Friday, February 27, 2015

Liberal Myths about Non-Liberals

Stephen W. Browne has it dead right here. Wandering around, on the net and elsewhere, I find that conservatives, libertarians, and other halfway reasonable people understand liberals very well and are seldom surprised by them. There are a lot of theories about why liberals are the way they are, but what way they are is pretty well known.

On, the other hand, liberals of course never listen to nonliberals. They just cover their pink little ears and go WA WA WA WA WA so they won't hear forbidden things. They "find out" what conservative and other nonliberals think by watching TV and listening to other liberals make stuff up, either in the pseudo-news shows of dingbats like John Stuart, or as characters in dramas and sitcoms, dreamed up by egregiously liberal Hollywood writers.

Just the other day I was chatting with some silly liberals about racial gaps in IQ — American Caucasoids averaging 100 IQ and American Congoids averaging 85 IQ. One of the charming little liberals replied, saying:

"Then you think that all Whites are smarter than all Blacks, eh?"

Since no one in the world thinks that, this notion is either something the little liberal heard from his liberal mentors, making it up, or it results from his own inability to understand the concept of "average." Probably both. Another thing you always hear from liberals is that all we conservative/libertarians are fundamentalist Christians who hate women, Blacks, yadda yadda yadda.

Conservative and libertarians, on the other hand, understand liberals very well. They're pathetic duckspeaking sheep.
---------
Quibcag: The girl is one of the characters from Lucky Star (らき☆すた RakiSuta)

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Isis-Chan

If you want to know what this is all about, go here:  https://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/a-frank-look-at-isis%E3%81%A1%E3%82%83%E3%82%93/

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

C. S. Lewis on the Nanny State


Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Nations in Decline

Most thinking people think that the West and all its nations, including the United States, are in decline. For liberals and neocons, it seems just the reverse. They see the expanding role of government to be an improvement, a sort of progress. And when social rules and laws change to elevate dysfunctional people to elite status while the normal is pathologized, that's a big step forward. And according to Sir John Glubb, when nations and cultures decline, it's downright spooky how they all decline with the same symptoms. This is from The Irish Savant, here:
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-lesson-from-history.html

A lesson from history


Sweeping generalised interpretations of broad historical trends tend to be suspect especially when used to push a contemporary agenda.  As with the social "sciences" the desired outcome may first be identified and the historical interpretation then retrofitted to conform to Approved Narrative. Sir John Glubb can fairly be excluded from this charge. A former head of the Arab Legion he spent many years examining eleven empires and discovered an astonishing consistency in their trajectory from growth through decline to eventual disappearance. He embodied this in his 1978 book The Fate of Empires and the Search For Survival, a summary of which can be read (here).  It should be read given its uncanny relevance to our own decline today.

Just take these excerpts alone:


The people of the great nations of the past seem normally to have imagined that their pre-eminence would last forever. Rome appeared to its citizens to be destined for all time to be the mistress of the world. The Abbasid Khalifs of Baghdad declared that God had appointed them to rule mankind until the day of judgement. Seventy years ago, many people in Britain believed that the empire would endure for ever."

“When the welfare state was introduced in Britain, it was hailed as a new high-water mark in the history of human development. History, however, seems to suggest that the age of decline of a great nation is often a period which shows a tendency to philanthropy and to sympathy for other races … The rights of citizenship are generously bestowed on every race, even those formerly subject, and the equality of mankind is proclaimed. The Roman Empire passed through this phase, when equal citizenship was thrown open to all peoples, such provincials even becoming Senators and emperors[And Glubb never even heard of Obummer!]The Arab Empire of Baghdad was equally, perhaps even more, generous. During the Age of Conquests, pure-bred Arabs had constituted a ruling class, but in the ninth century the empire was completely cosmopolitan."[And on its way to self-destruction].

