Thursday, March 31, 2011

Is Obama Smart, or is it just the Magic Feather?

Alain de Benoist

Robert A. Heinlein

A quote from it: "Heinlein was not an ideologue, but rather a creative artist whose medium was ideas." That explains a lot. He used a lot of ideas in his fiction that he didn't necessarily believe. Some of these ideas were proto-PC, of course, and in retrospect kind of dopey. But I'd say he did more good than harm. I'd rather have a kid reading Heinlein's juveniles than watching junk on TV.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Evil House in Wales

The Obama Doctrine


Steve Sailer just blogged about Matthew Yglesias, and says wise things about him, as we have come to expect from Steve. The Most wonderful thing about the post, though, is the term he coined to title it: "PC-Whipped." Do they give Nobel Prizes for coining words? The more I think about it, the better I like it. Steve's post is HERE.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Funny Stuff about Mormons

Scott Adams again

A few days ago, Scott Adams blogged about "men's rights," making perfect sense, as he usually does. The interesting part is that his blog post went viral, and despite the fact that there's absolutely nothing in his post that any sane person could possibly take offense at, just about everybody did take offense, and hissy-fits echoed throughout cyberspace. All this proves how dumb people are, especially people with intellectual pretensions.

Are Afghans White?

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Peggy Noonan wonders what Obama is doing, and why he doesn't tell us what he's doing.

The Care and Feeding of Liberals

I was in Boulder, Colorado the other day. They have some nice restaurants there, and the entertainment is great. It consists of listening to thumb-sucking liberals at the other tables using PC jargon in conversation with each other in all seriousness. The hilarity isn't all verbal. While I was drinking some very good beer, a party of three entered. Some White guy much like an older 40-ish version of Meathead up there, a Black woman the same age with definite Whoopi looks, and, honest to god, an Oriental girl about ten years old. I thought I was in a National Lampoon parody. You can't get PC combos like that without really trying. But it's probably much easier in Boulder. Anyhow, by just writing this post, I'm demonstrating what you might call 'hate consciousness.' The original term, 'hate speech,' is where you speak in such a way as to offend liberals. A 'hate fact' is when you say something that is absolutely true, like, say, the Black crime rate is much higher than the White crime rate. Now it's time for 'hate consciousness,' where you show awareness that liberals are idiotic and hilarious. Well, what this post was supposed to be about is how one should react when liberals call you names, and, if you don't keep your mouth shut, they will call you names. Advice on the proper responses from JARED TAYLOR.

Saturday, March 26, 2011


All too many self-described 'Libertarians' are masters of all the liberal responses. Disagree with one on immigration and you're a 'hater.' Advocate a return to the Constitutional Republic and you're a 'fascist.' Be halfway honest about human cultural differences and you're a 'xenophobe.' Discuss human genetic differences and you're a 'racist' or 'misogynist' or both. And question the wisdom of allowing in-your-face homosexuals to serve in the military and, of course, you're a 'homophobe.' In short, about 90% of the time, these people who claim to be libertarians demonstrate completely liberal attitudes and reactions. Hence, they are better called 'liberaltarians.' Anyhow, I've come across a site where you can find a genuine libertarian, with no PC nonsense. For example, here's a post about JOE ARPAIO.

The Decline of the West

Western philosophy and religion tends towards universalism. That is, it potentially includes everybody. There isn't much of that outside the West. Technically, Islam is universalist, in that anyone can (and should, in Muslims' opinion) become a Muslim. However, it's mostly a scary type universalism, and quite different from ours, because when it has the power to do so, it insists on conversion or punishment of some kind. But in the West, religion has tended to be looser, especially since the enlightenment, and we tend to think in terms of all mankind, no matter whether they share our culture or religions or not. And we send all kinds of missionaries around the world, hand out foreign aid, and consider every poor nation a special responsibility of our own people. Well, that's a pretty rare attitude. You can find exceptions, but by and large, there's very little universalist thinking outside the West. India, China, Japan, Africa... most of them are very exclusive, only with the greatest reluctance considering the outgroup entirely human and worthy of consideration. So, is our universalism -— and it's a pretty extreme universalism — killing us? We ostracize those of our own kind who don't think in universalist terms, calling them bigots, racists, etc., while, paradoxically, inviting clearly nonuniversalist groups, who have no trace of universalism in their philosophical makeup, to move in and live among us, assuring them, for the most part, that they don't have to change a thing about themselves, and we'll clutch them to our bosom, giving them all the rights of natives, and, more often than not, special rights to special treatment.