Saturday, March 22, 2014

CNN Scrubs Entrepreneur's "Brutalist" Quote

Saxon Voice emails:
A Cool Story of Entrepreneurship
At one point in the below article the business owner says she only hires women because they better connect with the clientele. If you read the comments you can see people discussing it. It would appear that CNN removed that quote. Maybe Jeff Tucker was the editor and didn't like this "Brutalist" behavior by the owner.


  1. How dare you criticize Tucker! The purge is going mainstream and you are not getting in the way ...

    1. Omg, Ben Swann, cry me a river. His whole article can be summed up as: you catch more flies with honey.

  2. When tucker says "let's be humanitarian libertarians" he's really just saying "let's be liberals, but without the state." Which is great if you're trying to attract liberals, who actually want to make a difference in how thing are (pollution, "gay rights", legalizing pot, etc.). But the "brutalist" approach he's denouncing, is the message that Ron Paul used all the time. He wasn't telling you what "we" should be doing with our freedom, he was just endorsing freedom.

    All that tucker has done here is make that message more explicit to the reluctant people on the left. Ron Paul's message works for people of all political perspectives (even commies could live in a society free from force, as long as it's all voluntary).

  3. @steveZ

    Tucker was not just saying be nicer.....if he was, no one would have argued with him like that, especially not Christians. Every one of Tucker's legitimate points were made by me on this blog, many, many, many, many times.

    The points about context, the point about marketing, the point about women....

    So no, that's NOT what he said or why he got that reaction.

    He drew a line and put conservatives and traditionalists, as well as people who want to live with their own race or faith in homogeneous voluntary communities all into one box labeled EVIL and put all the statist leftist coalition partners - Jewish people, gays, women - into another marked ANGELIC.

    He castigated the former for being too purist, although I am not purist and he knows that, because his friend Kinsella and I have tussled a bit and Kinsella has tussled with Bob and we all know each other's views, at least to some extent.

    So I'm a traditionalist and not a purist at all. I don't consider taxation theft, in the strict sense. I don't employ that rhetoric, though I end up on the same position as EPJ.

    So it's patently false to say all traditionalists ignore context or are literal minded or not open to thinking things through. Please check through my old comments on this blog or my own blog. You'll see everything Tucker said and then some. He's just used that language and then spun it to support only his ideology.

    The groups he beatified are ALREADY protected by the state, by the thought-police, by academia, by popular culture. The traditionalists are huddled on their own blogs, because the substance of their view is always being shut down as racist, homophobic, misogynist, by default.

    So now he wants to use the coercive power of public opinion as well to make them lose traffic and erase them off the web. That's in addition to what the state is doing.

    If it's coercive to slut-shame, as the left says, why is it fine to religion-shame?
    And why should people be given silent treatment just for their views? Their not hurting anyone. They're not advocating harm. Don't they have the right to express sincere views? Does everyone have to kiss the backside of Facebook, porn merchants, drug dealers, gay activists, and government redistributionists to be a libertarian?

    This isn't a quarrel about procedure. This is your typical leftist modus operandi - calling everyone names who doesn't agree with their hedonistic, materialistic, egalitarian, rent-seeking RELIGION and trying to dress their intolerance of other religions as just sweetness and light.

    Words like "hate" and "inclusiveness" should tip you off that it's left ideology.

    That's the way they label stuff and co-opt language. If you don't know that by now, you know nothing about American politics.