Saturday, April 19, 2014

White Male Logic

We learn something new every day. Vox Day has determined that logic itself is racist, along with all of the conclusions it's led to since, I guess those ancient Greeks (homos, Al Sharpton would say, so I surmise that as bad as logic might be, at least it isn't homophobic, but I guess it is sexist or misogynist) first started talking about it. and I'd say that was logical, except I don't want to sound like a you-know-what.  It's bad enough that I'm reprinting him. What this comes down to, is that we've been debating and thinking all wrong for the longest time. At Vox Populi, he writes:

The end of debate

Forget Aristotle's distinction between dialectic and rhetoric. The devolution of formal debate means that it doesn't even rise to the level of rhetoric any longer.
It used to be that if you went to a college-level debate tournament, the students you’d see would be bookish future lawyers from elite universities, most of them white. In matching navy blazers, they’d recite academic arguments for and against various government policies. It was tame, predictable, and, frankly, boring.

No more.

These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These “alternative-style” debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.

But this transformation has also sparked a difficult, often painful controversy for a community that prides itself on handling volatile topics. 

On March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.

In the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African-American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis. Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like “nigga authenticity” and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “Fuck the time!” he yelled. His partner Campbell, who won the top speaker award at the National Debate Tournament two weeks later, had been unfairly targeted by the police at the debate venue just days before, and cited this personal trauma as evidence for his case against the government’s treatment of poor African-Americans.
Further evidence in support of my time-to-civilization hypothesis. At this point, the debate competitions may as well bring in gorillas from the zoo and distribute the "debate" awards on the basis of which primate was able to throw the most fecal matter. That "alternative-style" of debate is no less dialectically legitimate than hip-hop, spoken-word poetry, and appeals to “nigga authenticity”.

If I were a college student these days, I would show up for a debate wearing a dress and smeared red lipstick, and no matter what the resolution was, start rapping very passionately about how the more pressing issue was how the U.S. government refused to let me marry a silverback gorilla. Then I'd turn it over to my partner, Baraka from the National Zoo, who would take a massive dump on the stage before chucking large handfuls of it at the other competitors, hooting and howling all the while.

If logic is white privilege, so too is civilization. I suppose we can look forward to this alternative style of  debate percolating into the legal system:

"Y'ownah, I object that my client ain't guilty and shit!"

"You can't object to that."

"Shut yo mouth, you ain't no AUTHENTICATED nigga. Uncah Tom!"

"Excuse me?"


From sign language to the foundation of science fiction to formal debate, it's all inexplicable magic to the half-savages. They can see the forms, they can even mimic them to a certain extent, but they simply do not understand the core functions and rationales underlying the observable actions. And they don't have any chance whatsoever of sustaining a modern technological society. None.

This may be distasteful news to you. But no matter what they say, A is A. A will ALWAYS be A. A is NEVER Not-A. It never will be.
Quibcag: I don't know who the teacher is, but she explains all this much more clearly than Ayn Rand did.

Human Exceptionalism

Yes, humans are exceptional. We're smart, we have opposable thumbs, we walk upright, and we have language. We are on top of the biological heap. But we're part of the heap. One of the biggest glitches in human thinking is making rather too much of human exceptionalism. We keep forgetting that we're animals. Now, before you fly into a fury thinking I'm going to say that we're no better than other animals and have no more rights, and animals have rights too, and all that nonsense, let me assure you that I'm a human chauvinist, and put us ahead of all other living things and have no plans to sacrifice us to endangered turtles. That's liberal stuff, and I want no part of it.

No, we're animals plus. We have, one way or the other, all the positive attributes of other animals, but we add more good stuff on top of that. We have thinking.  We have self-awareness, philosophy, science, religion, and all kinds of cultural attributes that no other animal is anywhere close to. But we are an animal. We are, a wise man once said, a sort of chimp that has learned to live like a very smart wolf. If you don't realize what we are, you're bound to come up with some pretty silly philosophical ideas. And most human philosopy/ideology has assumed that we're somehow outside the "animal" classification and that we have an infinitely malleable nature. Wrong. As I blogged earlier HERE, Robert Ardrey demonstrated that we do not. We are not a blank slate, but everybody from Marx to Rand to Oprah assumes, explicitly or implicitly, that we are.

