Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Guest Post by Eli Harman on Those Open-Borders Libertarians

As I've said before, open-borders libertarians are useful idiots for the Democratic-Republican party, which, never mind the occasional rhetoric to the contrary, remains committed to open borders and to welcoming any and all foreigners, from the Corleones to the Tsarnaevs, to move right in and sign up for bennies, as though living in the West in general and the United States in particular is some kind of basic human right. It isn't.

For libertarians to promiscuously invite anybody and everybody to move in is like inviting drunks to join your AA chapter. Soon they'll outvote you and use your dues money to build stills and breweries, and supply booze stamps to the population at large. But a certain brand of ditzy libertarian insists that it would be immoral not to welcome them in. Logically, of course, that means that by their lights, libertarianism is impossible or at least not sustainable for more than a generation at best.

Matt Bailey alerted me to this piece by Eli Harmon:

Guest post by Eli Harman

Some, like Bryan Caplan [link], are fond of touting the benefits of immigration. These are real, but I think -- on the other hand --Caplan's treatment of the costs are, most charitably interpreted, naive and careless.

Wherever you look, xenophobia, in some form, and to some extent, appears close to a human universal.

Which hypothesis seems more plausible, that across time and space, human have consistently and persistently erred in precisely the same, costly (according to Caplan) way? Or that xenophobia might have some adaptive value?

I happen to think that America (in particular) and the west (in general) have peoples and cultures worth preserving. There are some distinctly beneficial features of these which would tend only to be attenuated by large-scale immigration of non-western foreigners. (Or even, in some cases, by western ones.)

But even setting this aside, there are benefits to homogeneity and costs to heterogeneity which probably should not be ignored.

One objection would be that to the extent that our institutions are democratic (which is somewhat) they're not capable of resolving conflicting imperatives but only of privileging some over others. "Multicultural democracy" is a joke.

(BTW, the interests that are privileged need not be those of the majority. See: the problem of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs.)

It isn't just a matter of democracy (for example) "not working." Democracy works fine for particular purposes. It's an eminently suitable form of government for a corporation because shareholders' interests are perfectly aligned towards maximization of profit (to the extent that shareholders are distinct from customers or employees.)

This is why democracy works relatively better in Denmark than in, say, Iraq. Denmark is less diverse, and the interests of Danes are more closely aligned.

So I feel pretty confidant in making the following prediction; among successful polities, the most "diverse" must be the most authoritarian or autocratic, while the most "democratic" or "liberal" (in either sense) must be the most homogenous. Which approach is better? Probably there's room in the world for all of these. But I don't think they can be combined into a single, successful, polity.

A more authoritarian regime may be able to realize the benefits of diversity and pass them on to its subjects (e.g. Singapore) by containing its costs where a democratic one would be plagued by rent-seeking or a libertarian one by free-riding if it were to permit the same.

Now, I like liberty. But it's empirically verifiable that it isn't most people's top priority. And even among those for whom it is, there are many different, sometimes incompatible, ways in which they may conceive of and prioritize it. So if I want to live in a stable polity that prioritizes liberty (in the way that I do) most people need to be excluded from it.

That just seems to be the way it is.
Quibcag: The excluder is one of the girls from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)


I thought I'd better coin the term 'stormtrumpers' before somebody else does. Now, I'm not using it to liken Trump to Hitler, because I am, basically, a stormtrumper. Anyhow, to most voters these days, the term 'stormtrooper' calls the Star Wars guys to mind, not Hitler's street troops, so the term is a lot more positive than you might think.

In any case, we can say that 'trumpers' are Trump supporters, while 'stormtrumpers' are active Trump supporters, like me, who blog or otherwise try to drum up more support for him. So, Donald, if you're reading this, you should be the first, I think, to use the term on TV before your geeky opponents do, so you'll own it and benefit from it. And if anybody can, you can. Co-opt their term before they even think of it!

