Posted on 08/24/2016 7:20:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
There’s no such thing as bad publicity. Yesterday the Hill reported that Hillary Clinton would be giving a big speech Thursday aimed at the so-called alt-right:
Clinton’s campaign announced Tuesday morning that her Reno, Nev., speech would focus on Trump and his aides’ “embrace of the disturbing ‘alt-right’ political philosophy.”
“This ‘alt-right’ brand is embracing extremism and presenting a divisive and dystopian view of America which should concern all Americans, regardless of party,” her campaign said.
I don’t know what Hillary will be saying tomorrow but one thing I’m pretty certain of is that attacking the alt-right isn’t going to lessen their influence. On the contrary, Dave Weigel writes today that some in the movement are actually looking forward to it:
On the alt-right itself, the speech is being welcomed as a sort of coming-out party; alt-right figures are finding their phones and email boxes glowing with new messages, asking to explain who they are and what they think.
That’s the reality here. Hillary Clinton is a candidate for president. By attacking the alt-right she’s elevating them in this election. She’s insuring lots of previously marginal voices will be appearing on cable news to discuss this topic. Hillary openly inviting them to center stage in the national debate.
I don’t think that’s accidental or some kind of miscalculation. On the contrary, I think she wants to elevate those voices for obvious political reasons.
From Hillary’s perspective, there’s really no downside to kicking this particular hornet’s nest. The inevitable response to her comments will only help solidify the idea that the Republican party is now the party of white nationalism, something many party leaders would dispute. Hillary needs to secure a high percentage of the black and Latino vote to get elected and starting this debate will help her do that. Also, her camp has been pushing for more moderate voices in the GOP to denounce Trump. This could accelerate that process as people who are not on the alt-right begin to wonder whether they can remain in a party in which that group has a growing voice. Strategically, politically it’s a smart move for Hillary. I get that.
But I think this could be very bad news for America and I wonder if Clinton’s camp has even paused to think about that at all.
Last year we saw a white racist shoot black church-goers. This summer we’ve seen riots in major cities and racist black radicals murdering white police officers in revenge killings. Racial tension is high. It has spilled over into violence multiple times already.
Trump has been criticized plenty for his tone, for his tweets. That’s fair game and I’ve criticized it myself. But make no mistake, Hillary’s speech tomorrow is going to significantly elevate the alt-right’s status on the national stage. She can pretend she’s trying to take them down all she wants but in reality she’s giving them a gift. This is the kind of national publicity the alt-right could never buy.
>>>when whites are a dwindling minority in America, what will become of our cherished “rule of law,”
The value of the rule of law is that it is color-blind, class-blind. It is the “rule of law, not men.”
All men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights.
Tribalism has no place in American constitutional values.
Are you trying to help Hillary brand conservatives as alt-right racists, or is it unintentional?
Quite liberal, your egalitarian position.
So how is Israel not tribal, pray tell?
And...you and your ilk have a much different vision of America than did our founders and forefathers.
Classical liberal, like the founding fathers.
We support Israel because of shared values, not because of shared tribe.
Yes, egalitarian: all people are created equal and deserve equal rights. You disagree. Could you be more obviously racist?
Your philosophy and politics are disgusting. And to the extent you proclaim them in agreement with Trump - a gift to Hillary.
Ahem, by voting, you support collectivism as the feature of the democratic process. The majority holds sway.
Check this out:
Yeah, that’s the ticket, convince our side to rally behind no one, just each write themselves in on the ballot. Way to keep losing elections. Meanwhile, the Left succeeds at identity politics, because all electoral politics IS identity politics.
Balderdash. The founders were not racial extremists in the sense that most "white nationalists" and "white supremacists" are in the present day.
Every American knows that the ideal for this nation is an Egalitarian society with Liberty and Justice for all.
Inequality, Tribalism, and Party tendencies are something that have been seen as problematic since the earliest days of the Republic.
Conflating their views with the Founders' is an attempt by some to justify their extremism.
Views which tend towards racial bigotry are negative aspects of human character in any age and in any person, and glorifying the idea that some Founders, as sinful men, had some profound flaws and blind spots with regards to various prejudices, is not an excuse to make the same mistakes that they made, or to think so narrowly and hypocritically as they sometimes did.
One of the wonderful things about America is that the ideals of the Revolution were Bigger and more Perfect than the flawed men who fought for them and who helped pass them on to us to complete. Providence used the Founders as instruments of great change.
Vote Trump!
And notice how the ONLY group that believes in and advances the alleged color-blindness stuff are whites.
Again I ask tou, what do you think will happen when nice, polite, refined, civilized whitey is dispossessed and curb-stomped into irrelevance?
Racism should be banned from FR.
Wait, so you say it’s okay for Israel to form an ethnostate, and for us to fight and die on Israel’s behalf, but not okay for the former white ethnostate of America to re-embrace ethnonationalism?
Why is their nationalism okay, but not okay for us?
“Shared values”? Do you mean we in America still share the value of declaring the U.S. a cohesive religious/tribal homeland? Riiiight....
So you embrace liberalism, yet complain when liberals constantly move the culture Leftward, year after year, in the name of your cherished equality. Brilliant.
The discussion is about the alt-right. Shall we censor salient facts about the topic, censor what our revered founders said on the topic?
You’re posting utter nonsense, read what our founding fathers themselves said and believed about race, and our nation:
http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race
>>>”So you embrace liberalism”
Classical liberalism. Do you know what that refers to?
If I thought you were open to learning, I’d tell you to read the preamble Declaration of Independence, John Locke, and study natural rights.
But I don’t think you are open to learning. I think you are a proud racist.
And I think you have no place on this site.
The Soviet Union and the Khmer Rouge, as well as North Korea today — all dystopias of egalitarianism also, just like your cherished soon-to-be train-wreck of what we have here.
The Enlightenment, golly, who knew?
Did it ever occur to you that Marx and his followers pounced on those exact same ideas of equality?
This is probably over your head, but it explains (hilariously in places) why EVERYTHING always slides Leftward, and how so-called conservatives actually help the Left, because they agree with the Left’s Enlightenment premises:
>>>Did it ever occur to you that Marx and his followers pounced on those exact same ideas of equality?
Your equating of constitutional republicanism with Marxism is ... just dumb.
Apparently you don’t believe “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
Clue: that’s not Marxism. That’s not communism.
>>>”This is probably over your head..”
No, it’s beneath my contempt. RamZPaul: “The Dark Enlightenment” the
“American Renaissance” channel. A revisionist distortion of history through a sick lens.
Silly and ignorant at best, racist most likely.
You need to retire to Stormfront et al.
Watch this. It’s long, but highly entertaining and profoundly thought-provoking, and Paul Ramsey lays out the historical, factual aspects of how the French, American, and Bolshevik Revolutions(not to mention others) ALL resulted from Enlightenment philosophy, and all share fundamental premises, and all share similar trajectories:
You have anything of merit instead of spiteful, hateful ad hominem fallacies?
You’re no different than the campus SJW snowflakes who seek to silence and banish any and all non-pc ideas from your safe space.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.