforced lockdowns and enabled rioters.It will not necessarily be seen as defending “Tech companies and the media because they are biased,” but will further strengthen the Democrats’ control of the leash.It will be seen as a win against the policies of Trump that are virtues.For a large number of people, it will be seen as a victory against Americanism (however poorly understood), individualism (however poorly understood), and Capitalism (however poorly understood).Many of the better Republicans support Trump not because they approve of the “Trumpism” described above, but for the reasons “Never Trumper” Daniel Pipes states in “A Reluctant but Unhesitating Vote for Donald Trump“:
I signed an open letter committing to “working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted” to the presidency and wrote many articles lambasting Trump. I left the Republican party on his nomination and voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson in the general election. After the election, I hoped for Trump’s impeachment and President Mike Pence.Nearly four years later, Trump’s character still troubles and repels me. If anything, his egotism, disloyalty, and bombast exceed those vices when he was a mere candidate.[…]But, to my unending surprise, he has governed as a resolute conservative. His policies in the areas of education, taxes, deregulation, and the environment have been bolder than Ronald Reagan’s. His judicial appointments are the best of the past century (thank you, Leonard Leo). His unprecedented assault on the administrative state proceeds apace, ignoring predictable howls from the Washington establishment. Even his foreign policy has been conservative: demanding that allies contribute their fair share, confronting China and Iran, and singularly supporting Israel. Ironically, as David Harsanyi notes, a potential character flaw actually works to our advantage: “Trump’s obstinacy seems to have made him less susceptible to the pressures that traditionally induce GOP presidents to capitulate.”(Economic performance drives many voters to support or oppose a sitting president, but not me. Partly, because the president has only limited control; partly, because it’s a transient issue that matters much less than long-term policies.)Of course, I also disagree with Trump: protectionism, an indifference to public debt, a hostility toward allies, a soft-spot for Turkish strongman Erdoğan, and those dangerous meetings with Kim Jong-un. His unrestrained behavior interferes with proper government functioning. The tweets are a protracted liability.But we all disagree with some of what every president does; more surprisingly, I agree with about 80 percent of Trump’s actions, a higher number than any of his predecessors’, going back to Lyndon Johnson.I have come to understand the wisdom in Salena Zito‘s September 2016 witticism about Trump that “the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Or, as Daniel Larison notes, “We need to judge Trump by his actions and not his words.” I also agree with James Woolsey that Trump would be a much better prime minister than president.Slowly but inexorably over the past three years, my approval of the policies has outbalanced my distaste for the person. Finally, knowing that Joe Biden will represent the radicalized Democrats in November, I conclude that I will do my small part to help Trump get re-elected by writing, giving, and voting.I reached this conclusion reluctantly but unhesitatingly. Emotionally, esthetically, and intellectually, I would prefer to keep my distance from Trump and inhabit a neutral space between the parties, as in 2016. But I will vote for him as the politician who represents my conservative views. I urge other reluctant conservatives to do the same.
Whatever the flaws, based on my observations, I think Daniel Pipes’ assessment of how he views the election is viewed is a better representation of how a large segment of the population will interpret the election results.

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

Subscribed. Check your email box for confirmation.

Pin It on Pinterest