As another wise man once said, if you know that one of your legs is shorter than the other, you can compensate, but if you insist that it's not, you just walk in circles. And if you insist that we're not a killer ape, at base, you come up with all kinds of self-defeating social-engineering plans. Of all the widely-accepted social philosophies, Christianity, oddly enough, seems to be the closest to understanding human nature. Lacking Darwinist insights, Christianity went with original sin, which really does give us a good rule of thumb to explain human cussedness and devise ways of coping with it. God made us to be nice, and kind, and cooperative, and original sin, instigated by Satan, led us to be rebellious and uncooperative. Consequently, you need a system to mitigate the latter and encourage the former. From my perspective, it's explained better by evolutionary psychology, which shows that we evolved to be aggressive and cooperative. Partly individualistic, and partly collectivist. There is a tension between these two drives, and the purpose of political ideology is to make that tension work for us instead of against us, and come up with the optimum social order.

Marx and all the collectivist philosophers think of collectivism as the ultimate good, and since they regard us as blank slates, they think that environment, in the form or education and regulation, can wipe out our individualistic tendencies and create a utopia of cooperativism. Individualist philosophers, including anarchists and some libertarians, think of individualism as the ultimate good, and, being another variety of blank slaters, think they can educate us into rejecting any and all collectivist elements in our culture.

But we're not blank slates. We're killer apes. We have evolved to live in tribes, to value both cooperation and individual initiative. We're not sheep, that have no identity outside the herd, nor are we leopards, coming together only to mate. We're wolfian chimps or chimpish wolves, and any philosophers who don't understand that are certain to come up with bad ideas. We can't educate people to go against their own nature. We can only educate them to optimize their intrinsic nature to make for the best possible social order. And that's the starting point.
Quibcag: The predatory girl is Princess Mononoke (もののけ姫 Mononoke-hime). The quote is by A. X. Perez. They don't call him "The Ax" for nothing, because he has a way of cutting right to the heart of matters. Who else could synthesize Rothbard and Nietzsche with such a terse aphorism?

Friday, April 18, 2014

The Doughnut Problem

From Cold Dead Hands:

The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Obama — A Happy Easter to you all!

From Breitbart:


Wednesday on the "Tom Joyner Morning Show," Al Sharpton offered a curious explanation involving President Barack Obama for the meaning of Easter:

"I think that the message is, no matter what the world may do to unfairly, no matter how your crucified, nailed to the cross at home, or in your personal relationships, or on the job that you can rise if you don't lose yourself during the hard times and the challenges.

The story of Jesus on the cross. no matter what they humiliated him with. no matter how they mocked him he took it, because he knew he could rise. And the story of Easter and my message for this Easter session is no matter what unearned suffering you go through, that if you know you can rise above it, don't become like the diseases that you fight.

As I looked at President Obama at our convention last Friday where all he took he's been able to rise politically again.. I'm not comparing him to Jesus, but I am saying that to every crucifixion there is a resurrection for those who believe..."
Actually, Al's heart is clearly in the right place, but he's got his Easter metaphors mixed up. Obama isn't the Crucified Christ, or the Risen Christ, or even the  Community Organizer Christ. Obama is an Easter Rabbit. A big, scary Black Easter Bunny who crucifies and otherwise torments other people, and Al is an assistant rabbit, who supplies some of the nails.
The Joshiraku (じょしらく落語) girls flee Obama.
And that's my Easter post.


One thing Darwin and the God of the Bible agree on: Be fruitful and multiply. That's how a species survives. Or a subspecies, a race, a nation, or a family. Recruitment works for some things, like religions or political movements, but recruitment is almost always just a supplement to good old biological reproduction. If you've noticed, the Muslims who say they'll overwhelm the West don't intend to do it by converting people to Islam. Oh, they're still glad to do that, but their plans are based on immigration and reproduction. The conversions will take place by force after the overwhelming is complete. The native Westerners, you see, have been convinced that reproduction is at best a hobby, and at worst some evil habit that's hard on the environment. So for the past few generations, what there's been of them, the idea of actually replacing oneself with children who will grow up and do likewise has become rather distasteful, and an impediment to far more groovy pursuits, like the whole feminist program, hedonism, and nihilism. If one has to reproduce, the recommended method is single motherhood, a strategy almost as fatal as no reproduction at all. And it's also popular to fly to African and buy a kid, to save him the bother of immigrating later.

