Monday, July 6, 2015

The Liberal Mind, If We Can Call It That

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).

Sunday, July 5, 2015

How Liberals Think

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:

Quibcag: Again we have Marii of Joshiraku (じょしらく).

The Phony Left

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, a site you should visit at least once a week.  He writes:

No Truce With the Left

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Illegal Immigrants Murder People, and Pointing That Out is Bigotry

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

Happy Independence Day
The Associated Press reports:
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?
Read the rest, and see some videos, here:

Quibcag: Charmingly illustrated by Sera Masumi of Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン).

The Fungiblity of Immigration (There's very little)

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.

Trump-Coulter 2016!

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, he writes:

Trump-Coulter 2016!

Friday, July 3, 2015

The Return of "My Cage"

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.

Anyhow, Ed and Melissa have come up with a new paradigm to enable them to do the strip without starving to death. Read about it here:

And do read down to the link, where you can read three years of the strip that have already been done. Consider becoming a patron. Seems reasonable enough to me!