Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Matt the Barbarian

Guest post by Matt Bailey.

So I was reading the review on an anthology of Robert E. Howard stories, and I came across the White male (obviously, if they are reading a fantasy book) being aghast at the following... 

"You said I was a Barbarian,” he said harshly, “and that is true, Crom be thanked. If you had men of the outlands guarding you instead of soft-gutted civilized weaklings, you would not be the slave of a black pig this night. I am Conan, a Cimmerian, and I live by the sword’s edge. But I am not such a dog as to leave a white woman in the clutches of a black man...If you were old and ugly as the devil’s pet vulture, I’d take you away from Bajujh simply because of the color of your hide. " 

...Now the situation is that a Northern girl has been captured by these savages, her brother slaughtered, and Conan is adventuring among the black Kushites as a war-leader. So she implores him to rescue her, which he does, by the strength of his arm, at great personal risk, and sends her back to her homeland, without even requiring her to give up her (offered) body to him. Obviously this was a horrible misdeed that is completely un-praiseworthy (WTF?)

This was written in a pulp for ordinary White men in the 1930s. In 2015, ordinary White men are getting their panties in their bunch over the prospect of an extraordnarily powerful White man rescuing a White woman from slavery and certain rape at he hands of people who cut her brother into pieces for the cook pot. What a difference the decades of PC have made.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Philosopher Libertarians

According to Matt Bailey [link], at least 50% of libertarians are like this. My recent experience is that it's rather more than that.
This is from

Sunday, July 26, 2015

On Cakes and Abortions

All libertarians that I know of agree that it's wrong to force a baker to make a gay wedding cake, though some think gay weddings are fine and should be permitted, while some don't. As for the abortion thing, libertarians are again divided in their attitude, some thinking abortion is a right, others thinking it a form of murder. But both groups would agree that the state should not fund abortions.

But liberals are different. They want abortion funded and encouraged by the government, and the baking of gay wedding cakes to be mandatory. This graphic is dedicated to them. Pass it around.

Friday, July 24, 2015

Bob Wallace Welcomes the New Matriarchy

Somebody asked on the net if feminism was compatible with libertarianism. Somebody else brought up the fact that feminism isn't really compatible with anything. The it all degenerated into the question of what kind of feminism was meant — first, second, or third-wave. I am not going to bother to find out the profound differences, but I gather that the first wave was when feminism sort of made sense, or at least wasn't obviously batsh*t crazy. You know, advocacy of women being able to own property and such things that everybody in all ideologies takes granted now. I'll make an exception for the vote, because if you've heard ladies discussing politics lately you'll agree that it's not their area of expertise.

Anyhow the current wave wants Hillary to be President and other idiotic ideas, and Bob Wallace says sure, why not:

I think women should rule the world. Now, of course, this can only be done through the force of law, since it goes against human nature, but that’s okay. Human nature, if you’re a leftist, doesn’t matter. Because to them it doesn’t exist!

Let’s look at what we’d have to do. First, we’d have to keep men out of influential high-paying jobs that require a lot of education and work. That can be done with Affirmative Action, which essentially means “white men need not apply.”

We’d also have to keep men out of college, which is what is happening these days. Right now there are a lot more women in college than men. This is a good thing. No, it’s a great thing!

Men should only be carpenters (I used to be one), taxi drivers (used to be one), coal miners (nope), stuff like that. Stuff that women don’t want to do because it’s too hard, hot, dirty, dangerous, unpleasant, etc.

Women want those nice indoor air-conditioned jobs where they can sit around, drink coffee, hold meetings, and think they’re working. And this is good!

One of my taxi driver friends got murdered. Another got repeatedly stabbed in the face with a steak knife by a crazy woman. Then there was the one had the misfortune of having a pistol pointed at him three times during three different robberies. But all of this is okay! Men are worthless and expendable!

The fact is, men shouldn’t be educated at all. They’re awful!! They should be like those Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons in Brave New World, the ones that ran the elevators. Serves them right.
The worst -- especially the worst! – are white men, who are drooling troglodyte sexist racist homophobic specieist child-molesting rapist pornographer Ice People brutes who introduced slavery into the world. (Well, actually, that’s not true – white men got rid of slavery, and in record time: about 55 years, after slavery was around at least 7000 years. But facts don’t matter!)

Men should receive no education at all. Not even reading, writing and arithmetic! Revenge is good, and it doesn’t matter if it’s aimed at the wrong people.

One way to prevent this education is by drugging little boys. I think Ritalin would be a good choice. It’ll fix their brains up but good, like that Ritalin child Kurt Cobain, who returned the favor by fixing his own brains permanently!