The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolized by men. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed. 
“When I first read these contemporary descriptions of tenth-century Baghdad, I could scarcely believe my eyes……The resemblance of all the details was breathtaking – the break-up of the empire, the abandonment of sexual morality, the ‘pop’ singers with their guitars, the entry of women into the professions, the five day week......In the second half of the tenth century, as a result, much obscene sexual language came increasingly into use, such as would not have been tolerated in an earlier age.” 
“Neither is decadence physical. The citizens of nations in decline are sometimes described as too physically emasculated to be able to bear hardship or make great efforts. This does not seem to be a true picture. Citizens of great nations in decadence are normally physically larger and stronger than those of their barbarian invaders.  In a wider national sphere, the survival of the nation depends basically on the loyalty and self-sacrifice of its citizens."  [But] "the citizens of such a nation will no longer make an effort to save themselves, because they are not convinced that anything in life is worth saving." [Sweden, or indeed any advanced Western nation today?]
“As the nation declines in power and wealth, a universal pessimism gradually pervades the people, and itself hastens the decline … Frivolity is the frequent companion of pessimism … The resemblance between declining nations in this respect is truly surprising … The Roman mob, as we have seen, demanded free meals and public games … Gladiatorial shows, chariot races and athletic events were their passion. In the Byzantine Empire, the rivalries of the Greens and the Blues in the hippodrome attained the importance of a major crisis … The heroes of declining nations are always the same – the athlete, the singer or the actor.”

“We have not drawn from history the obvious conclusion that material success is the result of courage, endurance and hard work – a conclusion nevertheless obvious from the history of the meteoric rise of our own ancestors. This self-assurance of its own superiority seems to go hand-in-hand with the luxury resulting from wealth, in undermining the character of the dominant race.”

Hegel was correct  once again when he wrote "...what experience and history teach us is this - that people and governments never have learned from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."

Meanwhile, hastening the process of self-destruction along at merry pace is this guy, hiding in plain sight.
---------

A Frank Look at Muslims

Guest post by Matt Bailey:

There are 1.6 billions Muslim, and whatever else is wrong with them, one thing they AREN'T is lotion-handed urban eunuchs of the "I would never carry a gun or take a human life, even to defend myself" variety. In point of fact, they no kidding look positively on the idea of DYING while killing perceived enemies. So trying to bluff them with violence is right out, obviously. Right now our policy consists of blowing up just enough of their women and babies to get them really pissed off, but not enough to exterminate them, which probably cannot be done anyway. See the problem here? And not only do we piss them off, we practically INVITE them to immigrate into the West. Our policy is going into the woods to throw rocks at a hornet's nest and wondering why you get stung, then taking the hornet's nest complete with inhabitants and larvae into your house.
---------
Ex-Army here. Only thing I can nitpick about in Matt's post is that "practically invite." No "practically" about it. Our policy towards wannabee immigrants is to say. 

"You're a refugee, right? Of course you are! C'mon in and sign up for some freebies! And don't forget to demand affirmative action and other special accommodations."

And of course we have churches, synagogues, and mosques, along with all kinds of "progressive" groups, twisting and evading what few immigration laws that we do have to get as many Muslims in as possible, lecture them on how Whitey discriminates against them, and demand taxpayer money to take care of their every need.
-------
Quibcag: Bee girl by LuigiL

Sunday, February 22, 2015

How to treat liberals

The below is a very nice article, from which I extracted the very nice quibcag here, but I couldn't figure out what "LARP" means.  Now, I know it means "live-action role playing," but that doesn't seem to fit, but maybe it does.  I looked around the net and found this definition by Spider58x:

In the alt-right parlance, "LARPing" refers to neckbearded losers who put all their mental energy into believing pie-in-the-sky, never-gonna-happen political fantasylands, like seceding to create a white ethnostate (AKA "Skyrimism"), seasteading, re-instating the House of Stuart in Great Britain, or putting some some sort of formalist philospher-king in charge of a city-state.

You can read more of what he says here [link].
 
The message of this article is a good one. Do everything you can to make Democrats (or liberals, or progressives, or whatever they're calling themselves right now) look like the immature, lying, slimeballs that they are.

Never compromise with them, never accept any of their premises, never "work with" them. Their goal, whether they know it or not, is our destruction, and you can't meet something like that halfway.

