Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Leftist Weasels in Conservative Sheep's Clothing

Give me a nice, honest leftist any day. Oh, hardly any of them are completely honest, of course, but there are degrees. For example, some of them state flat-out that they want individual ownership of guns outlawed, and work openly for that end. Then you have the Bloombergs, who assure us that they don't want that, but just want laws to prevent the wrong kind of people from having them, criminals and children and such. Some of those might even be sincere, but of course, once the laws are in place, we find out that we're almost all the wrong kind of people, after all.  And leftists, of course, hate the very idea of people like Cliven Bundy walking around free, and some of them say so. The less honest ones lie about him, saying they're against him because he's a racist (a lie) or because he's "stealing government land" (another lie, at the very best an outrageous distortion of the truth). But a minority of leftist say very clearly what they really think, and you can at least argue with them.

But then we have something much worse than such leftists. Leftists disguised as conservatives. And some of them are sincere, I'm sure. They've just soaked up so many of the principles of leftism that they don't know it, like a fish isn't really aware of the water he swims in, and to them "conservatism" is all about... moderating liberalism. Running in the same direction as the leftists, these faux-conservatives differ from the usual leftists only in that they urge that the running be a steady jog instead of a sprint, and that care is taken not to trip over anything. But many of them aren't sincere at all, but call themselves conservatives the better to confuse the issue and talk unsophisticated people into assisting the leftist agenda.

Jack Kerwick tells us about a particular weasel in sheep's clothing, doing his deception at, of all places, National Review.  This is from http://townhall.com/

With ‘Conservatives’ Like This, Who Needs Leftists?

National Review Online (NRO) blogger, Reihan Salaam—a self-declared “conservative” who also writes for the left-wing publication, Slate—recently charged those who prefer intra-racial dating with being “racist.”
Referencing a questionnaire on the dating site, OkCupid, Salaam expressed his shock over just how many peopleadmitted to having “strong same-race preferences.” “One would think,” Salaam writes, “that many people who do have such preferences would either choose not to disclose them publicly, or choose to skip the question entirely.”
Such people are “clueless,” Salaam continues, for “the moral appropriateness” of their practices is questionable.
The idea here seems to be something like this: Same-race preferences (at least when indulged in by whites) are bad because they lead to “in-group favoritism.” The latter is bad (at least when indulged in by whites), because it leads to “racial inequality.” This in turn is bad, for it is synonymous with “racism.”
And, of course, “racism” (at least when indulged in by whites) is the worse.
Government policies designed to combat “in-group favoritism” are bound to fail, Salaam laments, for “in-group favoritism is a powerful human impulse.” Thus, it’s more feasible for all decent, respectable types to simply aspire to “expand the boundaries of the in-group [.]” Approvingly referring back to “one of the more provocative Ph.D. dissertations I’ve ever read”—The Duty to Miscegenate—Salaam explains how this can be done. First, and most obviously, is by way of interracial procreation. He also asserts the need for more "inter-dining." "The rural white Southerner," he remarks, "who dines with nonwhites as a matter of course is doing more to tackle stigma than the urbane white hipster who hardly ever does the same."
Salaam concludes his essay by underscoring that "it’s [not] too much to ask those who do express such [same-race] preferences, and those who live them in practice, to reflect on them, and on how there might be more than fighting racism than voting ‘the right way.’"
That Salaam’s article could make it out of a college freshman course in critical thinking or ethics without being saturated in red ink, let alone be published in a widely read venue (however much of a rag), is a truly scandalous commentary on the intellectual and moral state of our culture. That he considers himself a "conservative," and is so considered by the folks at National Review (and beyond?), speaks volumes about the state of contemporary "conservatism."
It should be noted that Salaam nowhere supplies an argument for his thesis that intra-racial dating is "racist." Rather, he stacks the deck in favor of his conclusion from the very outset, and he does so through not one, but two, logical fallacies.
Salaam begs the question in favor of his position by assuming precisely that which needs to be proved: intra-racial dating is "racist." That his reasoning is viciously circular becomes obvious enough once we relieve it of the mountains of condescending fluff in which it is buried. It goes something like this: Intra-racial dating is “racist” because it leads to "racial inequality"—which is "racism." So, intra-racial dating is "racist" because it leads to "racism."
Yet at one and the same moment, Salaam also resorts to the old tried and true—but logically illicit—tactic of the ad hominem attack. Those who disagree with him aren’t just in error, and they aren’t just immoral: they are racist. Salaam, like every other inhabitant of the planet Earth in 2014, knows all too well that the charge of “racism” serves to simultaneously place the accuser on the side of the angels and the heads of the accused on the chopping block.
There are two other points.
First, if intra-racial dating (at least when practiced by whites) is “racist” and, hence, morally reprehensible, then those of us of racially homogenous backgrounds (at least if we are white) must reckon with the fact that our parents and grandparents were “racist” and, hence, morally reprehensible. Our very existence is questionable—the legacy of a crime, as it were—for if not for the “racism” of our ancestors, we would not be.
Second, it is true that Salaam—a so-called “conservative,” mind you, and a writer forNational Review—does not think that government should intervene to prevent or reduce intra-racial dating. However, this is only because he doesn’t think it is feasible. In other words, in theory he supports such action, but in practice he regards it as an exercise in futility.
This would be frightening stuff to hear coming from anyone’s lips. It’s that much worse coming from one who is promoted as being a conservative.
The verdict is decisive: If Salaam is any indication of the intellectual and moral fiber of the contemporary conservative movement, the movement is all but worthless.
With “conservatives” like Salaam, who needs leftists?
Quibcag: The girl is Ayuko Oka from Mysterious Girlfriend X (謎の彼女X. Nazo no Kanojo Ekkusu)


  1. And why is inter-racial dating only pushed in white countries? Nobody is calling Asians in Asia racist for not wanting to import and date non-Asians. Its just more brainwashing to help convince whites they need to blend themselves out. In 500 years Africa will still be filled with Africans, Asia with Asians, but in 50 years there won't be any white countries left if things don't change. Every race has a right to exist. This type of bs is not surprising coming from National Review which is a nest of open border Israel first neocons. That crew was instrumental in banishing real conservatives from conservative groups over the past 40 years.

  2. Is it wrong to date people from the same race? These charges of diversity and whatnot seem to be focused on whites more often than non-white. You see a black man or woman marrying or dating a white person of the opposite gender and they either treat him or her as a trophy, or as a oddity that must be removed.

    But white people, especially with this new theme of 'check your privilege', are constantly undermined. So what if I like Asian women, if I was white, i'd go after women of my own racial profile too.