Why ‘White Privilege’ Is a Canard | National Review

But anyway, blacks on average face more challenges than whites in the
United States. Yes, but averages don’t tell us much about the lot of any
individual. Happiness and success have much to do with personal
circumstances — growing up in a stable, loving family; a good education;
a strong work ethic. Having two parents who are able to get literally
anyone in the world on the phone could help. Having no reliable parents
could hurt. Race isn’t the ultimate or anywhere near the leading
determinant of how your life turns out, and it’s sloppy to imply
otherwise. Yet race determinism is everywhere, and if anything it seems
to be growing in popularity.

Why ‘White Privilege’ Is a Canard | National Review

The Debate Over Nationalism Is A Debate Over The West’s Future

This
is, after all, the crux of the debate, and the prime paradox of liberal
internationalism. As John Mearsheimer wrote, “A purely liberal state is
soulless: it creates few emotional bonds between citizens and their
government, which is why it is sometimes said that getting people to
fight and die for a liberal state is especially difficult.”

One can see this in Europe, where the percentage of people who are willing to fight and die for their country varies
extremely between the conservative East and the liberal West.
Mearsheimer argues that in the clash of national sentiments and
liberalism, nationalism will always win, which will, in turn, lead to
hardcore liberals behaving like imperialists.

Because liberalism is radically individualist on the domestic front,
humans as social animals find that destructive. That either leads to
either ethnic or racial tribalism, or supranational empires, like the EU
or the Soviet Union. So, in a curious twist of fate, it leads to the
same old clash between liberal, or Marxist, imperialism and
nation-states that wants to break free of a borderless ideology.

Think about this for a moment. If someone is living and working in
America, where would you want his loyalties to lie; to the land that
provides him food, work, opportunity, and a good life, or to some vague
borderless internationalist idea, like liberal internationalism,
Marxism, or Islamism? Would you prefer your fellow countrymen to pledge
loyalty to Communist International, the Islamic caliphate, the United
Nations, or the European Union?

The Debate Over Nationalism Is A Debate Over The West’s Future

Nate Silver is wrong about Ben Shapiro

Recovering from her shock, her conclusion was spot on. The
conservative offers something different than the normal liberal
regurgitation on race, class, and gender, she wrote. That ideology,
which she had assumed to be mainstream, is dying outside the ivory tower
— as Flanagan put it, its “doomsday clock clicks closer to the end.”

The appeal is the same with Shapiro, who has a larger
audience than Peterson and arguably a more coherent political
philosophy. He offers something both cogent and different than the rest
of the pundits, and that is why he succeeds. Just look at the Facebook
algorithm that Silver bemoans.

Nate Silver is wrong about Ben Shapiro