* Cathy Young’s hatchet job can be compared to the one in Commentary magazine; they are both reactions to an article that sought a fair appraisal of the alt.right on Breitbart.com. If you actually only read Young and Commentary you might think their arguments are fairly strong, but then if you read the original Breitbart piece you realize how vapid their articles are.
Meanwhile, Cathy Young writes: Are there non-bigoted people involved in the alt-right? Probably.
Hey, thanks a lot, babe!
I actually thought Young’s article was OK until she characterized Unz.com as a den of anti-semitic crackpottery and referenced Norman Finkelstein! I didn’t realize that politically she is basically Max Boot in a dress.
Everyone should read the referenced articles to see how the dialog is evolving.
* With all the black/female/LGBT identity politics, you can’t be too surprised when white people want to have one too.
Exactly what’s going to happen after Trump, I have no clue. He was sort of a lucky coincidence in that his New York connections gave him a wider appeal than he would have had if he were, say, a conservative Georgia real estate developer. You’ll probably see big fissures in the GOP and at least one Hillary term.
The Republicans don’t have a good option–they need money from rich guys who want open borders and votes from poor white guys who don’t, and were willing to go along with it, but not anymore. Probably some Reagan-like figure will come along in a decade or so and somehow manage to square the circle.
The neocons may go back to the left (hey, Hillary loves Israel), or they may pile into libertarianism, or something I haven’t thought of.
* As for me, this site is a handy way for me to discuss the news and political and cultural trends without the stifling conformity and shibboleth wielding you will find in most other places. It’s really that simple, and it’s worth the $100 I donate every quarter (it’s coming, it’s coming …..)
Necons are basically very socially liberal, the only way they are “conservative” is that they like the idea of the armed services doing stuff. However, no conservative would have condoned decapitating sovereign states gratuitously. US foreign policy under GWB was nothing but neocons in the saddle, and it did a lot of damage in many, many ways. Reading between the lines, it seems clear that Cathy Young is just your typical neocon with strong socially liberal attitudes, she just doesn’t write about how we have a moral obligation to invade this country, or that country, or ….. I don’t think neocons really have a home outside of the Democrat party now. Watch for President Hilary to start a war, or two.
Republicans are basically irrelevant — speaking as one — because the only way they’ve defined themselves since Nixon was in terms of traditional values. Not to say that traditional values no longer exist, but no one is willing to articulate them anymore. GOP failures to even address immigration, values issues, or the plight of the white silent majority are the reasons why Trump is popular. It has nothing to do with the alt.right as such.
* Young’s article would’ve been interesting if it contained an argument, rather than ad hominem. She writes as another SJW, defining the limits of polite company and respectable debate. She apparently hails from the same community that believes that dissent can only be offered by Democrats during Republican administrations.
It’s a funny (strange) article in contrast to the USA Today article critiqued by Sailer. Either race matters–or it doesn’t. If it matters, then all aspects are discussable. If it doesn’t, then stop obsessing over it.
You’d have thought someone born and raised in the Soviet Union would respect debate–especially debate outside the constraints deemed by those ‘in the mainstream’ –but you’d be wrong.
* It looks like most of Cathy Young’s work appears on Reason, so she might not be a neo-con. Her column at The Federalist was one of the lazier, poorly researched columns I have read recently. In addition to calling VDare Steve Sailer’s website, she acted like he has no interests beyond commenting on HBD.
Looking through her archive at Reason, she wrote two columns for them on the Jackie Coakley story without mentioning Steve or Richard Bradley. Hard to say if she is just lazy or ignores the work of writers she doesn’t like.