Yep, make sure men receive no education, dope them up, prevent them by law from getting educated jobs…and women will be able to rule the world!

Now what kind of world would we have if women ruled it completely and men had absolutely no influence at all, had no education, and were completely at the bottom?

I think the humorist P.J. O’Rourke gave us a clue with his comment, “Without men, civilization would last until the next oil change.” Or as Camille Paglia commented, if women had been in charge of civilization, we’d still be living in grass huts. Okay, well, maybe teepees.

Hmmm…let’s see…who invented about 97% of everything in the world? Well, as best as I can remember, it was European men and their descendants in America. Those horrible hideous white men who are responsible for every problem in the world! . . . they invented almost everything? Huh?
But let’s concentrate on the United States and not the entire world. If women ruled completely and men had no influence at all, it’d be a great country. Utopia! Paradise on Earth!

Things would go backward, of course, I suppose to some sort of primitive, barely technological society. Tribal and pastoral. But that would be great!

I think I might be exaggerating a little bit (or maybe a lot) but you can learn a lot from reductio ad absurdum.

Very few women can invent anything – or drive for that matter -- but so what? A primitive, loving, pastoral tribe in which everyone chipped in and helped change the babies…it’d be wonderful! It’d be just like that idyllic tribe in One Million Years B.C., in which Raquel Welch wore a two-piece fur bikini. Woo hoo, what a life! I can’t wait.

Of course, women (and some men) don’t believe this would happen. Somehow – not quite sure how – we’d still have an advanced technological society with big-screen TVs and SUVs and dentistry and surgery and easy high-paying careers, even though men would be so uneducated, stupid, doped up and out of work they couldn’t do anything except drink and smoke dope and lie around jerking off to computer porn and wondering how to use that sex-toy they bought mail-order.

But what the heck. All those women oppressed throughout history, why, once they’re free, think of all the inventions waiting to be invented by them! Forget that Gloria Steinem said that logic didn’t matter. It doesn’t matter! Or that there are certain things that shouldn’t be investigated, like the differences between men and women. She’s right about that, too!

And of course, women would have all the government jobs, so we can be ruled by bureaucrats. Of course, being women, they won’t act like bureaucrats, unless they were mommy-bureaucrats. Thank God for that!

Women being supported by the government is a good thing, since marriage would collapse, what with men not being able to support a family. So women would have babies without being married or the children having a father’s influence. All of us would end up acting lower-class. And this is good!
It’s always a good thing for teenage girls to not get married and have kids to get more welfare. And for teenage boys to form gangs as surrogate families. And the fact these things are caused by not having intact families with fathers? It’s a good thing!

In essence, women would be marrying the government. And this is a good thing. Families and fathers are so primitive!

Well, primitive yes, but not primitive like tribal primitive. That’s good primitive. It’d be some other kind of primitive, like not-needed primitive, like hair in your ears or nostrils.

So what if many women would be unhappy hateful frustrated hysterical shrews, except for all those revenge-minded man-hating lesbians who helped found feminism? And envious ugly leftist feminists like the hideous monster Betty Friedan? And if men are unhappy and drink and do drugs and get violent? Ha! Since when did happiness ever matter? Revenge is what matters! Fairness is what matters…well, yeah, I know, it wouldn’t be fair, but so what?

And if society didn’t advance and instead went backwards, so what about that, too? Primitive tribes without dental care and air-conditioning are the place to be!

Many women are natural socialists, which means they are irrational, ruled by their feelings and think everyone should be forced to share and do favors for others whether they want to or not. This is good. I think that’s the reason they’ve always been denied the vote. That’s not good! It’s certainly why so many of them vote Democrat. And that’s good!

Throughout history women have always been the home and the heart (maybe it should be the Home and the Heart). Men have always been the rational creative inventing part – the fixers, the inventors, the discoverers.

About 40 years ago the brain researcher Paul McLean discovered three structures to the brain: at the bottom, the reptilian complex, on top of that, the limbic system (emotion) and on top of that, the neocortex (reason).

One writer called it the Snake brain, the Eve brain, and the Adam brain. But whatever you call it, the rational brain sits on top of the emotional brain, which means our emotions are supposed to be subject to our reason -- not the other way around.

It’s not as if men are all reason and women are all emotion. Each sex has a bit of the other in it, like Jung postulated with the anima/amimus or that Yin/Yang thingie.

If each gender didn’t have a bit of the other in it, we’d never be able to understand each other. Both sexes have mirror neurons, although women have more. Men have a bigger visual-spatial area in their brain. That’s a bad thing! . . .I think.

But, heck, so what? Facts don’t matter. Only archaic left-wing socialist/tribal fantasies matter. It doesn’t even matter if they don’t work and destroy lives and societies!

