Going to Bat for Trump:
Refuting Five Common Slurs

2,519 words

Here is a great nugget of wisdom which I have ignored my entire adult life: “Never argue with the fiercely decided.”

It’s a good one, isn’t it? I don’t remember where I initially encountered it, perhaps in a comic book. I was young. It made sense at that time. And I would strongly advise following it when dealing with an angry spouse or with someone to whom you owe a lot of money. Beyond that, however, being right (or believing you are right) may often seem like a good enough reason to ignore it, depending on the fallout, of course.

So, if you deem the fallout potential manageable, here are arguments which counter five of the biggest charges liberals and leftists like to make against Donald Trump. These arguments, I believe, effectively defend Mr. Trump from the slew of accusations and character assassinations found here and here on Reddit. They do so by attacking, rather than defending, and involve few denials. Please feel free to plagiarize them liberally when having at it on Facebook, Twitter, comment sections, or wherever it is you feel the need to enlighten our leftist brethren on all things Trump.

Charge #1: “Donald Trump violated the Civil Rights Act by refusing to rent homes to black people.”

I’m reminded of a scene in the television show Law and Order, in which an unimpressed District Attorney responds to an accusation from a junior attorney by saying, “Is that so?” But it wasn’t a question. It was a statement. “Is. That. So.” As if to say, “I. Don’t. Care.”

Basically, the Justice Department sued Mr. Trump’s real estate company in 1973 for attempting to discourage blacks from renting their properties.

The case alleged that the Trump Management Corporation had discriminated against blacks who wished to rent apartments in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. The government charged the corporation with quoting different rental terms and conditions to blacks and whites and lying to blacks that apartments were not available, according to reports of the lawsuit.

Of course, Trump emphatically denied the charge, but to be honest, the evidence looks pretty damning. The Justice Department had sent black and white moles with identical phony qualifications to apply for the properties. More often than not, only the whites walked away with an agreement. In response, one could go down the trail Mr. Trump was forced to blaze and continue to deny, based on the fact that Mr. Trump eventually settled out of court without an admission of guilt. But that would be conceding defeat before the battle even begins. For one, it wouldn’t be convincing, given the plethora of evidence. Second, Mr. Trump only made matters worse by retaining one Roy Cohn to represent him in court. For those of you who remember, Cohn, brilliant as he was, was also one of the sleazier attorneys in New York at the time. Finally, once we admit that racially discriminating against applicants is always and everywhere wrong, we will have no defense against what comes next, which will be the minutiae of all the evidence.

Instead, we should simply reframe the discussion and argue that those were Mr. Trump’s properties and he has a right to determine who rents there for whatever reason he wants. I don’t care what the stupid Civil Rights Act says. America is about freedom, no? Just as one has the right to be picky about who come into one’s home, one also has a right to be picky about whom one does business with. Furthermore, if blacks made better tenants in general then perhaps Mr. Trump wouldn’t have had this problem to begin with.

Charge #2: “Donald Trump says racist things.”

Well, maybe. But so what? Remember how the Soviets promised to eradicate the Russian aristocracy, but all they really ended up doing was replacing one aristocracy for another? It’s the same with the leftist twits who fulminate against Mr. Trump. They say they are anti-racist. In fact, however, they intend only to replace one form of racism with another.

Here is a juicy quote from Mr. Trump:

I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. . . . I think the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.

If you look at the data, Mr. Trump has the truth of it. The average IQ of blacks is around 85. The average of Ashkenazi Jews is 117. That’s a difference of what? Two standard deviations? All things being equal, who would you rather have counting your money? And the part about blacks being lazy, this is also something that employers have had to deal with when hiring blacks. If anything, Mr. Trump seems to be letting blacks off the hook a little bit by saying that they couldn’t help being lazy if they tried. This is actually fairly benevolent compared with those who actually hold it against blacks for being lazy.

If anyone uses the “R” word to describe Trump, I would suggest a two-pronged response. One, challenge your interlocutor to find comprehensive data that refutes Mr. Trump’s statements. Note that the I-personally-know-blacks-who-aren’t-lazy approach is no good. I’ve known blacks like that too. That does not mean they as a group do not exhibit laziness. They most certainly do, and their overall low level of accomplishment, especially in their parts of the world, is ample proof of this.

Second, I would also suggest using the Left’s tactics against them, which is to say Get Offended and Cry Oppression (or GOCO, for short). For example, one could respond by saying, “A white man can’t call it like he sees it now? A white man can’t speak his mind about race anymore? Are you against free speech? Are you trying to muzzle whites while blacks get to say whatever they want about race? Are you trying to oppress us? Are you actually racist against white people? How dare you!”

GOCO essentially accuses the anti-racist of racism, and will put our leftist opponents on the defensive. It will force them to attempt to repudiate your position without compromising their own. Since you are framing your position to be the mirror image of theirs, objective repudiation will become quite difficult, depending on how clever your leftist really is. They will either retreat by labeling your arguments too ridiculous for a serious response, resort to irrelevant proxy arguments, or outright cop to their anti-white racism. In any of these cases, we can then go on the offensive by charging them with cowardice, deception, or hypocrisy. Leftists are not used to being backed into corners and they will not like it. In my experience, they don’t respond well, which only makes us look good in the eyes of disinterested viewers — if there are any left at this point. Truly, reducing your interlocutor into a profanity-sputtering mess is as good as, if not better than, an abject concession of the point. At the very least, GOCO will shake the confidence of leftists and plant a nice seed of doubt in their small minds about the righteousness of their position. This happening on a large enough scale will undoubtedly result in less energetic activism and depressed voter turnout on their part.

