We've really started something here! Now we have another video, this one from Stephen W. Browne, on how that old black magic the liberal mind works.
This also serves as a good introduction to Stephen W. Browne [link] himself.
Quibcag: The quibcag is illustrated by the adorable Kagome of Inuyasha (犬夜叉).
That last post led to a commenter pointing out this nice little video that is well worth listening to. It's a speech by Evan Sayet (the name looked Turkish to me, but boy, is that wrong!) to the Heritage Foundation. Now, this fellow is almost certainly a neocon, but you have to remember that neocons do say a lot of accurate things, especially about their liberal cousins. And you really should listen to this guy, as he points out that what he calls modern liberal thought is, at base, simple nihilism.
Don't let his unquestioning support of Israel put you off. I'm well aware that Israel's interests aren't our interests, and that Israel has behaved shabbily and worse on many occasions — not least because of our unquestioning support — but his analysis of the motivations behind leftist criticism of, and opposition to, Israel are dead on.
Likewise, he is correct about the motivation behind leftist opposition to the Iraq War. There were good reasons to oppose it, and I certainly opposed it, but not because of the usual leftist claptrap about racism, etc., but because I thought it was a waste our blood and treasure and not in our interest.
The left, of course, when it opposes Israel and/or the Iraq War, does so precisely because it thinks, in its wisdom, that these two things are in America's interest, and therefore just hates them. One can disagree about both of these issues, because of different analysis of just what our interests are, but the left, never forget, takes its position because the left opposes America's interest as they see it.
So what Mr. Sayet is for may be a bit dubious and we may not like it all, but his evaluation of the left and its motivations is both informative and useful. It's obviously several years old, but still timely! So, take a grain of salt and listen:
One difference between the left and the right is that the latter has a bias in favor of honesty. It isn't always honest, of course, but down deep inside, all of us on the right know damn well that we ought to be. There are probably a lot of reasons for that, but one of the main reasons is that the right is in favor of maintaining civilization, and it was determined long ago that, for Western civilization at least, honesty and truth are basic underpinnings of the whole way of thinking and behaving.
The left has no such bias. Oh, there are a few people on the left who aren't that way, but they're sure not in the driver's seat of the movement. Most of them are constantly pointing out that the Communist world and its successors in the West — Obama, Hillary, all of the Democrats and most of the Republicans — aren't the real left. Maybe so. But they think they're the left, and so does everybody else, so what I say here refers to the actual leftist movement, from Mao to Bernie Sanders, and not some outliers who haven't gotten the message about lying all the time.
So almost none of the causes of the left are real causes, in the sense that the left thinks they are a good thing and ought to be established. Au contraire. The left promotes a lot of crazy stuff — affirmative action, homosexual marriage, handcuffing the cops, free speech (only for filth and self-destructive ideas) mass immigration, etc. etc. — that it wouldn't allow for a minute once it's completely in control. None of any of that in North Korea or Cuba. They don't allow it on their watch because they know it's destructive. So there's no point in arguing with the left that their ideas are bad. They know they're bad. They like them bad. Tell them that homosexual marriage undermines real marriage and they'll argue that it doesn't. But they know it does, and that's precisely why they support it. Except for a few adolescents who don't know any better, the left has no desire to improve conditions for anybody, but to make things worse and make their own takeover inevitable.
I've been saying all this for awhile, but I've never expressed it as fluently as Daniel Greenfield has. I came across his essay on http://www.ncc-1776.org/, a site you should visit at least once a week. He writes:
There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it's criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.
Liberals have a long history of being the left's useful idiots. It's only fair that libertarians get a turn.
Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them as their word.
Now they're wondering how an accommodation can be made with tranny rights. A brief look back at gay rights will show that the only possible accommodation is one in which men in dresses have a legal right to use the ladies room and every single closed female space and event. And yes, that means your business will be shut down if you object to Steve using the female locker room.
After a few skirmishes, some fundraising and angry letters, the accommodationists will find ways to accommodate that and we can look forward to conservative activists eagerly crowing about the first gay Republican presidential candidate around say, 2024, and the first Republican man in a dress in the Senate around the same time.
Of course by then it will be something else. Maybe pedophiles. Gay rights activists don't like the analogy, but their movement and its assorted allies, particularly in Europe's Green parties, have a long history of advocating it. The same pop culture methods that were used to sell gay rights and Bruce Jenner can easily be flipped around to sell NAMBLA.
By 2024, the Republican gay and tranny candidates will be dismissed as tokens while the media oohs and aahs over a vocal and charismatic campaigner for some other love that dare not speak its name.
And that's the point. It has always been the point.
The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left's favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.
The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.
To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.
The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.
That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.
The left is a drunk in a bar trying to pick a fight with you. Trying to convince him that you didn't disrespect him, put something in his beer to make him dizzy or make his feet so heavy won't work. There's no 'agree to disagree' possible here. He's picking a fight with you because he wants a fight.
The left does not care about Bruce Jenner. It does not care about gay rights, equal pay, police brutality or even slavery. Its activists 'care' about those things a great deal right now, but they could easily be persuaded tomorrow to be outraged by telephone poles, shredded wheat or people in green sweaters.
