The Disease of Breitbart or Logic is not Everything. . .

For the past year or two we have heard references to Breitbart, the home of the alt-right or something along those lines. I largely ignored it. It probably was around longer, no doubt. They have made a name for themselves. They helped get a President elected. Today, they aim to do the same with the Congress, all the while basically offering up their take on what is happening in the world. They are basically a news site.

That said, they are not like any other news site. They offer an interesting perspective. They are supposedly the home of the alt right, right? Except they do not look like the alt right. There are no men in hoods, no swastikas. Again, they look like a news site. And that is the interesting thing. They have it is said repackaged some of the things offered by such groups. They have, it is said, taken the ideas and themes of the far or extreme right palatable without the odor or aftertaste of neo-Nazism and the Klan.

I have gone there at various moments and honestly I have not known what to think. They confuse me. I would read that they are the continuation or extension of the alt-right and I would arrive on their pages looking for attacks on Jews and blacks and so forth. It is not there. That stuff is not to be found.

I would read articles on the site, however, and just wonder where is this going? As I said, they puzzled me. Not because they were racist or anti-Semitic. No, the site simply puzzled me. I saw they were critical of the Obama administration and the like, but to what point? They were critical of social trends and cultural leaders and mores. So their site is not only a news, but social and cultural criticism. They look at various leaders and movements, initiatives and ask why? And it is a mix. There are news articles and there is commentary, like any newspaper or news site. They have a tone. They have a style, as does any paper or news site. This style, this tone, however, does make me pause.

So, I have largely chosen to ignore them. Just not my cup of tea. A few nights ago, however, courtesy of Facebook, I was given an article that allows some access. It took some time reading it to figure out the mechanics of it. And it is an older article or essay, written by one of their senior editors, Milo Yiannopoulos, who has since been fired earlier this year. He went too far, I guess. In this article he is provocative and insightful.

Milo has today risen perhaps to the notoriety of an Ann Coulter, but is much more interesting. He is gay, and he routinely acknowledges it. I like that he does. One of the best ways to disarm a critic is to just own it, put it out there. And he does. That said, though, to own being gay in conservative circles, is especially interesting. It seems to counter much of what conservatism is about. Again, I have this feeling of puzzlement, even in regard it seems to their writers.

Anyway, back to our story. Where are we going? Someone on Facebook shared one of Milo's essays with me. An essay, which can still be found on Breitbart. The title is,"Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy". It basically argues that there are consequences to women using birth control.

Those consequences range from cellulite to the damage done to the institution of marriage. In short, he argues that the side effects are not worth it. It reminded me of one of those commercials you see today for various drugs, where it lists all the side effects and you are left asking yourself, who would take this junk? The basic point is that birth control does not make one sexy and in fact does harm.

The interesting thing is how he argues here. He tells his audience at the start he is arguing for traditional values. How he argues this point though is not at all traditional. He takes our fascination for sex, and is able to turn it upon itself. He illustrates that birth control damages those things that make us sexually appealing. He takes our desire or need for sex and shows that birth control, the pill and all the rest, really do not lead to satisfaction. A woman might be able to have sex freely, but she wont be able to get laid. She will have become too ugly and too crazy for any man to consider as a partner.

He has taken our desire and our science and turned them against themselves. The conclusion is that we might be better off without them, to perhaps be chaste and unknowing.

And here in the case of this essay it is not only the  use of new arguments, new premises, to arrive at his conclusions, but the fact that he uses science itself to arrive at the conclusion. It is kind of neat; the fact that he uses science to argue against birth control. This has the effect of not only challenging birth control but science. Science led to birth control, birth control is not good; therefore science is also flawed. It is an invalid argument, but still sufficient to raise doubts. You find a rotten apple, it raises concerns about the rest of the apples in the basket. And at the very least you look, you inspect the other apples. And he does not just imply this, he says as much in the beginning. Science is biased.

And as I said, it is not only science that is challenged here, but our obsession with casual sex, sex with no costs nor strings. How can you not question such as it led to birth control, and its consequences, including the sexual revolution. A revolution that largely destroyed the institution of marriage.

These are the wonders of this essay. This cute little essay talking bout cellulite and a woman's gate when she is fertile, ultimately is a challenge to sex and science. Cellulite and a neutered gate are the consequence of our sexual revolution, birth control, and ultimately our obsession for casual sex, and science. And how does he argue this? He argues against all of this with the results of scientific studies focused on cellulite and women's gates. As I said above a problematic argument. If the studies illustrate the problems of birth control, and birth control is a product of science, then both birth control and science have issues. However, if we grant that science is biased, then how can rely upon these scientific studies?

