Evan Osnos was affable and well-mannered enough when he joined us at home to watch the first Republican Presidential debate with us. They almost always are. I remind myself to remain friendly and respectful with the media contacts who aren’t friendly and respectful to me, because those are the honest ones. They all believe that the ideas we stand for are not merely incorrect and not just immoral, …but outright crazy.
Some are just better than others at disguising their contempt.
Osnos’ goal in meeting with ourselves and several other White Advocates could not have been more predictable or formulaic. The story was already written before his plane touched the tarmac; Smear Donald Trump with guilt by association with racism by schmoozing with a bunch of prominent racists and confirming the obvious. Evan Osnos confirmed his keen journalistic hunch that men who favor secure borders and a better future for White Americans have a generally positive impression of Trump’s campaign thus far.
The title, “Donald Trump and the White Nationalists,” feels like the kind of working title one gives to an article before arriving at a more subtle and clever title. At this point in Trump’s meteoric rise to the very top of the political stage, the anti-Whites can’t be bothered with subtlety. Absolutely everybody he interviewed offered only intelligent quotes, and with the exception of one accidental inflammatory novelty coffee mug, everybody managed to avoid any triggering symbolism.
Mindful of the article’s likely thesis, I refused to hand him an endorsement of Trump. I love what Trump’s saying and how much he’s upsetting the political establishment’s applecart as much as the next guy, but I intend to retain a respectful arm’s length distance from civic nationalism. This is doubly true when there’s a Jewish liberal New Yorker in my living room, eagerly hoping for it.
Matthew Parrott, a Web developer who was sipping coffee from a cup adorned with a swastika, said, “He was sassy without being comical. He struck exactly the tone he needed to give the people supporting him exactly what they want more of.” He went on, “The political system hasn’t been providing an outlet for social-conservative populism. You had this Ron Paul revolution, and all the stuff about cutting taxes, small government, and that’s just not the electrifying issue that they were expecting it to be. Simple folks, they want the border secure. They want what Donald Trump is mirroring at them. I think he’s an intelligent businessman who identified what the people want to hear. He’s made a living finding these sorts of opportunities.”
Evan’s self-indulgent but admittedly well-researched and polished article encapsulates the thinking in elite circles about what’s happening in flyover country. For the Manhattan hillbilly, none of what’s happening is real. Their only exposure to what actual Americans are actually thinking, unfiltered, is through blog comments and perhaps, for the less faint of heart, an irregular visit to the Drudge Report. For Osnos, ordinary White Americans are dehumanized to a degree that’s only appropriate for a war footing. Our ideas are all insane, our concerns are all invalid, and our protests are tuned out because they’re “hate.”
For Osnos, hate speech is any speech that he hates. Hate crimes are crimes committed by people he hates. Hate groups are groups that he hates. We can guard every word we say, demonstrate year after year that we’re not violent or criminal, and be more mindful of our dinnerware in the future, but it doesn’t matter. The “hate” Evan and his cohorts are kvetching about doesn’t radiate from us, but from him.
Evan’s all over every blip of “hate” in America and is even pioneering anti-anti-semitism with his groundbreaking reporting on Chinese people who haven’t yet received the memo on how to (not) speak about Jewish influence. He can’t, however, be bothered to notice or comment on the one country in the world which happens to share his ethnic identity, unapologetically builds walls to protect its population from uncontrolled immigration, confidently asserts its identity, and even sterilizes unwelcome immigrants.
According to Osnos, we’re the ones drifting into “unreality,” but who’s really out of touch with the world? The New Yorker has been fiddling on about haute cauture and droning on with their neurotic hipster fixations while everything we’ve been predicting has come to pass, every one of our “fears” and “frustrations” have been validated by objective metrics, and the once-monolithic mass of Americans who once respected and obeyed the traditional media’s analysis and spin are defecting in droves.
The New Yorker is among the last standing in the killing field of snobby leftist publications because its private owners persist in publishing it at a considerable cost to themselves. It’s certainly not remaining in business because of the foresight of its political essays or its resonance with contemporary political discourse. If anything, it takes pride in its dissociation from the Zeitgeist, in its ponderous introspection, and in its refusal to reconcile itself with the hoi polloi.
Osnos can be expected to continue condemning the Trump campaign and us insurgent identitarians for being out of touch with reality. But whose reality are we out of touch with? We’re certainly closer to objective reality than he is. We’ve been predicting race riots, economic instability, the steady rise of nationalism both at home and abroad, and increasing tribalism while The New Yorker clique have been predicting racial harmony, economic prosperity, advancing globalism and multiculturalism, and the end of everyone’s tribalism…save for Evan’s.
In the wake of the Trump debate, Evan Osnos and the rest of the elites thought Donald Trump was finally done for. Megyn Kelly had sprung a trap on him and this whole silly Trump 2016 fever dream was coming to an end. He confirms this in the article, sharing their surprise that their model of reality wasn’t working. Over and over again, Trump has bet against their “conventional wisdom” and come out ahead every time.
Personally, I consider the ordeal a draw, as I ruined everything for everyone with my coffee mug, but my post-debate analysis that Trump did well in the debate and would continue growing his campaign nailed it. And we’ll continue nailing it while he continues being surprised, because identitarians and traditionalists have a superior model to The New Yorker’s cloistered elites for how the world works and what the future holds. We’re not the ones drifting into unreality.