They care mainly about emotional venting and exercising power over others. It's the same phenomenon witnessed during the Salem Witch Trials, the French Revolution or any other mob scene. Except the individual elements of the mob are on social media and have a hashtag.
The outraged social justice warrior was laughing at tranny jokes a few years ago. Now he's ready to kill over minor verbal missteps. A few years from now he'll be laughing at them again.
There's a long human history to such atrocities, to mobs whipping themselves up into spasms of manufactured outrage, subsuming their own doubts, confusion and unhappiness into the 'cause'.
The cause is progress, but the real cause is the power of its enforcers to vent their unhappiness and destructive impulses on everyone else under the guise of reform.
You can't find common ground with the left because it is an activist machine dedicated to destroy common ground, not only with the right, but even with its own allies on the left. Progress turns what was once progressive into what is reactionary. And what was reactionary into what is progressive.
Read the rest at Daniel's blog, Sultan Knish, here:
I've been back-and-forthing with a very young, naive, flaky libertarian on a forum about immigration. He has a charming reason why we have to have open borders. It goes this way. If A wants to rent a room to B, and B isn't allowed to move into the United States to live in the room because of immigration laws, A's property rights are being violated. The difference between flaky libertarians and liberals are mainly that the former likes to make sentences up that sound somehow logical to justify their idiotic conclusions. The liberals don't bother, and just appeal to emotions instead.
In the real world, of course, A's rent is paid not by B, but by the US government in the form of all kinds of goodies that are available to immigrants, legal and otherwise, from all different government levels. So if A is deprived of a cut of these handouts, somehow we're harming him.
With libertarians like that, we don't need liberals.
Oh, liberals, flaky libertarians, and neocons are all big on immigration, and constantly assure us that immigrants are just what we need, and that any other attitude is downright bigotry.
Wouldn't it have been a crying shame if somehow we'd deported Francisco Sanchez and made it stick? Think of the landlords whose property rights would have been violated! This is from http://www.unz.com/isteve/
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A man suspected in the shooting death of a woman at a busy San Francisco tourist destination has seven felony convictions and has been deported five times, most recently in 2009, a federal agency said Friday.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had turned Francisco Sanchez over to San Francisco police March 26 on an outstanding drug warrant, agency spokeswoman Virginia Kice said.
Officers arrested Francisco Sanchez about an hour after Wednesday’s seemingly random slaying of Kathryn Steinle at Pier 14 — one of the busiest attractions in the city. People gather there to take in the views, joggers exercise, and families push strollers at all hours.
Sanchez was on probation for an unspecified conviction, police Sgt. Michael Andraychak said Thursday.
Kice said ICE issued a detainer for Sanchez in March, requesting notification of his release and that he stay in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. The detainer was not honored, she said.
Freya Horne, counsel for the sheriff’s office, said Friday that federal detention orders are not a legal basis to hold someone, so Sanchez was released April 15. San Francisco is a sanctuary city, and local money cannot be spent to cooperate with federal immigration law.
The city does not turn over people who are in the country illegally unless there’s an active warrant for their arrest, she said. Horne said they checked and found none. ICE could have issued an active warrant if they wanted the city to keep him, she said.
“It’s not legal to hold someone on a request to detain. This is not just us. This is a widely adopted position,” Horne said.
Steinle was gunned down while out for an evening stroll with her father along the waterfront. Police said witnesses heard no argument or dispute before the shooting, suggesting it was a random attack.
Perhaps the President will speak at Kathryn Steinle’s funeral?
The net and the media in general have gone mad over Trump's immigration comments. Nowhere, of course, is anything that he said being refuted or ever argued about in the usual sense. What's going on is that he's being threatened, smeared, ridiculed, and called every name in the book.
There's a general notion among liberals, neocons, and the flakier variety of libertarian that human beings are infinitely fungible. That means for our purposes that all immigrants are equally desirable, because they evidently have the anthropological equivalent of Maxwell's Demon at the border, ensuring that only the best cross over. Wrong. The usual rational reply to that is that some people are coming here for the wrong reasons, and/or are of bad character or limited ability, and will therefore hurt a lot more than they will help. If they help at all.
But let's go a little further. We're not really a 'propositional nation' [link]. No nation is. Nations (note that I'm saying 'nation,' not 'country) are ethnically based. And if they change ethnically, they turn into something else, as Ann Coulter says. The Democrats and Republicans seem to think that's just peachy, and look forward to Whites being a minority. I don't. So, I'm supporting Trump.
Quibcag: That last one turned out so well, I think I'll use Lum, of Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら)., for all my Coulter quibcags from now on.
It's hard to keep track of all of them, but it seems to me that all the prospective Republican nominees for President have failed to say anything rational about immigration, and many of them have taken the opportunity to proclaim their irrationality on the subject instead. In reaction to the one prospective nominee who has said rational things about immigration, Donald Trump.
The Democrat/Republican party line is, of course, that all immigrants are wonderful, and that we need them very badly. A few Republicans make a feeble case for maybe being careful not to admit downright criminals, but they're easily talked out of that with inspiring stories of illegal immigrant children winning scholarships and curing cancer and squaring the circle. All made up, of course, but in a good cause, the refrain goes.
