* I’ve read three different articles today on Trump’s speech: one at Bloomberg, another at the Washington Post, and the last at the New York Times. All three articles, though written by three different people, used the word “dark” to describe Trump’s speech. Are these reporters coordinating their message? or did they all choose the same adjective by accident? It’s almost like the press is pushing a consensus opinion.
* I’ve never heard the phrase “nation of nations” before, to my knowledge. So why do I care if someone denies it? Then again, I don’t remember hearing “American Exceptionalism” until people started mocking neocons with it. I’m not connected to the world in which such phrases are bandied.
* It’s an oxymoron. The whole point of a nation is that it’s homogeneous. The poisonous concept of a “proposition nation” is gradually seeping into political discourse in Europe now too. Whites get to have the proposition, while non-whites have the nation.
* Most people reading “Under his presidency, the American dream would be primarily reserved for Americans.” is going to be thinking “and this is a problem… how?”
* There’s a word for a “nation of nations”: an imperium. I know this is what the left wants, and to some measure what the US is, but it’s strange to see the NYT nakedly promote it without even a nod to the consent of the governed. What will they pump for next, the abolition of voting?