If you've ever done any genealogy, you were no doubt surprised to find out how many second and third and more cousins you've got, and how your great-grandmother had seven, or eleven, or fourteen children. She didn't get to go to VMI, or participate in slutwalks, but she was pretty well fulfilled anyway, somehow. And her DNA is spread all over the place. So many of our modern career girls have gone a long way, baby, but with no baby. Gavin MacInnes deplores this situation at TakiMag:

Feminist Fallout: A Roll Call of Regrets

by Gavin McInnes

Most women would be happier at home raising a family, and many are just going through the motions by choosing careers. There. I said it. I didn’t say women can’t have careers and they’re not capable of anything more. I happen to think housewife is a pretty noble profession. However, if you don’t scream “Anything men can do women can do better” you’re a sexist pig. Modern feminism has become fascism and it’s making women miserable. When a doctor tells his patients that the hourglass of a woman’s ovaries is turned upside down at 30 and is all but drained by 35, he (or she, you sexist pig) is called a sexist pig. The anecdotal evidence of the aunt who had twins at 43 apparently wipes out centuries of biology.

Listen, you stupid bitches, nobody has problems with the driven career woman who has it all. We all respect ballbusters like Barbara Corcoran, but it’s worth noting that even she had to wrestle Mother Nature. She spent $146,000 making kids happen in her late 40s. When you say it’s sad that women are choosing dogs over children, you’re told the world is overpopulated and the end of breeding is a good thing. That’s not what I see. When I scroll through the women in my address book, I see almost nothing but regret. Only 10% of women have more kids than they want, but it seems like only 10% of my friends even tried to have kids. Here’s a list of all the women I know who did (names changed to protect the innocent).

Deborah is in her early 40s and just had a miscarriage. After waiting for Mr. Right well into her late 30s, she dumped her boyfriend and decided to become a single mom. He panicked and proposed and now they have a kid. This is pretty much the only way a woman in New York can have a family. She has to marriage rape her boyfriend.

Carla was in the same boat and marriage raped her boyfriend at 39. She had a kid but I doubt they’ll be having any more. This is a shame because they’re both great parents.

Alexander finally proposed to Susan when she was in her late 30s. They had one kid but won’t be having any more because they waited too long. Alex tells me he deeply regrets this and I suspect Susan feels the same way.

Darrell and Cathy had a kid when she was in her mid-30s and spent the next five years discussing whether they should have a second. By the time they decided to have another, it was too late. After spending thousands on fertility drugs, they gave up and adopted. They adore their adopted child but it’s obviously not an ideal scenario.

Andy and Joan spent a ton of money on fertility drugs because they waited until Joan was in her late 30s before having kids. Andy couldn’t come to my wedding because he was told flying is bad for your sperm. After emptying their savings account, they gave up and adopted two kids. They love their kids the same as we all do but again, not ideal.

I grew up with Mike and Sherri and we all agreed having kids was negligent because of overpopulation. By the time we realized it’s about quality not quantity, they were already in their 40s. Sherri spent over ten thousand dollars on fertility drugs and it worked. After a few miscarriages, they made three healthy kids. (It’s worth noting that many of these fertility drugs give you quintuplets in the womb and then the majority die, which is why you see so many twins floating around these days.)

They worry their age put their children on the spectrum but besides that, they essentially dodged a bullet. Unfortunately, Mike is over 50 now and needs “Dadderall” to keep up.
And the rest of the article is here:
Quibcag: Again I don't know where the illustration came from, but it's a nice family and a lesson to us all.