All this is inspired by my good friend Matt Bailey [link], who supplied the quibcag quote for today, and who also called my attention to what cartoonist Scott Adams has been saying on his blog. Here's a recent bit:

The biggest criticism of Trump is that his immigration plans remind people of Hitler. But what happens when you think of Trump and Putin getting together to fight ISIS? The last time Russia and the U.S. teamed up for major military action they were trying to defeat Hitler. On the 2D level of analysis, Trump’s chummy comments about Putin are a red flag. But on the 3D playing field, where Trump does best, it flips the Hitler meme into something more like getting the band back together to fight Hitler. Your brain probably won’t let you imagine Trump as fighting Hitler (along with Russia) and yet being Hitler at the same time. So while no one was watching, Trump probably solved for the Hitler meme. Watch the Trump-Hitler theme on social media start to diminish.

The more general rule of persuasion here is that you can’t stop a Hitler accusation by arguing all the reasons you are NOT Hitler. No one cares about the details because we are dealing with emotion, not reason. But you can find a bigger Hitler, and that accomplishes the same thing because the brain doesn’t allow for two simultaneous Hitlers.

I pause to inform new readers – and remind the regulars – that I do not endorse Trump or anyone else for president. All of the candidates look qualified to me. I am interested in Trump’s persuasion methods. I have never seen better.

See what I mean? Scott Adams can be shockingly insightful at times, and I recommend you head over to his blog at and scroll down and read all his stuff about Trump. And all his other stuff, too, but especially Trump.
Quibcag: The money girl is Tendo Nabiki, the Trump equivalent of  Ranma ½ (らんま½)

A White Privilege Graphic

Found on the net. Spread it around.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Trump's The One!

I couldn't agree more with this from Breitbart:

20 Reasons Why It Should Be Donald Trump in 2016

It isn’t “acceptable” in polite society to support Donald Trump, I am told.

America’s bullies – the sneering, “we know better than you” establishment classes – have made many cower in silence rather than proclaim that Trump is a tremendous presidential candidate and has earned their support.
It is a replay of the worst aspects of high school peer-pressure, about what’s OK and what isn’t, based on selfish interests and prejudices.
Well, enough of that. Trump is already changing America for the better – and is encouraging us to boldly stand up for our beliefs about what’s best for our nation and best for our fellow Americans.
So let’s get right to it. Shifting America back on course requires Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. Not only is he the only Republican candidate who could win the general election, but he is the only choice Republican voters should consider (and should consider themselves lucky to have on their side).
In no particular order, here are the top 20 reasons why:
1. He is not your ordinary politician.  Yes, Trump is different. Guess what? That’s a good thing. His ideas – e.g., a sound immigration policy, returning manufacturing jobs to America, negotiating better trade deals – are not at all radical, but do go against the Washington status-quo. You see, we’re supposed to select another perfectly malleable politician – a Republican not unlike a Democrat – who won’t shake things up too much while in office. Same ol’, same ol’. And you, little person, you are supposed to vote for more of the same and like it. But the American public has reached a tipping point – we’d rather gouge out our eyes than select another career politician or Washington insider. That’s just electing the problem to fix the problem. Hence, this:
Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 4.39.21 PM
It’s make or break time – and drastic times call for, well, not drastic measures but certainly something different. America is headed towards demise. If the old adage is that ‘insanity is trying the same thing time and time again and expecting a different result,’ why would we nominate the usual type of politician?
Read the other 19 reasons here:

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Bernie Sanders, Boy Economist

Anybody see a problem with Bernie's logic here?

You have families out there paying 6, 8, 10 percent on student debt but you can refinance your homes at 3 percent. What sense is that?

Friday, December 25, 2015

Kathy Shaidle on Feminism and Libertarianism

The following is actually a comment Kathy posted on a Gavin McInnes essay over at Takkmag here [link]. As is often the case, an offhand comment at that site is as good as a guest post here. A great many of us are puzzled by the fact that many of the concepts of libertarianism and feminism make sense in theory but fail in practice. Kathy gives the simple Zen answer to the dilemman: They're not for everybody.