And, since the single most important issue is immigration, and because the rest of the Republicans seem perfectly comfortable with Obama's policy of luring illegals in, and flying them in if necessary, putting them on the government dole, and 'de-emphasizing deportation' (i. e. not deporting anybody at all, really), I'm declaring my support for Donald Trump, warts and all. And John Derbyshire agrees, and thinks Ann Coulter would make him a good running mate. At unz.com, he writes:
The events of the past month have left that looking a tad optimistic. In the Cold Civil War between goodwhite progressives and us badwhite traditionalists, the enemy has won a rapid succession of victories and is bursting with triumphalist zeal.
The June 17th church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina played right into the progressive Narrative of the U.S.A. as a place where nervous blacks scurry around in constant fear of violence at the hands of leering, arrogant badwhites who seek to harm them.
In a ruling on the case of Texas v. Inclusive Communities Project the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the irrational and pernicious doctrine of “disparate impact,” which argues that absence of intent to discriminate is no defense against a charge of discrimination.
In this case, “The court decided it did not matter if the state housing department did not explicitly set out to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin—the effect was enough to violate the law.” [Supreme Court: Texas Reinforced Segregated Housing by Liz Crampton, The Texas Tribune, June 25,2015.]
While denying the relevance of intent in the Texas case, the Supremes simultaneouslyhanded down a ruling on Obamacare in King v. Burwell that the intent of those who draft a law supersedes the plain meaning of the actual words in the actual statement of the law.
Chief Justice Roberts ruled with the majority, brushing aside the petitioners’ appeals to federalism.
Next day the Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that homosexual couples must be accorded the same marriage rights as heterosexuals in all states of the Union.
Chief Justice Roberts posted a vigorous dissent, arguing that the ruling violated the principle of federalism.
In the atmosphere of Left triumphalism and jurisprudential confusion generated by these victories, what was previously unthinkable now seems all too possible.
The zealots have, for example, seized on a decision by the U.S. Treasury earlier this year to make the portraits on U.S. money bills more “inclusive.” Their call for all streets, schools, landmarks, and institutions named for Confederate generals and statesmen to be renamed is now fast expanding into demands to de-legitimize the very Founders themselves, or at least those of them that owned slaves.
In the spirit of my AmRen address, commentators have been arguing that we must now be at, or close to, Peak Leftism or Peak Liberalism. In the nature of things, by a sort of Newtonian principle, they say, surely a reaction is overdue—a counter-revolution?
It would be nice to think so, but this latest round of defeats leave me wondering whether, perhaps, things can indeed grow to the sky. Polygamy and polyandry? Legalized incest? Amnesty and instant citizenship for illegal aliens? Federal outlawing of separate Men’s and Women’s lavatories? The return of forced busing? Compulsory integration of housing? Anything seems possible—anything Leftists can dream of.
What can we do about this? Well, we can bellyache on the internet. That is personally satisfying, but not very effectual—mere guerilla harassment of a mighty, well-equipped occupying army. The entire readership of all Dissident Right websites doesn’t add up to the population of an average provincial city.
(An amusing feature of the current situation is that some of the less intelligent foot-soldiers in that army still believe themselves to be the counter-culture, Speaking Truth to Power. As Ramzpaul told the unkempt, neck-bearded little gaggle of antifa demonstrators outside the 2014 AmRen conference: “Do you really imagine you’re sticking it to the Man? You are the Man!”)
Meanwhile the Left consolidates its hold on all the commanding heights of our society: the Main Stream Media, the schools and universities, the big corporations, the courts, the churches, the political party bosses.
We webizens can bloviate to our hearts’ content; the rulers don’t really care. They have perfected the art of running a “beggars’ democracy.”
This refers to the more relaxed sort of despotism in which the lower orders—the beggars—are permitted some modest freedoms of expression, so long as they do not challenge the basic assumptions ofthe state ideology too boldly.
Steve Sailer doesn’t get invited on Fox News; Jared Taylor isn’t being asked to give college commencement addresses.
Occasional eruptions of citizen resistance to the ruling power are easily smacked down. When supporters of the Confederate flag were set upon by an antifa mob in Columbia, South Carolina on Monday this week, there was only one arrest… of a flag supporter.
One of my favorite comic strips was canceled some years back, and now it may be returning in a new format. My Cage, by Ed Power and Melissa DeJesus may well be the cutest damn comic strip that has ever existed, as is suggested by the illustration here of one of the main characters. Melissa is the artist, and while she's clearly influenced by anime, you'd never mistake her work for anime, because it has a tightness and, dare I say, realism, that anime seldom attains. But it's not just the irresistible artwork. Ed Power is one of the most creative gagwriters I've ever come across. Now, Ed is a flaming liberal, as far as I can tell, and I'm as far from that as you can get, so he has to be good to appeal to me so much, right? Actually, you could read through quite a bit of the strip and never know what his politics were, because that's not what it's about. It's about characters, relationships, and culture in general. The strip is always amusing, and is often absolutely hilarious.