Air is free, and that's about it. Everything else that people consume is something that people produce, one way or the other. And anything you get "free" was produced by somebody out there, individually or collectively. We all know (I hope) that we pay for "free refills," because the cost of them is included in the price of the drink or the meal. They're free only in the sense that they're included, and not charged for separately. That's also true of the ketchup and salt, and other "extra" stuff. So you really don't think that the mustard is bestowed on you by a philanthropist.

But there's also free stuff that doesn't seem to be included in anything you pay for, like welfare and other subsidies. This is confused by the fact that a lot of this "free" stuff that we get we already paid for through taxes, like Medicare and Social Security. But a lot of the free stuff, like Obamacare, is explicitly not paid for by its recipients, but by non-recipients. The people who get the welfare-type things are, by definition almost, not able to pay for it, so people who don't qualify for it are the ones who pay for it. And the ones who qualify for all this free (to them) stuff are voters. They shouldn't be, of course, because their only concern when they cast their vote is how to get more free stuff.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. When Obama says Obamacare is working, that's what he means. People are getting free stuff, and the rest of us are paying for it. To a liberal, that's "working."

Thursday, April 17, 2014

War is just the HEALTH of the state — As for other things....

Calling attention to this piece I'm leading into, Jeff Odgis said:

Here is a theory. Big Immigration enables Big Government. It worked for Tammany Hall. It worked for FDR. And it is working for all the modern totalitarians. Immigration is the Viagra of the state.

And I'll add to that: It also worked for Lincoln. He might still have crushed the South and trashed the Constitution without all those Irish and German immigrants who got draft notices as they stepped off the boat, but it would have been a lot harder. Right now, despite piffle from Neocons and Liberals and the wrong kind of Libertarians, all these millions of immigrants who LBJ opened the floodgates for, legal and illegal, are serving as pawns at best, and active participants at worst, in pushing for ever bigger, ever more authoritarian government. This is from VDare, and is six years old, but it's even more relevant now:

We're at a peculiar moment in the history of liberty. It's been almost seventeen years since the Soviet Union collapsed. (I'm acutely aware of this because my son was born that day, making him, as I like to think, the very first post-Communist baby!) At that time, even a life-longAmerican academic socialist like Robert Heilbroner wascompelled to confess, in a celebrated essay in the New Yorker magazine, [The Triumph Of Capitalism, January 23, 1989] that the century-old battle between capitalism and socialism is over and capitalism has won.
Yet in the US it's very probable that the party of free markets—perhaps I should say the alleged party of free markets—is going to be annihilated in this year's election and that the party of statism may be in power for a generation.
There are obviously a number of reasons for this reversal. But one of them, I think, is that (at least in the US) libertarianism rested on its laurels and simply did not address the next generation of problems that came to the fore amid the wreckage of socialism. One of those is problems is immigration and, ultimately, the role of the national community, the nation-state. As I understand it, the role of the Property and Freedom Society is to address those problems and to rearticulate the libertarian vision.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe did address the problem of immigration, in his own writings and by arranging for a special issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the summer 1998 issue [Volume 13, Number 2] guest edited by Ralph Raico, which was devoted to the subject. It's a seminal volume of essays, revealing for example that the dean of American libertarian philosophers, John Hospers, who actually received one electoral college vote when he ran for President as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1972, rejected open borders and the notion that if you support free trade, you have to support free immigration.[A Libertarian Argument Against Opening Borders(PDF)]I don't think the debate among libertarians has moved much further forward, greatly to the discredit of the Libertarian Establishment. Hans should really be giving this talk today. But I guess he believes in the division of labor!
So my topic today is "A Libertarian Case Against Immigration". I am myself an immigrant (or an emigrant, depending how you look at it) from Britain to the U.S. withsome years in Canada. So I'm not saying that immigration is absolutely a bad thing. But I am saying that it can be a bad thing, and that in the US today—and also Europe—it isa bad thing. In the U.S., we're constantly told by immigration enthusiasts, a distinct subspecies among American intellectuals, that immigrants do dirty jobs Americans won't do. And, I tell them, here I am!
(And he goes on to do the job here:)

"Immigration Is The Viagra Of The State"—A Libertarian Case Against Immigration

Quibcag: These are, you guessed it, the girls 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), who are better than viagra.