Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Intellectual Barbarians Attack Jack Hunter

It's amusing to watch the dim-wits get in a tizzy over their discovery of Jack Hunter, a former radio host and current aide to Senator Rand Paul. They can't stand that he would support the right of secession, even though they just got through celebrating the 237th anniversary of our secession from Great Britain. You've got to be a part of the Lincoln cult to be respected by them, as that is what the whole federal government is based on today.

Over his career Hunter has made some inflammatory statements, some of which I would not be able to agree with, either. But never mind that. Chris Hayes' segment on the issue is why I'm posting in the first place. You can watch it here. He says:
"In the final analysis, there are certain things, certain views, that just put you outside of the boundaries of being listened to on anything. I'd say White supremacy is one of those. And association with people that hold those views or endorsements of feature of those views, well, they render you unfit. even if you take the most charitable view possible, that say, you get three white supremacist strikes, Rand Paul is in trouble."
He goes on to list three "strikes". I am not very familiar with the first one and don't really care about it right now. So I will grant, for the sake of argument, that you could fault the Rand Paul team for hiring a spokesperson like that.

The second strike, Hayes claims, is consistently supporting private property. No kidding. In the delusional world of Chris Hayes, there is only the false dichotomy of being for the Civil Rights Act or being a white supremacist.

The third strike is Jack Hunter. Evidently, he is a racist/white supremacist, despite the lack of evidence in the original hit piece at Free Beacon or any of the follow-up stories. That doesn't stop raving lunatics like Chris Hayes from trying to make a connection, though.

I have followed Hunter's work for some time, though I stopped after he drifted to far from libertarianism to be worth my time. I never saw anything racist at all. Leftist morons really need to let go of the race card. It's sad and comical how they see racism everywhere, when most of it is all in their head. Perhaps they should get out of their cocoons and meet the people they demonize.

As far as Chris Hayes and his ilk, I'd say his worldview of statism puts him outside of the boundaries of being listened to on anything, and intellectually bankrupt segments like he did for MSNBC render him unfit to be given any respect at all.


  1. Jack Hunter didn't build his career by supporting "the right to secession" in general. He built it by supporting the attempted secession of the Confederate states, and by wearing a mask symbolizing racism, hate, and treason. Clearly, the dude is a douchebag. So it's not surprising that he's ingratiated himself to other douchebags like Randy and Ron Paul.

    Whine and deny all you like, but Randy just got his third strike. Whether familiar with it or not, or whether you like it or not, Chris Hightower's involvement in Rand Paul's campaign was a strike.

    As for the second strike, maybe in the delusional world of Matthew M., Rand Paul's comments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 somehow involves "consistently supporting private property", but in the real world, that's not how it went down. In the real world, Randy told Rachel Maddow that he thought a private business has a right to refuse to serve black people. Presumably, that's your idea of "supporting private property". Then after he caught a lot of shit for it, he changed course and said that he thought that the Civil Rights Act was necessary and that he would've voted for it. Then at Howard University he said that he's "never wavered" in his "support for civil rights or the Civil Rights Act" and that he has "never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever." Yeah, that's some serious consistency right there.

    And now Jack Hunter is his third strike. No, of course you never saw anything racist at all. Nothing racist about wearing a Confederate flag mask. Nothing racist about his position in the League of the South, a white supremacist hate group. Nothing racist in his support for the attempted secession of the southern U.S. states. Nothing racist about saying that a non-white majority America would simply cease to be America for reasons that are as numerous as they are obvious".

    I'm sure Chris Hayes would be terribly disappointed to learn that apologists for Confederate slavers and traitors don't respect him, and that unlike the half million or so people who watch his show on MSNBC, you don't think he should be listened to (yet somehow you know what he said). Have you tweeted him to tell him how much of a dim-witted, intellectually bankrupt loser you think he is yet? That'll show him!

    1. "and by wearing a mask symbolizing racism, hate, and treason"

      That may be what it symbolizes to you, but to a large number of people, it represents Southern heritage and culture. Any attempt to depict that as hateful, racist, and treasonous is not based on reality.

      Yeah, that's some serious consistency right there.

      My statement was correct. Rand's inconsistency began after the time I referred to, i.e. the time when he opposed the CRA on grounds of private property rights.

    2. It seems like you just want to continue operating from precisely the assumptions that are under dispute here, without any attempt at proving or justifying them via logic or facts.
      The first of those assumptions is that defending the right of secession -- be it by states, the Confederate South, counties, individuals, whoever -- is necessarily & automatically tantamount to sympathizing with slavery, white supremacy, etc.
      The second of those assumptions is that philosophically & logically consistent & thorough defense of personal property rights - which necessarily implies objecting to the so-called Civil Rights Act, is necessarily tantamount to sympathizing with white supremacy, condoning bigotry, etc.
      But again, it's precisely those assumptions which are being challenged; & that is because they're each misguided & premised on fallacious lines of thinking.

      The right of secession is the principle upon which the Revolutionary War was justified; & rightly so.
      & like all proper, axiomatic principles, it is not altered or abolished by whatever subjective sentiments may be in vogue at a given time.

      & private property rights do indeed imply the right of any & all business owners to decline to engage in exchange with whomever they choose; the same as any homeowner has the right to decline to entertain the company of whomever they choose. It doesn't make it any less stupid or ignorant for a business to do so; & the market imposes it's own natural (& quite stiff) penalties on business which adopts such foolishness as its' policy. But they're still within their rights to do so, & to deny this is effectively to claim that business owners do not, in fact, own their establishment; rather The State is the true, de facto owner of all businesses, & the nominal "owners" merely overseers with limited & temporary privileges as opposed to inalienable rights.

      Will you openly & outwardly claim these beliefs to be your own? That people do not have the right to extricate themselves form a political union which they deem destructive of their rights, & that The State is the true & rightful owner of all business enterprises & establishments?
      If you're at least ideologically consistent, you will.

    3. Yeah, for some people the Confederate flag symbolizes "Southern heritage and culture" in the same way that for some people, Nazi symbols represent German heritage and culture. That "Southern heritage and culture" that it symbolizes was a culture of hate, racism, and treason. Any attempt to depict it otherwise is not based on reality.

      If it makes you feel better to claim that Rand Paul was consistent except when he was inconsistent, I'm sure that'll work out well for you. More awesome PR for the libertarian cause. Whether you're standing WITH Rand or AGAINST Rand in your attempts to get rid of the Civil Rights Act or the 14th Amendment, to encourage a second Southern secession or whatever, I'm sure it'll all work out just the way you dream about it. Just like things are working out so well for the Southern Avenger.

    4. No Bachy, defending the right to secession isn't necessary tantamount to sympathizing with slavery and white supremacy. Defending the attempted secession by the South is tantamount to sympathizing with slavery and white supremacy. Wearing an idiotic confederate flag mask is tantamount to sympathizing with slavery and white supremacy. And saying crap like "a non-white majority America would simply cease to be America for reasons that are as numerous as they are obvious" is DIRECTLY expressing a belief in white supremacy.

      I'm no more interested in ideological purity than I am in racial purity. Property rights in the United States are not absolute. Particularly when it comes to businesses that operate as public accommodations. Regulation isn't the same as "de facto ownership". Relying on "free market" theory and "axiomatic principles" might be fun when passing the bong around, but isn't particularly helpful when dealing with the historical and continuing reality of racism, bigotry and discrimination in the United States. Feel free to extricate yourself from any political unions you don't like, and don't let the door hit you as you do.