Feminism is like libertarianism: It is/was only meant for the gifted.
I don't like children and always wanted to work.
But I am an outlier. It would have been cruel to me (and my kids) to force me to be a housewife.
But here's the thing: Gifted women with spunk always found a way. I used to work for one of the first female lawyers in Canada. She was 80 at the time (during the 80s.) Female doctors, lawyers, scientists, astronauts -- there weren't LOTS of them, but there aren't supposed to be. Most men aren't those things either.
See Marie Curie etc. Most women AREN'T Curie. They SHOULD be at home instead of pushing little pieces of paper back and forth to each other and organizing office baby showers, which is what most female "careers" boil down to today.
They "have" to work? Only because taxes are too high. And what do they "need" is money for? Why... childcare and commuting of course :-)
I'm a libertarian for myself but a conservative for everyone else. Same with feminism.
Kathy Shaidle's own website is at
Quibcag: the smart girl is Marii Buratei of Joshiraku (じょしらく),

Thursday, December 24, 2015

A Christmas Present Quibcag For You All

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Trump: One of Us

Way back when Sarah Palin burst upon the scene, she was the target of an insane amount of hatred and abuse on the part of the MAG (Media, Academia, Government). Far more than McCain, oddly enough. And proportionally, far more than they'd shown for Reagan or even Nixon.

It wasn't entirely her political postions, because plenty of Republicans (and even some Democrats) held pretty much the same. I'll tell you what it was. She was one of us.

Think about it. Not that she came from the lowerish part of the middle class. A lot of politicians do, like Bill Clinton. But she never repudiated her origins to insinuate herself into the official political class, which is our aristocracy.

She was born one of us, and stayed one of us. And her political positions were much like the basic American's were. You never felt preached to by her, or had the feeling she thought she was better than the unwashed masses, a feeling you get from listening to practically all politicians of both parties.

And guess who's fitting into that slot now — yep, Trump. Oh, he's filthy rich, and came from money, quite unlike Palin, but like her, he doesn't preach. Like her, he testifies as though he was in church, telling you what he believes, and feels, and we like it, because he thinks much like we do, with the same values that we have. He's one of us in the same way that Palin is.

That's why we like him, that's why we'll vote for him, rejecting the holier-than-thou schoolmarms like Jeb and Hillary. And this, from the blog at

The Importance of Trump

Like Richard Nixon, Donald Trump is the Silent Majority candidate of this election. The more the media howl at his abrasiveness and sheds crocodile tears for those he offends, the stronger he becomes. You can’t understand this without understanding Nixon and the electoral coalition he built that won him a 49-state landslide despite an overwhelmingly hostile media.

Trump’s people aren’t concerned with the minutiae of different tax plans or who gets endorsed by the Beltway think-tanks. They are not necessarily ideological conservatives, much less libertarians. The sight of various dyed in the wool GOPers and the libertarians who usually vote with them calling Trump a ‘RINO’ are stupendously missing the point and sadly oblivious to their own irrelevance.

The Trump base are responding to the erosion of American institutions; a process begun with some malice on the part of the American left but never effectively halted by the Republican Party. This is partly because mass Third World immigration, the greatest factor in America’s undoing, is supported by the Chamber of Commerce faction of the party, so the GOP is pursuing profits in the short-term but actually increasingly hurting it’s chances of winning the national ticket with every electoral cycle as a result of the demographic changes it is fostering.

Trump voters are not fascists or RINO’s or socialists or whatever. They are in the rawest sense just one thing: Americans. It must be noted that they are predominantly the descendants of America’s founding stock, supplemented by the pre-WWI European immigrants, and that they are opposed by a coalition of the fringes that represents a kind of anti-America. So while Trump’s people may not be reading Edmund Burke or Adam Smith, they are still our people. It’s up to the GOP to recognise them and embrace them, as opposed to turning their backs in embarrassment or spitting on them.
Quibcag: A reader sent me the illustration. Cool, eh?

More Quibcaggery

In response to my little graphic on the right over there, Jay's Tee Vee [link] said:

"He Should Have Made This A QUIBCAG!"

and I have to agree. The problem was, I couldn't (and still can't) figure out how to edit an animated gif into a quibcag and keep it animated, so here's the best I can do.

Anybody know how I can add the quibcag stuff and still keep the flag waving?
Oh, the girls are from the wonderful anime, Joshiraku (じょしらく),
and speaking of anime, you really should check out Jay's Tee Vee periodically. It'll blow your mind.

Monday, December 21, 2015

National Conservatism

I call myself a 'libertarian nationalist' so as not to be confused with the marxoid left-libertarians who deny the validity and very existence of nations, borders, and anything at all between individual and the whole damn human race — or maybe the whole Universe, for all I know.