Pass this around with the URL, or just the quibcag.  This is from: http://therightstuff.biz/2015/02/22/the-policy-stuff/
 


The Policy Stuff

In recent years, I’ve gradually lost interest in LARPy policy arguments. 2010 was a turning point for me. All the liberals I knew were clearly arguing in favor of some imaginary health care reform that had at best a tenuous relationship to what Harry Reid planned to inflict on us. Meanwhile, conservatives were arguing for policy that had exactly 0% chance of passing. What we got was a dildo straight in the pooper, and all our LARPing on all sides had exactly jack diddly crap to do with the outcome.

The usual proposed alternative to LARPing is compromise. The idea is that if we meet the left, they might replace the double dragon dildo with a smaller, smoother model, and may even let us lube up first. This, however, is a fool’s errand, as we all know the next compromise will simply a bigger, rougher, drier ravaging.
Now, conservatives have won major victories in the last couple decades on things like home schooling, the income tax, gun rights, and regulations on abortion. So it is clear that the Overton Window can in fact be moved rightward. As the alt-right grows and becomes a nontrivial influence in the Republican Party, what kind of policy should we support?
The correct thing to do is support the most viable policies, positions, and politicians that provoke the most outrage and butthurt among the left. A crying, screaming, raging mess of a human being is intrinsically repulsive to the median voter. The more repulsive the left becomes, the more attractive rebellion against them becomes, the harder it becomes for them to win election, the easier it is to ignore their howls of protest as we destroy their institutions. No one likes crybabies.

What we want is for the general public to regard liberals as disgusting, traitorous crybabies who utterly lack self-control and hate their country. This should not be terribly hard, as liberals actually are disgusting, embarrassing crybabies who utterly lack self-control and hate their country. One only need read Gawker, XOJane, or the Huffington Post for about twenty minutes to observe what nauseating people liberals truly are.
Remember, we’re talking about people who are okay with mass child rape so long as the rapists are Muslims.
This can result in supporting what would otherwise be counterintuitive policy.  A small marginal cut to a welfare program or a university budget may seem too trivial to fight over, and in the past Republicans rolled over on these fights. I am asserting that these are the most important fights to win, because they make Democrats look bad. The Democrat-driven shutdown over cuts to Planned Parenthood was followed by a historic Republican sweep in 2014. Freaking out because Bruce Rauner won’t pretend money can be pulled out of unicorn butts isn’t winning them friends in Illinois. Losing their goddamned minds because Scott Walker said state employees shouldn’t be forced to join a union has only solidified Republican control.
I have always said that the road to reaction starts with refusing to compromise with the left on anything. We don’t just want the most right-wing candidate to win. We want the left to lose its legitimacy, and for that, we’re going to need their help.
--------
Quibcag: The crybaby is one of the girls, Renko, I think, from "Stella Women's Academy, High School Division Class C3" (特例措置団体ステラ女学院高等科C3部

Oxymoron of the Week: Social Justice Warrior Libertarians

I had the good fortune many years ago to first encounter explicit libertarianism in the form of a novel by my (now) good friend L. Neil Smith called The Probability Broach [link]. I was intrigued by his thinking, which was much like my own, and went on to find other libertarian works by Hospers and Rothbard and others.  After an initial euphoria, I realized that the basic flaw in libertarianism was that, like pacifism only works if everybody is a pacifist, it works best when everybody is a libertarian. And hardly anybody is, even here in the US, home of the Founding Fathers, who were pretty much radical libertarians by today's standards.

There's another flaw, though, and it's not the fault of the basic philosophy itself, but of its adherents. It has become contaminated with political correctness, every bit as much as liberalism and neoconservatism have, and is rapidly trying to purge all the politically incorrect, like me, out of it. Sorry, guys — I was here first. Me and Tom and that other Tom and George and Benjamin, etc.

And the most extreme manifestation of political correctness currently is the "Social Justice Warrior," and libertarians who become SJW's are completely indistinguishable from the left. Which is the way the left wants it. This new libertarianism, which insists that a libertarian must be circumcised accept all the social assumptions of the left, has been called "Thick Libertarianism," and will probably end the movement for good and all soon, and the few sensible libertarians left will have to think up a new word for their philosophy, because "libertarian" will then just mean a bunch of crossdressing Marxists.  To read more about Thick Libertarianism just enter the term in "search this blog" on the top right there.

