Sunday, December 21, 2014

Paul Gottfried on Fascism

"Fascism" has become nothing more than a dirty word, used by communists and communist dupes to smear everybody who disagrees with them. Since most libertarians aren't communists, the ones who use the word "fascism" that way are, alas, communist dupes, at least insofar as vocabulary is concerned. They need to learn a little history.

Fascism, to those who know something about history, was a system adopted to oppose communism in Europe after World War I. It appropriated a lot of techniques that the communists had originated or perfected, in order to oppose, them, in the 'fight fire with fire' sense. The most obvious such technique was to fight communist street fighters with fascist street fighters, while most of the other political factions looked on helplessly while the communists ruled the streets. I'll leave you to decide if there's anything analogous to that situation in America today.

I've had things to say about fascism before, so rather than repeat it all, I'll direct you to it:

As is shown, this post first appeared in The American Conservative in 2012, but I found it just today reprinted by Nicholas Stix here:

By Paul Gottfried
June 6, 2012
The American Conservative

Having been at work on a book dealing with changing definitions of the “F word,” meaning in this case not the one-time obscenity but the ultimate evil in the world of political correctness, I find my comments on the subject have caused considerable irritation. Although I once assumed that only the conventional left was fixated on fascist dangers, I now know the fascist specter is scaring libertarians as well. My statements that fascism must be understood in an interwar European context, that it was a reaction from the right against the threat of Communist and other leftist revolutionary upheavals, that garden-variety fascism — for example, as practiced through the first 14 years of Mussolini’s rule in Italy — was neither really socialist nor totalitarian, have all elicited angry comments from libertarian bloggers.

Like the more conventional leftists, these libertarians seem grossly ignorant of 20th-century history. Right and left for my critics are what they are thought to be in the U.S. at this moment. The two reference points have always been the same, and for the right the eternal battle has been about fighting the “state,” which has been around since the time the pyramids were built. Those who have advanced state power have always been immutably on the left; and presumably the left includes Amenhotep, Henry VIII, Cardinal Richelieu, and Bismarck, just as the right has always featured such stalwart conservatives as Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill.

One hostile blogger was concerned that I couldn’t see this simple truth because “I am so blinded by my hatred for NRO.” This obviously referred to my amusement at how the one-time editor of that site had tried to link Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to the politics of both Italian fascism and German Nazism. Apparently all defenders of the welfare state were or are fascists and somehow implicated in Hitler’s crimes. For partisan reasons, Republicans on this telling are spared association with the F-term, even when implicated in the same welfare politics.

I was amused to see an essay on fascism by a Canadian Bill Gairdner in the New Criterion (October 2012) that resuscitates one of Jonah Goldberg’s assertions, that the multicultural left by supporting minority set asides is moving along the path of interwar fascism. Like Goldberg and like my hostile bloggers, Gairdner makes “fascism” fit anything he doesn’t happen to like. Thus the f-word is stretched to apply to such nuisances as Arab youth rioting in suburban Paris and gender studies at American universities.

Not to dwell overly long on my latest contact with partisan dishonesty and historical ignorance, let me state the following about fascism as a historical phenomenon. Already in 1946 George Orwell, who was definitely a man of the Left, noticed that after the Second World War “everyone in England is calling what he doesn’t like fascist.” Note Orwell was making this critical observation well before the 1960s, when the rise of the New Left and the emergence of Holocaust studies (which often equates all fascism with Hitler and the Final Solution) turned the F-word into the world’s greatest and most insidious evil.

Moreover, the anti-New Deal Right in the U.S. had added to the semantic and conceptual confusion by equating the New Deal with fascism. In this case however there was some justification. FDR and his advisor Rexford Tugwell both expressed admiration for Mussolini’s economic reforms in Italy, the extent of which however they vastly exaggerated.

Viewed contextually (which according to thehistorian Herbert Butterfield and Butterfield’s biographer Kenneth McIntyre is the way historians should be practicing their craft), fascism was a movement that prospered on the European continent between the two world wars. It was an imitation of the left that tried to pull along the working class, but it depended mostly on bourgeois support. Its economics were corporatist in theory but in practice usually left most of the economy in private hands. Unlike the left, fascists believed in hierarchy and in the organization of the nation along organic and vocational lines. But these preferences led only to minimal change in the social structure, and except for their style and fondness for pageantry, it is hard to distinguish some fascist or quasi-fascist regimes from traditional authoritarian ones.

