Of Sophistry and Straw Men

 by Paul Jones

In “The New York Times” Op-Ed section of Aug. 6, 2019 there was a “triple header” of anti-Trump and anti-white supremacy columns, each one dealing heavily in sophistry and straw men in order to try and convince the readers that Trump is a racist and fomenter of terrorism and that any reasonable interest in pushing white interests is simply white supremacy.

There was one by David Brooks titled “The Ideology of Hate and How to Fight It;” Michelle Goldberg with “Trump Inspires Terrorism” and one by Paul Krugman, “Trump, Tax Cuts and Terrorism.” After what happened in El Paso I had expected maybe one, or even two columns attacking so-called white supremacy, racism and “dangerous political rhetoric,” but three?

Sophistry comes from Sophism, a school of philosophy around the Fifth Century B.C. in Athens, and the Sophists were famous as good orators and debaters who could “make the weaker argument the stronger.” One technique in this was to set up “straw men” as part of the argument, that is false issues which, when accepted by the other side, makes it much easier to defeat an opponent or convince an unsuspecting reader or listener as to the merits of what one is trying to prove. In essence, it refutes an argument not presented by the opponent.

For example, as anyone who is objective realizes, Trump is a Civic Nationalist, not a white nationalist. But the straw man created by all these columnists of “The New York Times” is to label him a white supremacist: Trump is described by Krugman as “…a man who has arguably done more to promote racial violence than any American since Nathan Bedford Forrest, who helped found the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist organization if there ever was one…” Goldberg concludes her tirade with stating that “Trump probably couldn’t bottle up the hideous forces he’s helped unleash even if he wanted to, and there’s little sign he wants to.”

In the case of the column by Brooks, he spins off into an apparently clever argument, stating that the forces of so-called white supremacy are part of a broader contest: “The struggle between pluralism and anti-pluralism is one of the great death struggles of our time, and it is being fought on every front.” As a proponent of pluralism, he believes with his fellow pluralists in “…integration, not separation. We treasure precisely the integration that sends the antipluralists into panic fits. A half century ago, few marriages crossed a color line. Now, 17 percent of American marriages are interracial.”

These three writers of Jewish background basically rant and rave about the evil “white supremacists,” without giving any evidence that any of the cases they mention operate any differently than members of “La Raza” or other organizations which further Hispanic interests, or the NAACP in the case of blacks and the ADL in the case of Jews. Why should all of these columnists be above criticism in their support of the nation of Israel-which to my knowledge is not in favor of Jewish intermarriage with Arabs or Palestinians and is not trying to move that culture towards one which promotes such behavior-yet when it comes to their “fellow whites” in the U.S., who are labeled as “white supremacists” if there is a “racist bone in their bodies,” they want the slow and sure disappearance of this ethnicity through their denigration of the heritage of the European-Americans and acceleration of masses of non-white immigrants into the U.S. to more rapidly arrive at the full dispossession they are working towards, a la South Africa.

Furthermore, when it comes to the anti-white propaganda from television and Hollywood, such as the movie “Django Unchained” which encourages black on white violence by creating resentment and anger among blacks who watch such trash, can’t we say that these anti-white type of productions are a prime cause of the huge amount of crimes against whites committed by blacks? Who is behind this if not Jewish supremacists? I would argue that Jewish supremacy, not white supremacy is the biggest danger in the U.S. today. It’s too bad that the equivalent of the House Un-American Activities Committee that operated in the early 1950’s couldn’t be set up to investigate now as the Anti-White Activities Committee-instead of looking for Communists, it could look at how the Jewish anti-white agenda is the biggest danger to our people’s survival.

At this point we can clearly see where all of this is heading and so false arguments against our positions by intellectual sophists who use one straw man after another in their repertoire of debate is neither going to convince us to see as false what we know to be true or scare us away from the truth by labeling us as extremists simply due to us believing that we as a race deserve not to eventually disappear from the face of the earth if the pluralist hodgepodge is somehow reached.

These “interesting times,” as the Chinese proverb goes, are starting to reveal our enemies as not only evil, but as total hypocrites as well.

Please follow and like us:

3987