I, for one, welcome our new Eve overlords. All our base are belong to them!


Read the original and comment here:



Quibcag: I have no idea who the oil-changing girl is. I found her on the net. She's there for the irony of it all

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

ZAPping the NAP

There's a lot of talk in libertarian circles about the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), also known as the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP). Unfortunately, too many libertarians discuss it as though it were a law of nature that somebody discovered, like e=mc2 or the germ theory of disease. It isn't anything of the kind. It's a (drum roll) social construct. No, really, an actual social construct, devised by a human mind as a proposal for a simple rule of ethics, not a description of reality. A law of nature is a description of reality, devised to explain observed facts. A rule of ethics is meant to guide human behavior, not to describe it. It's test is not whether people behave that way, but whether, if they did behave that way, it would result in a stable social order. Some such ethical social constructs are fairly stable, like Catholicism or most of what Machiavelli came up with. The former has evolved rules of thumb over the centuries that work fairly well in keeping civilization going without too much agony, the latter was deliberately devised to do all that.

The ZAP, then, is not something you observe happening, but rather something you try to get people to agree to. It's an echo, sort of, of the golden rule, obviously, which explicitly states what you ought to do, not what you do do.

This thinking was inspired, BTW, by a discussion on Facebook [link] wherein my good friend Matt Bailey (who gets at least half credit for the cartoon up there) tries mightily to show that the ZAP only works when enough people agree to abide by it as an ethical principle. And, I might add, it's only really workable when it's limited to reciprocity. That is, I observe the ZAP with those who also observe it with respect to me. In this, it's oddly similar to pacifism as an ethical principle. If you apply it promiscuously, it's suicidal. If you employ it only with others who agree to employ it with you, it works just fine. In fact, it works all the time, with most people, who don't go around attacking other people at random. But you don't call it "pacifism" unless it is promiscuous.

Anyhow, too many people misuse the ZAP, extending it beyond its reasonable area of application to the use of it in any and all situations, where it would die a quick death, because in most human societies throughout history, aggression is automatic and necessary against the out-group, which can be assumed not to share any zero aggression ideas.

One of the best examples of this is the idiot libertarian notion that one mustn't "aggress" against peaceful foreigners who sneak across the border to soak up the goodies that you and your ancestors produced. No, one must let them in and pay one's taxes (Yeah, you have to. Just try not doing it.) to subsidize them so they can work cheap for the guys who can therefore cut your wages or not hire you in the first place. And wait till they actually rob or rape or kill you, and then you can, when it's too late, do something about it. Or not. With Obama, it's usually not.

I'll finish up here with a quote from Matt Bailey that's too long for a quibcag:

A useful philosophy should decide what you want out of the world and go about getting it, in a practical manner that takes note of objective reality. If you want others to go along with your idea, you should probably explain how it benefits them, instead of trying to philosophize/moralize them into conversion. If they remain intractable or in fact your idea DOESN'T really benefit them, then you're going to have to overcome them at the ballot box/and or the battlefield if you want your idea to carry the day.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Open Borders and the Founding Fathers

Libertarians of the "thick" type, who are dedicated to the destruction of the country by mass immigration, keep telling me that the Founding Fathers were open-borders enthusiasts, also. They have no evidence whatsoever for this, except for various statements here and there by some of them advocating immigration from the British Isles, which, if you think about it, is somewhat different than immigration from Mexico or Southeast Asia.

But Benjamin Franklin was even worried about our getting too many Germans, of all things [link], and, as for John Jay, here's what he had to say about it all in Federalist #2:

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration."

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Connections, Consequences, Logic, and Other Boring Right-Wing Concepts

Some idiot talking head, I can't remember which one — I think it was Geraldo — said recently that Obama's immigration policy and Francisco Sanchez' murder of Kate Steinle were "completely unrelated." I guess it just happened in a vacuum, and the only way to prevent such things in the future is to ban guns for regular American citizens. I guess that's his thinking — I hesitate to call it "logic." And the moron Juan Williams is said to be "baffled" by the fact that some people advocate allowing military personnel to defend themselves, because it might lead to trouble in mall parking lots or something.

The left certainly is challenged when it comes to actual thinking instead of feeling. Do I need to explain the graphic? If I do, it would be for my small group of leftist readers. Do pass it around.
One last thought:  Of course, the graphic explains how we're supposed to think of Roof and Abdulazeez in completely different terms. And this is absolutely necessary, otherwise we might think that maybe à la the Confederate flag, we should now insist on removing all Islamic symbols from public places, tearing all the Mosques in the country down, and desecrating the graves of any and all Muslims. Just a idea derived from the thought processes of the left.