The regime of the Spanish Nationalist leader Francisco Franco was for the most part a military dictatorship that turned into a caretaker government practicing economic modernization. But Franco tried to integrate into his coalition the fascist Falange organization, which had helped him defeat the left in the Spanish Civil War. And so he adopted some of the trappings and personnel of the Falangists, before unceremoniously dropping both after the Second World War.

In Austria, the anti-Marxist and anti-Nazi regime of the “clerical fascist” Engelbert Dollfuss in the early 1930s glued onto a Catholic-bourgeois ruling coalition some of the rituals and rhetoric of his friend Mussolini, who for several years was Dollfuss’s protector against Hitler. The “Austro-fascist” experiment began to unravel when the Nazis killed Dollfuss in 1934, when Mussolini changed sides in 1936, and when Hitler occupied Austria in 1938.

Although the fascists were not “conservative” in any traditional sense, they were probably more so than my libertarian critics. In interwar Europe being “conservative” did not mean “being for markets,” legalizing addictive drugs, or distributing anarcho-capitalist leaflets. It meant favoring a traditional state that accepted a traditional social order and which was usually tied to an established church. In that bygone world my libertarian bloggers would have been considered hopelessly demented leftists. Although fascists were not particularly agreeable to traditional conservatives, philosophical libertarians would have been even less popular in these circles. European liberals may have been closer to the anarcho-capitalist mentality but only slightly. Unlike our libertarians, old-fashioned liberals held Victorian social and moral views and were highly suspicious of democracy.

Being a broadminded reactionary, I would allow for a broad understanding of the right as a counter-force to the left depending on how the two terms are understood at a particular time and in a particular place. In the present American context, being an advocate of minimal government means opposing leftist public administration and its multicultural and leveling policies. Libertarianism, viewed from this situational perspective, is a reactionary position, just as opposing Communist subversives was in Europe after the Bolshevik Revolution. The right has a functional identity, in the sense that it stands athwart the left and tries to limit its destructive power. That is what defines the right operationally, certainly not faith in representative democracy or a belief that each person should be able to do his own thing. Although one may personally like those positions, they are only accidentally right-wing.

Paul Gottfried is a TAC contributing editor and the author, most recently, of Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal.
Quibcag: Fascist girl swiped from

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Rothbard on Egalitarianism

There are a lot of things you can say about the left, but one of its most salient characteristics is its total rejection of logic, mathematics, science, and anything that can be considered 'thinking.' With the left, it's all feelings. This is why the left seized on the principle of equality before the law and twisted it into a notion of the intrinsic equality of all people everywhere, an idea, as Orwell put it, so absurd that only an intellectual could entertain it. Of course, he mean self-styled intellectual, people who reject facts and dress up their whims and enthusiasms with logical-sounding rhetoric. And whims are the opposite of logic, and enthusiasm for an idea is no proof of its validity.

This may come as a surprise to many of my "thick" libertarian friends, but the idea of human equality is bogus, wrong, self-destructive, and completely inimical to any actual libertarian principles. Such egalitarianism is of course basic to all the modes of thought that are hostile to human freedom in general, and libertarianism in particular. Such modes include communism, socialism, liberalism, and neoconservatism. (Neoconservatives are of course not conservatives, but liberals who pretend to be conservative. Not wolves in sheep's clothing as much as shepherds in sheep's clothing.)

Murray Rothbard is a bit neglected these days, because he kept saying things that make "thick" libertarian slap their hands over their little pink ears and chant "LA LA LA LA LA LA...." And here we have some of that sort of thing, from:

