“reporter” propagandist at the once interesting New Republic seems to think she understands not only eugenics, but white supremacy, and then seems to think she understands the writings of Strauss. It’s wild in its speculations and reckless in its assertions. It is ultimately laughable if not so obvious in its malice:
The work of Trump adviser Michael Anton also reveals a grim obsession with genetic purity. “‘Diversity’ is not ‘our strength;’ it’s a source of weakness, tension, and disunion,” he wrote in the Unz Review last year. As the Huffington Post noted at the time, the same essay claimed that the aviator Charles Lindbergh’s fascist America First Committee had been unfairly maligned. Lindbergh was a eugenicist who admired the Nazis: He once wrote that flying “is one of those priceless possessions which permit the White Race to live at all in a sea of Yellow, Black, and Brown.”
Of course, none of the people in Trump’s inner circle would describe themselves as eugenicists. They would call themselves capitalists, patriots, and Christians. And yet the Trump administration’s overt obsession with white supremacy—which the 2016 election showed to be the ugly beating heart of the conservative movement—has imbued the platform of the Republican Party with a lurid tinge, changing our understanding of its disdain not only for minorities, but for the weak, the poor, and the disabled. The GOP may loathe the term—indeed conservatives often accuseliberal abortion supporters of being the real eugenicists—but the party’s agenda in many ways channels the spirit of eugenics, even if it does not accept the theory in a literal sense.
So patriotism of the American idea means a belief in racial purity. Got that? The argument is rife with illogic and non-sequiturs.
In the Unz Review Decius did no such thing as to suggest he or Trump supported the elimination of a certain race of people. He literally invoked America First in his essay to say merely that the 1940-41 version was NOT exactly like the Trump version. It was a useful phrase to explain a particular 21st Century phenomenon. In fact, Decius did quite the opposite by arguing for a return to racial equality based on Nature. The rejection of natural equality for something called “diversity” is actually more racist because it makes for a humanity based on something other than what we all share in common and that cannot be eradicated. Diversity is based on identity or the color of one’s skin. Jones is ok with that.
When James Taranto and Rebeccah Heinrichs called out Jones for her lack of intellectual curiosity about Anton’s actual position, she lobbed invective at them and Anton…again. That is truly what the apathetically banal do.
In the paragraph she cites as evidence he is a Nazi and eugenicist from the Unz Review, she fails to note the argument he makes. Glossing over the qualifications of Trump’s America First argument interrupts and confounds her “narrative.” Haven’t wages decreased? Is terror not coming from a particular peoples in a particular religion, believing in a particular god? Was the retreat from Iraq a collossal mistake? Forget that, let’s talk Nazi! It’s almost like she never read Decius and proceeded to audition for a part in his essay: “yearning to appear high minded.” It’s like watching a buzzsaw in the middle of a topic that demands subtle political distinction.
It does not lend to her credit that a few journalistic clicks–otherwise known as real research–could have gotten her to a definition of America First, that completely contradicts the notion eugenics has anything to do with the current administration. But why quibble with a rational discourse when…we should be talking about Nazi!
Part of her argument rests on the fact that, somehow, Trump is going to eliminate people through repealing the failed Affordable Care Act. She equates this with the past practice that, in some instances, officials engaged in the sterilization of the poor. It’s so confounding how she rationalizes herself to that spot, she misses the fact that those who favored sterilization were Democrats.
Jones seems to object to the fact that there might be something good about the idea of America. Indeed, she seems to have a big objection to the more perfect Union because she rather loathes the Union, without understanding it. It is no wonder that she thus hurls names at those she cannot understand. However, such name calling is libelous.
Jones cannot help but see things through an Ameriphobic racial lens, so perhaps that explains why she writes with such an insidious raciology. In other words, the racial addiction does not come from Decius, it comes from the left.
The headlong repeat of diversity and globalism in the name of no borders will produce the exact opposite of what they want; it will eliminate diversity.