If, on the other hand, you find this approach too hot, you can always hold the line by bringing up all the nice things Trump has done for blacks, such as once hosting a NAACP rally. Such a tack won’t ensure victory in an argument, but it will help stave off defeat. Here’s a nice rundown of Mr. Trump being the sweetheart that he is.

By the way, the “guy” Mr. Trump referred to above was John R. O’Donnell, a former employee of his who wrote a book defaming him in 1991. Mr. Trump’s take?

The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true. The guy’s a f–king loser. A f–king loser. I brought the guy in to work for me; it turns out he didn’t know that much about what he was doing. I think I met the guy two or three times total. And this guy goes off and writes a book about me, like he knows me!

How can you not like a guy this direct? A f–king loser. I love it.

Charge #3: “Donald Trump was a rotten landlord.”

This charge comes from most notably from an episode in the 1980s in which Mr. Trump purchased a 14-story apartment building overlooking Central Park in New York City. He wanted to demolish it and build luxury condos in its place. But before he could he had to get rid of a number of rent-controlled tenants who did not want to leave. So, Mr. Trump responded in characteristically nasty fashion:

In their 1982 lawsuits, the tenants said Trump had cut off their hot water and heat during New York’s freezing winters and stopped all building repairs. One claimed he allowed “a rodent infestation of the premises.” Another said he imposed burdensome new rules in an attempt to force them out.

So what this tells me is that Mr. Trump knows how to be an asshole. Guess what? We know that. Part of Mr. Trump’s appeal is that he promises to be an asshole . . . to our enemies. And who are our enemies? Radical Muslims and the people who harbor them, which is a very large percentage of Muslims worldwide. To a lesser extent, our enemies also consist of the Black Lives Matter crowd and their allies, who seem to be graduating from crime to terror. Soon, that terror will become overtly anti-white. Finally, our enemies on the slowest burn are the illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central/South America who wish ultimately to re-conquer the western half of the United States simply by getting enough people to squat there. Remember, when the Hispanics and blacks tried to shut down Trump rallies in Chicago and California, they were protesting the idea that the United States should enforce its own immigration laws. In essence, they were breaking domestic laws in order to get us to break our international ones to our detriment. How can this be anything other than enemy action?

Therefore, we would love it if Mr. Trump were to “impose burdensome new rules in an attempt to force” these people out of the country. In fact, that New York apartment building is a great analogy for how a president or any leader should behave when he has interlopers on his property. And right now, we have a lot of them.

Charge #4: “Donald Trump has ties to organized crime.”

A man in the casino business has ties to organized crime? I guess that’s why they call him “The Donald.” But seriously, it is probably not possible to get into the casino business without attracting organized crime. But does that make Trump a criminal or a victim? The government also imposes costs on the casino business and occasionally grants favors. Does that mean that Trump also has “ties to the government”?

Charge #5: “Donald Trump is a sexist.”

Of all the charges, this one is the most ridiculous and easily refuted. Please check out Barbara Res’ account of how Mr. Trump dealt with women back in the day, which is more or less fairly. Mr. Trump certainly has different opinions of men versus women. He also acts on them. So what? Modern day feminism is based on the lie that men and women are physiologically similar enough as to be socially and professionally interchangeable. They are not. According to Steven Goldberg’s Why Men Rule, testicularly-generated hormones mature certain male brain structures while in utero. Obviously, this does not occur with females. Later on, this makes males hypersensitive to endogenous hormones such as testosterone which boost the need for aggression and dominance. This is how it is everywhere in every society. Men are different than women, and Mr. Trump simply reflects this fact when he, for example, wishes to decorate his offices with pretty secretaries.

What else do they have?

Female journalists crying harassment because Mr. Trump calls them beautiful? No, that’s not harassment. That’s flattery. Once upon a time, women knew how to appreciate flattery.

Mr. Trump is a lady’s man and has had affairs? Like that never happened with John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Got it.

Mr. Trump has said outrageous things about women? I disagree. Everything Mr. Trump is quoted to have said about women in that Huffington Post article I just linked is either true or a matter of legitimate opinion. Mr. Trump is an unapologetic heterosexual. He likes women who are hot and fast, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Also, has anyone on the left ever regretted the outrageous things they have said about Mr. Trump? Yeah, me neither.

Mr. Trump is guilty of rape? Mr. Trump, of course, denies it. All I can say here is that his first wife first accused him of rape during their 1991 divorce. Later, she backtracked to say that Mr. Trump did not rape her in any “literal or criminal sense,” whatever that means. After that, you have one woman who has dropped her lawsuit, one who is merely making claims, and others who accuse Mr. Trump of milder forms of sexual misconduct, such as unwelcome advances. Read: not rape. Anyway, as long as the left continues to ignore women like Juanita Broderick, I think we on the right should ignore these claims as well unless positive evidence tells us otherwise.

There is a lot more that the Left likes to fling at Mr. Trump. Most of it, like the accusations listed above, are personal and therefore somewhat shrill. As white people, we must defend Mr. Trump at all costs. So far, he has been the only candidate to actually cater to us as a group. Once upon a time, when whites were the great majority in this country, we didn’t need any kind of special attention. We left that for the minorities, who were clearly steering the federal government for their benefit as much as they could. Now, however, whites are a demographic. We have become just another color in the increasingly fractious rainbow that is American culture. We are realizing that, in order to survive and keep political power, we must act in our own racial interests, openly, honestly, and in the same way that minorities have been doing for years. And, of course, when minorities act in their racial interests, they often run counter to ours.

If there is any common thread among most of these defenses of Mr. Trump, it is that we should reframe the argument and take the fight to those who wish to condemn him. We need to get aggressive and argumentative, we need to demonstrate the anti-white and anti-male biases of many of these people, and we need to make charges of our own. We should leave the denials to Mr. Trump himself.