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
For well over a century, the Left has generally been conceded to have morality, justice, and “idealism” on its side; the conservative opposition to the Left has largely been confined to the “impracticality” of its ideals. A common view, for example, is that socialism is splendid “in theory,” but that it cannot “work” in practical life. What the conservatives failed to see is that while short-run gains can indeed be made by appealing to the impracticality of radical departures from the status quo, that by conceding the ethical and the “ideal” to the Left they were doomed to long-run defeat. For if one side is granted ethics and the “ideal” from the start, then that side will be able to effect gradual but sure changes in its own direction; and as these changes accumulate, the stigma of “impracticality” becomes less and less directly relevant. The conservative opposition, having staked its all on the seemingly firm ground of the “practical” (that is, the status quo) is doomed to lose as thestatus quo moves further in the left direction. The fact that the unreconstructed Stalinists are universally considered to be the “conservatives” in the Soviet Union is a happy logical joke upon conservatism; for in Russia the unrepentant statists are indeed the repositories of at least a superficial “practicality” and of a clinging to the existing status quo.
Never has the virus of “practicality” been more widespread than in the United States, for Americans consider themselves a “practical” people, and hence, the opposition to the Left, while originally stronger than elsewhere, has been perhaps the least firm at its foundation. It is now the advocates of the free market and the free society who have to meet the common charge of “impracticality.”
In no area has the Left been granted justice and morality as extensively and almost universally as in its espousal of massive equality. It is rare indeed in the United States to find anyone, especially any intellectual, challenging the beauty and goodness of the egalitarian ideal. So committed is everyone to this ideal that “impracticality” — that is, the weakening of economic incentives — has been virtually the only criticism against even the most bizarre egalitarian programs. The inexorable march of egalitarianism is indication enough of the impossibility of avoiding ethical commitments; the fiercely “practical” Americans, in attempting to avoid ethical doctrines, cannot help setting forth such doctrines, but they can now only do so in unconscious, ad hoc, and unsystematic fashion. Keynes’s famous insight that “practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist” — is true all the more of ethical judgments and ethical theory.[1]
The unquestioned ethical status of “equality” may be seen in the common practice of economists. Economists are often caught in a value-judgment bind — eager to make political pronouncements. How can they do so while remaining “scientific” and value free? In the area of egalitarianism, they have been able to make a flat value judgment on behalf of equality with remarkable impunity. Sometimes this judgment has been frankly personal; at other times, the economist has pretended to be the surrogate of “society” in the course of making its value judgment. The result, however, is the same. Consider, for example, the late Henry C. Simons. After properly criticizing various “scientific” arguments for progressive taxation, he came out flatly for progression as follows:
The case for drastic progression in taxation must be rested on the case against inequality — on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing distribution of wealth and income reveals a degree (and/or kind) of inequality which is distinctly evil or unlovely.[2]
Another typical tactic may be culled from a standard text on public finance. According to Professor John F. Due,
The strongest argument for progression is the fact that the consensus of opinion in society today regards progression as necessary for equity. This is, in turn, based on the principle that the pattern of income distribution, before taxes, involves excessive inequality.
The latter “can be condemned on the basis of inherent unfairness in terms of the standards accepted by society.”[3]
Whether the economist boldly advances his own value judgments or whether he presumes to reflect the values of “society,” his immunity from criticism has been remarkable nonetheless. While candor in proclaiming one’s values may be admirable, it is surely not enough; in the quest for truth it is scarcely sufficient to proclaim one’s value judgments as if they must be accepted as tablets from above that are not themselves subject to intellectual criticism and evaluation. Is there no requirement that these value judgments be in some sense valid, meaningful, cogent, true?
“It is rare indeed in the United States to find anyone, especially any intellectual, challenging the beauty and goodness of the egalitarian ideal.”
To raise such considerations, of course, is to flout the modern canons of pure wertfreiheit in social science from Max Weber onward, as well as the still older philosophic tradition of the stern separation of “fact and value,” but perhaps it is high time to raise such fundamental questions. Suppose, for example, that Professor Simons’s ethical or aesthetic judgment was not on behalf of equality but of a very different social ideal.
Suppose, for example, he had been in favor of the murder of all short people, of all adults under five feet, six inches in height. And suppose he had then written, “The case for the liquidation of all short people must be rested on the case against the existence of short people — on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing number of short adults is distinctly evil or unlovely.” One wonders if the reception accorded to Professor Simons’s remarks by his fellow economists or social scientists would have been quite the same.
Or, we can ponder Professor Due writing similarly on behalf of the “opinion of society today” in the Germany of the 1930s with regard to the social treatment of Jews. The point is that in all these cases the logical status of Simons’s or Due’s remarks would have been precisely the same, even though their reception by the American intellectual community would have been strikingly different.
My point so far has been twofold:
  1. that it is not enough for an intellectual or social scientist to proclaim his value judgments — that these judgments must be rationally defensible and must be demonstrable to be valid, cogent, and correct: in short, that they must no longer be treated as above intellectual criticism; and