So the way in which Milo argues here is interesting. Perhaps this is what I was sensing in prior reads - a loose approach to fact and basic logic. Perhaps this explains my basic sense of disease or discomfort when reading Breitbart. There is, as I said, more going on here then an article challenging birth control. We have a site that claims to be a news and commentary site, which at least here in this essay suggests that science is biased. And does so using a series of what appear to be flawed and invalid arguments.

One last question and this again goes to my discomfort with the site. If not this world, then what? What is next? If your doubts regarding science are true, then what? Milo acknowledges in this essay he wants a return to the traditional family, but is that possible, even if desirable in today's world? And the family provides no remedy for the doubts he has cast regarding science.

There are other issues. The fact that he is gay. How do we return to the traditional family considering we have accepted and embraced those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and the like  in today's world? Traditionally, members of the traditional family or those who have encouraged such have perceived such as a threat. No more?

The challenge, however, is bigger than that. If science is flawed, if it is in fact biased and not truthful, then what do we believe? Family, as I said, is not up to the task. Religion? There is a great deal to be found in both family, and religion, but regardless neither family nor religion do what science does nor vice-versa, a point that is often ignored or neglected. In the end, I have to conclude that a series of like essays hinting at or poking at these subjects will most likely not provide an answer to my questions and concerns, much less my disease and discomfort.

Below is my initial response to the essay, which I originally wrote in a post on Facebook:

"Yeah there is a lot of truth in that article. He is an observant little fag. He, like all of us, has seen those commercials. The ones listing all those side effects of drugs. Those side effects do make me wonder why we even take those drugs, but we do. He does the same thing regarding birth control.

Why do we take all those drugs, birth control pills and all the rest? He raises a good point. Why do we? Regarding birth control, so we can just get laid without consequence? That was the sexual revolution. And it did destroy the institution of marriage. Why did we embrace such things? 

He takes our fascination for sex, and uses it here. If you really want to be sexy and hot, and to be bred again and again, well then skip the birth control. He wants women pregnant, married, and raising a family. That is what women do. That is what women do. 

He is not sure how men really deal with women, but he does acknowledge that women are needed for such. He says all of that in the article. 

And he arrives here not with bible parables, but with the use of science, and our fascination with sex. He uses science and sex to argue against birth control. If you really want good sex, forget the sexual revolution, forget birth control. They always said those Christian women were sweet."

A New Conspiracy Theory

Tonight we play conspiracy theorist. Just this once. . .

Imagine we have a President who is shrewd, who appreciates science, and does put America first. Perhaps more like Francis Underwood. Although Francis does not put America first, but that is a different story. . .

For now focus on the shrewdness, the believe in science, and is a nationalist. He believes that his first priority is to protect America,

What does that mean regarding global warming? What does it mean when you watch shows like Bill Weir's Wonder List on CNN? A show where tonight the host spoke with  the Egyptian Secretary of the Environment regarding the fact that Alexandria, an ancient port city in Egypt, it is predicted will be devastated as the seas rise. The Secretary basically said to Weir he can do little. He has neither the resources nor budget. Further, neither he nor his country caused what will most likely happen in Alexandria. What is happening in Alexandria was caused by others he said, and they should be held responsible, they should come and assist in such projects.

I paraphrase. I was napping on my sofa, but I think I heard enough. If you have people in the world with such beliefs and you believe in organizations such as the United Nations, and you believe in validity of global treaties and agreements. If you believe in international courts that make decisions on trade agreements, and national disputes, and you accept the basic idea of an international court that can bring a country, a nation state before it, then a country that could be accused of being largely responsible for global warming is in legal jeopardy.

In short, if you believe that global warming is real and that it is a man-made phenomena, and you believe that there are international organizations and courts that can bring a legitimate nation-state before it, then a leader of a country that could be responsible for such better prepare for such situations - they better have a defense.

President Donald Trump may or may not personally believe in global warming. He may or may not personally believe in international organizations, courts and agreements. On the record and in his ten months as President, however. he has illustrated that he largely does not believe in global warming, he does not trust international organizations nor treaties. And, he does routinely make the claim that he wants to make America great again, put America first. Lastly, he does believe in legal suits and counter-suits.