Think I'm exaggerating?  This from:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/libertarians-morphing-into-leftist-social-justice-warriors-at-international-students-for-liberty-conference

Libertarians Morphing into Leftist “Social Justice Warriors” At International Students for Liberty Conference

I promised myself I wouldn’t fall back on stereotypes and cheap shots. I swore I wouldn’t take the easy way out. But when the first things you see at the International Students for Liberty Conference, held February 13-15 in Washington D.C., are two dudes in fedoras groping each other and a desperate looking guy asking where the LGBT party is, it’s hard to resist.
The conference was not exactly a “safe space” for your typical FoxNews Republican. The most popular speaker was Edward Snowden, a man neoconservatives consider nothing less than a traitor [Libertarian Students Honor Their Chosen Hero, Edward Snowden, by Robby Soave, Reason, February 15, 2015]. “Conservative” Senators like Marco Rubio were objects of contempt, rather than reverence [Justin Amash Chastises Marco Rubio Over PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Stance, by Stephanie Slade, Reason, February 14, 2015].
And, true to Ann Coulter’s famous taunt, delegates shied away from issues like Affirmative Action, freedom of association and property rights to giggle about drugs, homosexuality, and other issues that wouldn’t offend your local Dean of Multicultural Affairs. The choice to present former Mexican President Vicente Fox as some kind of new libertarian hero speaks for itself [Vicente Fox Stumps to Legalize All Drugs Worldwide, by Fergus Hodgson, PanAm, February 16, 2015].
And the break between the Beltway Right and the young libertarian movement is actually overstated. Both groups are committed to Open Borders. Both groups are indifferent or actively hostile to any nationalist, National Conservative or Identitarian movements. And most importantly, both groups are against any attempt to reverse the Left’s social engineering project. While the typical Republican simply wants to avoid the Left’s Social Justice Warriors, the libertarians want to join them.
Ron Paul learned this the hard way at the conference, where the one-time libertarian idol was heavily criticized. Paul delivered a rambling address about the universal appeal of liberty and the need to renounce aggression, but he didn’t receive the kind of rapturous reception he would have gotten even three years ago.
Mackenzie Holst, a student from Texas Christian University who claimed to be linked to the “Center for a Stateless Society,” read a condemnation of Paul for his refusal to condemn his supposedly racist “Ron Paul Newsletters” and everyone tied to them [Edward Snowden and Ron Paul Kick Off Libertarian Student Conference With a Little Kerfuffle About Russia, by David Weigel, BloombergPolitics, February 13, 2015] This is rich coming from an organization dealing with the revelation that one of its founders was a self-admitted child molester [Freedom of Disassociation: Regarding Brad Spengler, Center for a Stateless Society, January 24, 2015]
To his credit, on this occasion Paul did not back down completely, stating, “For me to disavow everything I ever wrote in a newsletter, I mean, that’s foolishness” [Ron Paul: ‘I’m not pro-Russian. I’m pro factsby Ashley Killough, CNN, February 15, 2015]. (See how easy that was, Republicans?) A “no true libertarian” debate then erupted on Twitter over whether the questioner—who has since deleted her social media—was actually a libertarian or simply a Hillary supporting interloper.
More than one speaker asked critical questions of Paul regarding his perceived pro-Putin stance, especially one attendee from Kiev. Of course, as Paul said, he is not actually “pro-Putin” (although his Ron Paul Institute sometimes sounds like it). He simply does not want the U.S. to become actively involved in the dispute between Russia and Ukraine. However, as Putin is now seen by many as an “authoritarian”—especially because of Russia’s hostility to homosexual activism, an unspoken element in the libertarian movement—many self-described libertarians and classical liberals are pushing for an aggressive challenge to Putin’s Russia. For libertarians, Ron Paul is simply no longer a unifying figure.
(His son Senator Rand Paul also spoke at the conference. The BBC’s Anthony Zurcher reports reviews of the younger Paul “were generally supportive—but with some concerns” [Rand Paul and his Ron Paul conundrum, February 16 2015]).
So what does unify contemporary libertarians? It isn’t opposition to the state as such. State power used in defense of Leftist social policy, as in the case of gay marriage, was widely accepted. “Paleo-libertarianism” was almost entirely absent, as is discussion of concepts like local control or states’ rights.