  2. that the goal of equality has for too long been treated uncritically and axiomatically as the ethical ideal.
Thus, economists in favor of egalitarian programs have typically counterbalanced their uncriticized “ideal” against possible disincentive effects on economic productivity; but rarely has the ideal itself been questioned.[4]
Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself — should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.
“The goal of equality has for too long been treated uncritically and axiomatically as the ethical ideal.”
Suppose, for example, that it has come to be adopted as a universal ethical goal that all men be able to fly by flapping their arms. Let us assume that “proflappers” have been generally conceded the beauty and goodness of their goal, but have been criticized as “impractical.” But the result is unending social misery as society tries continually to move in the direction of arm flying, and the preachers of arm flapping make everyone’s lives miserable for being either lax or sinful enough not to live up to the common ideal. The proper critique here is to challenge the “ideal” goal itself; to point out that the goal itself is impossible in view of the physical nature of man and the universe; and, therefore, to free mankind from its enslavement to an inherently impossible and, hence, evil goal.
But this liberation could never occur so long as the anti-arm-fliers continued to be solely in the realm of the “practical” and to concede ethics and “idealism” to the high priests of arm flying. The challenge must take place at the core — at the presumed ethical superiority of a nonsensical goal. The same, I hold, is true of the egalitarian ideal, except that its social consequences are far more pernicious than an endless quest for man’s flying unaided. For the condition of equality would wreak far more damage upon mankind.
What, in fact, is “equality”? The term has been much invoked but little analyzed. A and B are “equal” if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute. Thus, if Smith and Jones are both exactly six feet in height, then they may be said to be “equal” in height. If two sticks are identical in length, then their lengths are “equal,” etc. There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be “equal” in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all of their attributes. This means, of course, that equality of all men — the egalitarian ideal — can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction — a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity.
Indeed, it is precisely in horror fiction where the logical implications of an egalitarian world have been fully drawn. Professor Schoeck has resurrected for us the depiction of such a world in the British anti-utopian novelFacial Justice, by L.P. Hartley, in which envy is institutionalized by the State’s making sure that all girls’ faces are equally pretty, with medical operations being performed on both beautiful and ugly girls to bring all of their faces up or down to the general common denominator.[5]
A short story by Kurt Vonnegut provides an even more comprehensive description of a fully egalitarian society. Thus, Vonnegut begins his story, “Harrison Bergeron”:
The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
The “handicapping” worked partly as follows:
Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.[6]
The horror we all instinctively feel at these stories is the intuitive recognition that men are notuniform, that the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation — in short, inequality. An egalitarian society can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion; and, even here, we all believe and hope the human spirit of individual man will rise up and thwart any such attempts to achieve an ant-heap world. In short, the portrayal of an egalitarian society is horror fiction because, when the implications of such a world are fully spelled out, we recognize that such a world and such attempts are profoundly antihuman; being antihuman in the deepest sense, the egalitarian goal is, therefore, evil and any attempts in the direction of such a goal must be considered evil as well.
“If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory.”
The great fact of individual difference and variability (that is, inequality) is evident from the long record of human experience; hence, the general recognition of the antihuman nature of a world of coerced uniformity. Socially and economically, this variability manifests itself in the universal division of labor, and in the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” — the insight that, in every organization or activity, a few (generally the most able and/or the most interested) will end up as leaders, with the mass of the membership filling the ranks of the followers. In both cases, the same phenomenon is at work — outstanding success or leadership in any given activity is attained by what Jefferson called a “natural aristocracy” — those who are best attuned to that activity.
The age-old record of inequality seems to indicate that this variability and diversity is rooted in the biological nature of man. But it is precisely such a conclusion about biology and human nature that is the most galling of all possible irritants to our egalitarians. Even egalitarians would be hard put to deny the historical record, but their answer is that “culture” has been to blame; and since they obviously hold that culture is a pure act of the will, then the goal of changing the culture and inculcating society with equality seems to be attainable. In this area, the egalitarians slough off any pretense to scientific caution; they are scarcely content with acknowledging biology and culture as mutually interacting influences. Biology must be read out of court quickly and totally.
There's a lot more. Read it all, and read about the provenance of the essay, here:
Quibcag: There have been scurrilous remarks out there, or, more specifically, HERE, about my alleged "obsession" with Rika Shiguma, or Shiguma Rika for purists, or 志熊 理科 for even more extreme purists. It is to laugh. The fact that she's illustrating this quibcag is completely random and coincidental. And, I hasten to assure you, there is absolutely no question of 眼鏡 fetishism involved here — See, she just took her glasses off. Why, I haven't even watched Rika's anime, Haganai (はがない) — I just like the pictures. Make of that what you will.