And, reading what follows, I realized that I can certainly get along with any other kind of nationalist, because we don't have to argue about whether we should be a nation or not. We should. Below, Trump's policy is described as 'national conservatism,' as opposed to 'movement conservatism,' which is pretty much indistinguishable from liberalism in that it, too, considers the nation imaginary at best, obsolete and evil at worst.

They never say that, unless they're basement-dwelling libertarians, but the mainstream political stance of our betters who want to do all our thinking for us is not nationalist. It's internationalist, antinationalist, globalist, and, consequently, antipatriotic, inevitably.

All of the antinationalist crowd — left-libertarians, neoconservatives, liberals, etc. — are agree on a number of things. The American people are not, and should not be, a nation. We have no right to prevent billions of people from moving in and signing themselves up for freebies. Disagreeing with that is bigotry. And, since nations don't matter, it's our job to invade the world wherever we see anything going on that is wrong according to the deep thinkers. If the Afghans don't treat women the way we want them treated, invade them. If the Serbs are tough on Muslims, bomb them. You get the idea.

So now I see it this way. I'm a libertarian nationalist. All antinationalists are my enemy. But conservative nationalist are at worse my opponents, and very likely my allies. That would be true oal of liberal nationalists if there are any, But all such are my allies with regard to antinationalists. With that in mind, read this from

Whither the American Right: Cruz And “Movement Conservatism”—Or Trump And National Conservatism?

by James Kirkpatrick

It’s a sign of Conservatism Inc.’s desperation that they are turning to Ted Cruz to stop Donald Trump. With Jeb! a joke, Christie floundering, Carson cratering, and Rubio’s “momentum” looking like wishful thinking by the consultants, even “Establishment” Republicans recognize they may need Ted Cruz, the Texas Senator who has been the bête noire of Capital Hill Republicans since he entered office, to save the Party and the “Movement” from Donald Trump.But the question for patriots outside the Beltway: is it more important to save the existing “Conservative Movement”—or build a new one to save the country?

Desperation can be seen in the speed with which Conservatism Inc.’s bigwigs are moving to consolidate behind Cruz. At the heart of this effort: the Religious Right organizations, spearheaded by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (like us, a “hate group” according to the $PLC). Perkins summoned dozens of conservative leaders to form a collective known as “The Group” to unite and marshal their support behind one candidate early in the primaries. After heavy debate, they choose Cruz over Rubio in a meeting at Northern Virginia hotel.
National Review’s Tim Alberta writes:
The impact was felt immediately on the 2016 campaign. Three prominent participants—direct-mail pioneer and longtime activist Richard Viguerie, the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown, and The Family Leader’s Bob Vander Plaats—announced their support of Cruz within 72 hours of the meeting at the Sheraton.

Cruz is counting on evangelicals to deliver him a victory in Iowa and is even trying to sap Donald Trump’s strength in the Deep South.

Significantly, Cruz is also taking action to guard his greatest vulnerability—on immigration. He’s rallied the man calls “America’s Senator,” Jeff Sessions, to his defense.

Refuting charges Cruz had favored some kind of an Amnesty/Immigration Surge and accusations of double talk from Marco Rubio (who would know), Sessions defended Cruz at a Saturday rally in Alabama, saying the Texas Senator was with Sessions “every step of the way” when fighting the Gang of Eight bill [Defiant Jeff Sessions on ‘Gang of Eight’: ‘Every Step of the Way, Ted Cruz was on my side, by Jeff Poor, Breitbart, December 19, 2015]

Read the rest here:

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Globalism and Cultural Marxism

Recently, somebody (I think it was Paul Gottfried, but I can't affirm it) pointed out that cultural marxism isn't marxism at all. And that's true. If you read Marx, you'll see that most of what goes under the term 'cultural marxism' would have seemed downright idiotic to him, and most of it has nothing to do with economics, which is the basis of actual marxism. So why do we call it that. Here's why. Almost from the very beginning, Marx's theories were enthusiastically used as a tool to destroy Western Culture and the White race, by those who hate us, for whatever reason. Marxism was really handy for many reasons, chiefly because it provided an excuse to revolt against authority to help usher in the marxist utopia. Actually, for most of its adherents, the marxist utopia was just a pretext. The purpose was to destroy us and our culture. Some just want it gone because they hate it. Some want it gone, or twisted out of recognition, so they can take over and exercise power.

