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.
>Are you trying to help Hillary brand conservatives as alt-right racists, or is it unintentional?
More than likely a Hillary troll.
>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.
You’re on a conservative forum. Either embrace conservationism here or get lost. Also Trump’s not an alt-righter. He’s Nationalist. Tribalism not embrace people of all tribes to forge a singularly American Nation, which Trump is about.
Nothing ad hominem. It’s not about you personally; your ideas and beliefs are disgusting and wrong.
Riiiight, I identify with the alt-right, and I articulate the alt-right position here, on a thread about Hillary denouncing the alt-right, so that makes me a Hillary agent. Got it.
http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race
Um, the Founders were all individuals, and each had their own specific views on race, Catholics, Jews— you name it.
You've obviously gotten sidetracked somewhere along the way, but you need to remember that all Men are created Equal, and have unalienable Rights, such as that of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
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.
Yeah, just like it. Gimme a break.
Do you even read what you post?
I have extensive knowledge of the Revolution, the Founders, the founding Documents, Natural Rights, Enlightenment philsophy, etc. and none of America's ideals in any way legitimize or sanction any focus or preoccupation with white supremacy, white nationalism, separatism, or racism, regardless of what any Founder may have thought as a misguided individual.
You're just completely out in the weeds on whatever you're trying to say.
The fact is, many of the Founders' beliefs about race were naive, ignorant, embarrassing, and flat-out morally wrong. Pointing to such things serves only as a cautionary lesson on how even the greatest men can have massive moral and philosophical blind spots.
You're ranting and raving, to no constructive purpose.
Racism sucks. Racism sucks. Racism f-----g sucks!
Vote Trump!
Your ad hominem is against the sources, genius. You have no rebuttal of the material or ideas, just ad hominem piled on ad hominem.
So your position is the campus radicals of the 1960s had more wisdom than our founders. Great.
>>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.
I’m different in that you don’t have the power to intimidate or make me feel unsafe.
You should be banned from this site not because you are ‘non-pc’, but because you violate the site’s prohibition of racial or religious bigotry.
>Riiiight, I identify with the alt-right, and I articulate the alt-right position here, on a thread about Hillary denouncing the alt-right, so that makes me a Hillary agent. Got it.
False flag supporters by the left is an old trick.
>>>More than likely a Hillary troll.
Yep. Wittingly or un-wittingly.
I said no such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth.
You're really off base...
Vote Trump!
That is, I’m not conforming to political correctness.
Up until the 1960s, the ideas and policies of the founders cited in that article held sway. Yet you denounce them. Therefore, in your mind, the ideas which replaced them — those of the 1960s activists — are superior, no?
Too bad you’re no good at spotting tricks.
>>You should be banned from this site not because you are ‘non-pc’, but because you violate the site’s prohibition of racial or religious bigotry.
>>That is, I’m not conforming to political correctness.
No.. you are not conforming to the site’s prohibition of racial or religious bigotry.
You can understand the difference and significance of the difference, yes?
That's just patently false. Color-blindness is advanced by many enlightened Americans of all colors.
You've just totally lost your way somewhere along the line, as far as what it means to be American. Your apparent hysterical aversion towards things like "color-blindness", Egalitarianism, Equal Protection, Tolerance, and other such classically positive aspects of American character is simply appalling.
You need to go back and check some of your assumptions, because you took a wrong turn somewhere.
If you're representative of "alt-right", I'm not seeing where it serves has any constructive purpose.
Vote Trump!
There is no difference. Political correctness is political correctness. You seek to silence views different than your own, as many do.
Show me any majority non-white country which cherished and practices the “color-blindness” and diversity-worship pushed by suicidal white-led societies.
>There is no difference. Political correctness is political correctness. You seek to silence views different than your own, as many do.
You don’t get the concept of shibboleths, do you? I’d suggest some study on the subject before you start spouting off at others.
I certainly denounce various Founders as individuals, in the specific cases when they were being ignorant, immoral, or hypocritical.
That doesn't stop me from revering the Founders greatly as a group and as individuals within the group.
In cases when the Founders hypocritically ignored the very principles they espoused, their beliefs should be rejected as untenable in the modern era, and deference should be given instead to the universal ideals they expressed; ideals which are superior to the aggregate weakness of the flawed individuals who promulgated them.
Vote Trump!
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.