Friday, December 19, 2014

Les Ennemis à Gauche

I've pointed out before that the left always sticks together, always defends its most flaky or evil components, and would never dream of doing otherwise. As I blogged awhile back HERE

Now, the lefties are fond of adhering to the principle, usually unstated of "pas d'ennemi a gauche," (no enemies on the left) which describes the behavior of the left perfectly, all the way from the most moderate Democrat to the most fire-breathing Marxist. It means, of course, that the enemy is the right, anybody who isn't on the left, and that they will cooperate with anybody on the left, all the way to Pol Pot, and consider them allies in their war against civilization and decency. Those of us on the right are stupid that way. We're quick to denounce anybody on the right of us, thereby ensuring a leftist victory.
The latest trendy manifestation of leftism are the SJWs (Social Justice Warriors), and they have big mouths indeed. How does one argue with them? One does not. SJWs' idea of argument is the same as that of other leftists — name-calling. And when they call you a name, you should laugh in their stupid little faces and call them names, and never, never, try to refute the idiotic accusations they toss at you.  Vox Day explains, from his site here:

How to lose to SJWs

Here is an example of someone who is on the right side, but doesn't understand that you never win by spurning your allies:
I felt like talking about this topic because I’ve noticed the ease of which people will dismiss you, especially if you happen to be on the other side of the Anita Sarkeesian/GamerGate argument and you’re not a woman-hating bastard.

Honestly it feels like I’m supposed to just keep my trap shut sometimes.

Now let me get one thing straight. By “Other side,” I don’t include the sexists, the woman haters and those who argue in bad faith. I mean people who have valid critiques of Anita Sarkeesian and others like her. What I noticed from my petition post was the willingness of the people arguing for Anita to not even bother to ask what my own opinion on her were. Instead my post was met with “ugh” and Feminist Frequency videos. Not once was I asked, “Well why are you against Anita? Is there any particular reason why you don’t want her working on Mirrors Edge 2?” These questions weren’t even asked until I pointed out the fact that they were willing to automatically go in on the attack before even knowing what my reasoning was.
What he and other would-be moderates fail to realize is that the anti-GamerGate, pro-Sarkeesian, SJW side is not reasonable and is never going to be convinced by sweet reason. They have no interest in it and little capacity for it.

This is the same divide between dialectic and rhetoric that I keep pointing out to everyone. You do NOT fight a rhetorical battle with dialectic; in a rhetorical battle the only use for dialectic is in a rhetorical manner; it can be used to explode pseudo-dialectic poses, but that is the extent of its effectiveness. It is an intrinsically defensive weapon on the rhetorical level. This means you cannot win with it.

The primary difference between the Left and the Right is that the Left instinctively defends its extremists and the Right instinctively runs from them and leaves them out to dry. The latter is an appeasement strategy, and it works about as well as the infamous failures of appeasement we all know from history.

All appeasement does is signal to the SJW what buttons he needs to push in order to force an opponent to retreat. When you dutifully point out that "you don't agree with everything X says" or "don’t include the sexists, the woman haters and those who argue in bad faith", what you are accomplishing is not the inoculation of your argument from their extremist taint, you are telling the SJW exactly how he can rhetorically defeat you by painting you as the very sort of extremist you disavow. And remember, rhetorical victory is the entirety of their objective!

Embrace the extremists. Defend them. Refuse to permit them to be cut off and isolated. Allow them to play their role as the intellectual shock troops they are. That is how you win. Because if they're not taking the incoming fire, you are. And the shock troops are much better equipped psychologically to take it and survive than the average self-styled moderate.
Quibcag: Rejoice! Rika Shiguma of Haganai (はがない) is back!

Thursday, December 18, 2014

More Idiot White Liberals

There's seldom a social problem so bad that liberals can't make it worse. Especially White liberals, because all of them have at least a touch of self-hating psychosis in them. Whenever a member of some trendy minority or another begins to feel that maybe he should behave better, the White liberals quickly leap to reassure him that no, whatever anti-social or destructive inclinations he may feel are perfectly legitimate, even admirable, because of centuries of White oppression, yadda yadda yadda.

This White liberal insanity results in making minority behavior, especially Black behavior, even worse than it would be otherwise. Kind of like when you try to teach your kids to behave, and some grandparent or uncle hands them money behind your back and makes excuses for every rotten thing they do, even blaming you for it. The next step, of course, is for them to actively prevent your disciplining the kids. This is of course the counterpart to telling the police to back off and not interfere in looting and rioting, not to mention a legal system that gives perps, expecially miniority perps, every possible benefit of the doubt when determining guilt and/or punishment. Following the analogy further, this leads to the "trigger" phenomenon, which you can read about here:

And in poor old Australia, which seems to have even more idiot White liberals per capita than we do, there's a movement afoot to reassure Muslim immigrants that they're still loved and highly esteemed, no matter how much hostage-taking and murdering they indulge in. After all, it's just more reaction to White oppression, right?  Interestingly, I heard one of our White liberal talking heads on the tube comment that the latest Muslim atrocity took place in spite of the massive gun control Australia has implemented. But it's really even a lot worse than you can imagine. Just click below.