Perhaps he is putting America first. Perhaps his whole position regarding Global warming, the United Nations, and various international agreements stems from his fear of potential suits related to global warming against the United States. Perhaps, his principle of America First also stems in part from such liabilities. His case is already out there. Global warming is a hoax, and there is no international organization or treaty that can bind a country. Further, we better get use to the concept of America First, because we will be an international pariah.

"Defacto" White Supremacist?

The more I think about it the more I conclude that the President's administration is "defacto" white supremacist. Forget all the nonsense about the Klan support, the mess at Charlottesville, all the supposed "dog whistles" at his rallies or the rallies themselves. I would argue their policies make it obvious. 

Their policy on immigration, both legal and illegal. they simply want to limit immigration, and when you look at who is immigrating it is mostly non-whites. Their desire for English speaking immigrants is also interesting. It points not to a racial bias but I would argue a cultural bias. Which goes hand in hand with the racial bias. If you are not white, at least speak English. Keep in mind that historically many first generation populations of immigrants did not speak English upon arrival. 

These were the easy ones above. The bigger fish, which I am really after, are trade and diplomacy. Both international trade and diplomacy are deemphasized in this administration. Let us start with trade. The first thing he did was tear up the TPP.  He has and continues to question NAFTA. Before he even took office he rescued several hundred jobs at Carrier, keeping them from crossing the border into Mexico. His tax reform is in part motivated by the desire to bring American companies and their bank accounts home. These are idea and goals expressed routinely by this administration. Each has its motivations, its reasons, but I would suggest that ultimately such rationales are garnish, the condiments or trimmings. I would argue he is far more interested in building a market in the United States as opposed to trading with other nations. 

Likewise regarding diplomacy. I listed the trade agreements under trade, but they do go under this category too. Further, look at the massive cuts to the State Department. How many senior State Department officials have left? How many State Department positions have not and probably will not be filled? Further, there is North Korea. The President has largely asserted that there is no diplomatic solution there. Likewise, he questions the Iran nuclear deal and of course recently chose not to certify it this past week, leaving its fate in question. He has previously questioned our involvement with both the UN, and NATO. Time and again this administration has asserted in its first nine months in power that it does not believe in diplomacy. 

Now of course he does preach America First. and he believes this is good not only for America but the UK and others. He fully endorsed Br-exit. Countries, of course, do have their interests and of course must act on them, must protect and defend them. He goes beyond that. No, regarding international trade in most cases he is found commenting routinely that America is getting the raw end of the deal, whether it be regarding China and the steel business, or Germany and autos. 

I suggest that the underlying premise regarding his attitudes toward international trade and foreign relations is that they, those abroad, foreign powers, foreign leaders, and foreign companies cannot be trusted. They do not share our beliefs, our hopes, our aspirations. They desire to see their cultures, their families and their nations thrive and dominate. They do not wish the United States well. Their goals and agendas challenge and compete against us on the world stage. Two things are happening here. 

One is that the world, including world trade and diplomacy are viewed as winner take all, or a zero-sum game. Meaning, there is only one winner. This administration does not believe that at the end of a negotiation both parties or both countries can be happy with the results. They do not subscribe to the idea that there can be two winners. With that, the winner will either be the US or not. Either we will win or we lose.

The second point and the one I am focused on is a distrust of the other. In this case this is anyone that is not an American. He routinely comments regarding domestic situations that we are all Americans. We should be able to recognize each other as Americans. That said, he did bring up at one point during his campaign that a US Federal Judge should not be allowed to preside over his case as the judge was of Mexican descent. Again the clash of culture, of race. 

I would argue that this administration's positions on trade and diplomatic relations, treaties are driven by similar concerns. We are unable to communicate nor work with others countries and peoples. they do not understand us, now we them, and further we in fact are competing, This is not a cooperative project at all. It is purely a competitive venture.  And when we do engage another nation, these are the assumptions this administration arrives with. If and when we do go abroad, we put ourselves at risk. And ultimately it is best to just stay home. 

This is what America first translates to I am afraid. I hope that the next three years or perhaps seven prove me wrong, but based on my observations this is what I see. Is the Trump administration "defacto" white supremacists? To answer that one properly probably does require digging into domestic policy. Next time. . . Regardless, I would say that they seem xenophobic and have a sad view of business and foreign relations, which is disappointing considering their business background and history.