So the compendium of idiotic ideas that we usually call 'political correctness' has come to be called cultural marxism, not because it's any kind of version of marxism, but because it's being used as a civilization-destroying tool, just like marxism has been. So it's actually a cultural alternative to marxism.

And, now that most marxist thinking has been shown to be unworkable, and therefore not nearly so attractive as it used to be, the destroyers are moving over to political correctness, aka cultural marxism, to break us down. Anything that works, they'll use. Right now, they're hoping they can use Islam to do the same thing.

And as the quibcag implies, once the natural authority of Western Civilization has broken down, via cultural marxism or Islam or whatever new method they come up with, there will be no more obstacles to globalism. And globalism would be the real end of history, with a financial elite ruling over all of us with a totalitarianism that would turn the stomach of the relatively feeble totalitarians of the past.

The real right has been aware of the collaboration of Wall Street and the destroyers for decades. Meanwhile, the left keeps supporting Wall Street tools like Hillary.

Quibcag: Sera Masumi explains the globalism-cultural marxism link to Mouri Ran. Both are from
Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン).

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Refuting Rothbard

The following was a comment on my previous post here [link], and it's such a refreshing take and so insightful about the ethnic/sociological aspect of it all, that it deserves to reincarnate as a guest post, so here it is. My afterword follows.

Rothbard "appropriated" the term "libertarianism" and instead gave us anarcho capitalism as the reinterpretation of cosmopolitan ethics of the eastern european borderlands, under Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish rule. It is the ethic of the ghetto. Of the people who do not produce commons or defense.

There is nothing 'libertarian' in Rothbarianism, and nothing moral in his or Block's attempt to construct moral and legal rules.

The word "is" remains extremely confusing for english speakers, since it refers both to "exists as", and can be used as a shortcut for AVOIDING or CONFLATING, or DECEIVING the method by which something exists.

So I prefer to state libertarianism as the reciprocal insurance of all individuals in a polity against the undesired imposition of costs upon that which has been transformed at the cost of individual actions or inactions - whether that cost be imposed by an individual(violence, theft, fraud, externality) a group of individuals (conspiracy), or an organization devoted to the construction of commons (government).

Liberty can only be constructed by this means: mutual insurance against the involuntary imposition of costs.

There is no free lunch. And arguments in favor of 'belief' in liberty, or belief that we should leave one another alone, are merely fraudulent attempts to obtain the experience of liberty without paying the very high cost of both insuring one another against impositions of costs, and the high cost of refraining from imposing costs upon others, and the high cost of creating commons that produce disproportionate returns, including the commons of Liberty itself.

And as empirical evidence we should note that the cosmopolitans lost eastern Europe just as their ancestors lost Spain and Jerusalem.

There are no free rides.
Liberty is rare because it is expensive.
But the returns on the high trust society warrant it.
And because only a militia of warriors possesses the incentive to construct it.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Ex-Army here. I've always thought of Rothbard as a rather reasonable version of modern libertarianism. As opposed, of course, to the original libertarianism of the Founding Fathers, who I look to as a measure of such things. Curt's evaluation of him certainly gives me a bit of a Zen Aha! feeling. This could explain a lot. Despite Rothbard's sensible advocacy of working together with Buchananites and other old-right people, he does remain an anarchist of sorts, and looking at him, as Doolittle does, as the cultural/political product of the East European ghettos really does explain the difference between the wacky open-borders, legalize everything libertarians of today, and the Founders' version of it from th 18th century. "People who do not produce commons or defense" provokes a lot of thinking, all by itself. Commons and defense are, indeed, the very things that modern smug mother's-basement-dwelling left-libertarians seem disdain or ignore entirely, as not fitting their sandbox narrative.

So, thank you, Curt Doolittle for this comment/guest post. Doolittle's website is here, and I intend to spend the next few days reading through it in search of more Zen moments.
Quibcag: Somehow, Erwin of Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā) seems right to illustrate the quote.

Procrustes' Narrative re Japanese and German Internment

Never assume that you have all the facts. Even an old coot like me, who has pretty well grasped the reality of things for over fifty years, has big gaps in knowledge. This is simply because the establishment liberal/conservative narrative influences and shapes the available facts. And leaves a lot of them out.  A lot. Deliberately.