Loons and Liars: More on Australia's Social Media Justice Warriors

Quibcag: Here we have Rally Vincent and what's-her-name from Gunsmith Cats (ガンスミス キャッツGansumisu Kyattsu).

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

The Wind Rises, A Film by Miyazaki

What can I say about this? It's flat-out the loveliest, saddest, deepest, most heart-tearing, prettiest film I've ever seen. It is so beautiful I want to see it again right away, and so sad that I'm afraid to see it even once more. One critic said it's the finest animated movie ever made, and I'm damned if I can argue with him. I may say more about it later when I've calmed down, but for now, I just want to recommend it to you without reservation.

Read more here:

Greatest Headline Ever!

You've heard this before if you've been reading this blog very long, but it's worth repeating that our laughable immigration policy is the exact opposite of what it ought to be. That is, a country's government's policy on immigration, like its policy on all issues, should be determined by the best interests of that country. And that's the country as a whole, not the interests of big shots who want cheap labor for union-busting and wage repression, all the way from mega-farmers to silicon valley.

But, when the liberals and neocons agitate for more immigration, and amnesty for the illegals, they only offer the vague argument that immigration is 'good for the economy,' which means, as I said above, that immigrants will drive wages down which is good for the big shots. All their other arguments are about how good immigration is for the immigrants, which is almost a tautology, since they overwhelmingly volunteer to come here. But, that's not what policy should be based on, I repeat.

That's what all the rules seem to emphasize, though. You can be admitted as a refugee if you can prove that you'll be better off here, which is probably true for 3/4 of the human species. This can be based on simple economics, meaning that you're poor and will be less poor if you immigrate, or various theories of 'persecution' — The Tsarnaev clan, if you didn't know, was brought in mostly because they 'feared persecution' back in the old country. Steve Sailer pointed that out. And speaking of Steve Sailer, and illustrating this point better than anything else, I give you the Headline of the Week, from Steve's site here:

New Frontiers of Intersectionality: "Democrats Demand Better Protections for Transgender Illegal Immigrant Children"

Quibcag: Illustrated, I believe by Lucky Star (らき☆すた RakiSuta)

Monday, December 15, 2014


The quibcag has it right. A lot of people simply select an ideology — political, social, or religious — that gives them an excuse for doing what they want to do anyway. Sometimes, they switch from one ideology to another when their wants diverge from the first. And of course a lot of ideologies are constantly being modified so as to conform with the latest trends and whims.  A good example of this is homosexuality, which used to be condemned by leftist ideology but which leftists are now required to embrace in order to maintain their membership.

And that's just here, in Western civilization, or what's left of it. What does 'ideology' mean in the rest of the world. Well, in a lot of it, Western ideologies are not really understood or appealing. And it's an ethnocentric flaw in us that we expect them to be. Is North Korea really 'communist' in the Western sense, or is it just a personal dictatorship which uses the tenets, or some of them, of communist ideology to present itself to the outside world as something with an ideological basis? What does 'communism' even mean to a culture like that of Korea, or Nepal, or Uganda? Interestingly, while nationalism is a no-no in Marxist thought, many communist movements in the nonWestern world are highly nationalistic —as in Korea, again, and China, and the former USSR, and Cuba, etc.

And then we come to the Middle East, on which we try to impose, or detect,  many Western ideologies, like communism, fascism, nationalism, capitalism, etc., none of which fit. Most of the Middle East, from Morocco to Pakistan, is tribal or clannish, and the concept of nationalism hasn't developed yet. That's hard for Westerners to comprehend, and we have to look at the Balkans or watch Outlander in order to get a feel for the tribalism which has largely disappeared from the West, but which flourishes in the Third World.

Afghanistan in particular is instructive in this.  Steve Sailer, as always, drills down to the basics of things. Click away:

"Worse Than a Defeat:" the Far-reaching Lessons of the Brits' Latest War in Afghanistan


Quibcag: Marii of Joshiraku (じょしらく), is so good at illustrating quibcags.