We can’t even say that SFL is really upset by socialism as such. The presence of Oliver Stone as a speaker, the same Oliver Stone who was recently promoting his Hugo Chavez hagiography Mi Amigo Hugo, is self-discrediting and requires no further comment [Oliver Stone’s Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez, by Jeffrey Tayler, Foreign Policy, May 13, 2014].
What does upset Students for Liberty is any kind of national solidarity. Insofar as any issue was taken for granted, it was Open Borders. Bryan Caplan, Andrew Napolitano, David Boaz, and just about every other speaker wants more immigration.
The European contingent from overseas Students for Liberty chapters was chiefly distinguished for fighting against the nationalist movements in their own countries. The “Student of the Year” went to a feminist in Serbia whose activism consists of gay pride parades and standing up to “Nazis” in defense of drug use. It’s not surprising that self-designated libertarians now pen tributes to the “libertarian” influence of institutions like the nation-crushing European Union and its “achievement on behalf of liberty” [Two Nationalisms: Why Pro-Liberty Is Not Anti-EU, by Christoph Heuermann, AtlasOne, July 24, 2014].
The truth is that the libertarianism—especially the “millennial libertarianism” or “second wave libertarianism” that Students for Liberty is determined to promote— privileges cultural liberalism above restricting the state. You can’t take concepts like Leftist buzzwords like “privilege” and “normativity” seriously and still defend limited government. Once you accept these kinds of concepts, the inevitable performance gaps between racial groups, nations, and sexes become evidence of “oppression” rather than of objectively existing inequalities.
Of course, libertarians like Murray Rothbard recognized this, which is why he openly defended concepts like racial differences in average intelligence. Whatever name-dropping contemporary libertarians practice, it’s doubtful that the author of Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature would even be allowed on the stage at something like Students for Liberty.
Just as leftists no longer bother with the economic theories of Marx and look down on the white working classes they used to champion, contemporary libertarians are less offended by the Labor Theory of Value than the Ron Paul-supporting Christians of the John Birch Society. What Steve Sailer observed about Marxists is now true of libertarians—the people they champion are not the working masses but the transgender CEOs.
Thus, despite a massive organizational presence and huge amounts of money, the libertarian student activists on campus mean nothing. They are simply a redundant appendage to the already-existing status quo.
For example, take Students for Liberty’s Campus Coordinator at Duke University, Miriam Weeks. She’s best known as porn star “Belle Knox,” and is a proudly advertised guest speaker for the supposedly more conservative leaning Young Americans for Liberty [YAL@UNC-Chapel Hill Off To An Amazing Start, by Alex Johnson, Young Americans for Liberty, September 12, 2014]. Personally, I’m less triggered by her being a porn star than being a supposed libertarian whose “idol” is Gloria Allred [Porn Star Belle Knox Is Remaking Herself As A Libertarian Activist, by Hunter Walker, Business Insider, January 28, 2015]
The worst part of all of this is that this faux libertarian student activism will only grow because of the statist policy of mass immigration. As President Obama revealingly put it, mass immigration will turn the country into a “hodgepodge” devoid of identity and incapable of self-government. As there will still be a need for an American “Right,” why not a group of atomized, culturally progressive, and excruciatingly PC activists to lobby for tax cuts and free trade?
We may not get limited government, but the Beltway Right’s corporate donors will still get theirs. You might even call it Grover Norquist’s model political movement – which is probably why this pillar of Conservatism Inc. felt free to attend.
The new libertarian movement isn’t new, isn’t libertarian, and isn’t really a movement. It’s simply an AstroTurf lobbying effort that carefully guides students onto a path of pointless posturing. It reinforces the status quo. It undermines what resistance to the System already exists.
It’s less a challenge to the Beltway Right than an indispensable support working to ensure that a real alternative can never emerge.
James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.
-----------
Quibcag: Don't know who the girl is, but she looks smart. The quibcag itself was inspired by a net conversation with some "libertarians" who decided I was a racist because I said that Blacks vote Democratic because they want free stuff and special privileges. I asked them if they thought there was some other reason for their overwhelming Democratic voting. No answer so far :)