The Immigration Divide and Who You Read

Elliot Temple's picture
Submitted by Elliot Temple on Tue, 2017-10-10 18:33

I find a lot of the difference among atheists, on whether they like Trump and are good on immigration, is the following:

Do you read Breitbart, David Horowitz, and their allies like Ann Coulter, Pamela Geller, Daniel Greenfield, Robert Spencer, Victor Davis Hanson, etc? And read others like Mark Steyn, Mark Levin, Steven Crowder, Daniel Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, etc? Do you use Discover The Networks or Politifact? This is not a complete list but you get the idea.

There's a limited number of good sources of political articles, info and books. So you can tell a lot about someone by how they react to this fairly small list of voices.

People like Harry Binswanger regularly read none of these sources, are hateful of some of the sources (like Coulter), and are consequently deeply ignorant of the relevant political facts. They just don't follow the sources of news which are sharing the important facts. And people like Binswanger prefer to stay ignorant!

Plenty of Christians manage to not read this stuff and still be pro-America. But atheists who are trying to think for themselves need good info more. You need to either adhere to traditional values or else think for yourself well (which requires good info). If you have neither of those, you're screwed and the left will fool you.

I'm reading Ed Powell's immigration essay, and I noticed it cites these important people (listed above) a bunch. You just have to look through the Bibliography at the end and you can see who he's been reading. They're a lot of the same people I've been reading. That's no coincidence.

I don't think the prominent never Trumpers have innocent ignorance. They could know better if they wanted to. It's not like they've never heard of any of these great sources of information. They're choosing ignorance, which makes them morally guilty. Some less involved people might just have not yet found good info, maybe, but that can't be the excuse of the never Trump leaders.

What exactly is it about David Horowitz, etc, which turns off many Objectivists and they don't want to read him? Binswanger actually claimed to me that he likes Horowitz. But he had no idea what Horowitz's current views are and wasn't interested ... but he had time to read Nate Silver's lies.

Do these leaders want to be popular and fit in socially, and they find Horowitz too aggressive? I loved his Take No Prisoners book! That was sure in the spirit of Objectivism as I see it... Objectivism is for fighters and doers! Meanwhile ARI doesn't want to fight, they want to be respected. And the group they want to be respected by includes lefty intellectuals who absolutely must not be sanctioned!


Yaron Brook

Neil Parille's picture

. . . . has accused Coulter of being a "liar" on immigration and Objectivists who agree with her also liars. He gets his info on immigration from the Cato Institute. Brook has also repeatedly said that Republicans would win the Hispanic vote if they dropped their supposed anti-immigration lines. I and others have repeatedly provided him with the contrary evidence (e.g., the Republicans did worse with Hispanics after Reagan signed the '87 Amnesty). And poll after poll has shown that Hispanics are to the left of center on economic issues (raising taxes on the rich, for example).

Brook lives in California, which has become a one-party state thanks to immigration.

I've got say at this point that Brook is lying.

Incidentally, the Democrats have admitted that they support mass imigration because it will increase their voting base. The left is gloating that the situation in Puerto Rico will result in a flood of new voters in Florida, potentially changing the electoral college. (Incidentally, Puerto Ricans generally don't have to worry about family members being deported.(

Meanwhile ARI doesn't want to

JustinCEO's picture

Meanwhile ARI doesn't want to fight, they want to be respected. And the group they want to be respected by includes lefty intellectuals who absolutely must not be sanctioned!

I think part of the issue here may be the Libertarianization of the Objectivist movement. Note I think this analysis applies to someone like Brook more than someone like Binswanger.

Mainstream libertarianism has become dominated by a desire to suck up to lefties, if not outright SJWism. The old libertarian movement that was centered around gun fans, gold bugs, Rothbard/Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul fandom, etc., was *deeply flawed*, but there's one thing it was *not*: it was *not* part of the Left-Wing Cultural Blob. It was its own, distinct thing.

Now, Libertarianism is increasingly dominated by leftie/SJW values. And Libertarianism is a much bigger group of people than Oism. And if people who don't know Oism see some common ground between Libertarianism and Oism (such as appreciation of capitalism), and then try and appeal to Libertarians, they wind up watering down Oism into something palatable to libertarians. Which means watering it down into something compatible with being respected by leftie intellectuals. Sad

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.