We all expect the average Joe to lack a lot of information that's essential to forming useful opinions. Without it, his opinions tend to be warped. One excellent example is the impression a lot of people have that White Americans invented slavery. I know, any you probably know, that slavery had pretty much been abolished within Christendom/Western Civilization, but was re-initiated when we found all those slaves for sale in Africa. Most White people don't have a clue about the reality of that, let alone Black people, who use this skewed version of history to ramp up their hatred for Whitey. This ignorance is why American voters are mostly okay with treating Blacks like eternal victims. The narrative, again.

Years back, on the net on some forum or another, a commenter stated that the Germans bombed civilians in Britain, but that the Allies didn't do stuff like that. I sent her a link that described Dresden, and she thanked me for correcting her. Clearly she knew a lot about the war, but the info had been cherry-picked by the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) for her, to mesh with the narrative, Germans bad, Allies good.

Now, these facts aren't always suppressed so much as they're just left out and ignored, and when the intellectual authorities are called on this, they either change the subject or say that the facts are trivial or irrelevant.

Now, everybody on the planet knows that the US interned all those poor Japanese-Americans during WWII, and that it was evil and racist yadda yadda to do so. But only a few are aware that the US also interned German-Americans and Italian-Americans. Were you aware? I was, but only vaguely, and I had no idea that things like David Cole describes happened. In short, I knew a watered-down version of reality.

When it comes to understanding relevant history, this is the most important thing I've read for quite some time. It's from

The Nazi Kid From Brooklyn

History must always be remembered, except when it shouldn’t. No one will ever claim that adage, but many people adhere to it, one way or another. Pity the person with a history that disturbs a popular narrative. In the blink of an eye, “never forget” can become “never remind.” 
Last week, the media went into full-on “never forget” mode after Donald Trump’s “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” proposal. Damn near every mainstream media outlet immediately invoked World War II Japanese-American internment as an example of how U.S. war hysteria inevitably leads to racism.
The fuss over Trump’s comments will eventually ebb. Of more interest to me is how the episode proved, once again, that while the story of the 71,000 Japanese-Americans who were relocated, and the 35,000 Japanese aliens who were interned (in a previous piece, I explained the difference), is classified under “never forget,” the story of the approximately 14,000 German- and Italian-Americans and aliens interned during the war is officially filed under “never remind.” 
Meet Arthur Jacobs. He’s the poster boy for “doesn’t fit the narrative.” Not coincidentally, he’s also the poster boy for getting your nads kicked by your own government for eighty years just because you’re of German descent. You know what he isn’t the poster boy for? “White privilege.” Jacobs’ story personifies why the ordeal of interned German-Americans and aliens during World War II was sometimes worse than what the Japanese internees went through.
Arthur Jacobs’ parents moved to the U.S. from Germany in the 1920s. They were pretty much your standard German Christian immigrants, looking to start a new life in New York. They became legal residents, and had two sons. Arthur was born in Brooklyn in 1933. His parents mandated that English be spoken around the house, so Arthur grew up knowing only scant German. He was a typical Brooklyn kid: school, sports, and scrap-metal drives when the war broke out. But the FDR administration had other plans.
“Just like in that American-administered dungeon in occupied Germany when he was twelve, Arthur Jacobs is once again called a Nazi simply for being of German descent.” 
After Pearl Harbor, all “enemy aliens” (noncitizens from Axis countries) had to register with their local “enemy alien hearing board.” Jacobs’ father was interviewed by the board, and it was unanimously determined that he posed no threat, and that internment was not necessary. The Jacobs family felt that they’d dodged a bullet, but, in fact, they were just a bit farther downrange than they thought. What the Jacobs family, and thousands of other German-American families, didn’t know was that the Roosevelt administration had created a secret, shadowy entity within the State Department called the “Special War Problems Division” (SWPD), which was charged with rounding up aliens and their families for use as hostages should any need arise to bargain for Americans captured by Axis forces. Some aliens already cleared by the enemy aliens board were to be interned anyway, because the goal of the SWPD wasn’t national security, but to collect potential pawns. 
Art and his family were sent to a temporary internment center at Ellis Island (pause for irony), and then they were sent by train to an internment camp in Crystal City, Tex. (the “Spinach Capital of the World,” complete with a giant statue of Popeye in the city center). Having traded the Statue of Liberty’s benevolent gaze for Popeye’s threatening fists, the Jacobs family settled in at the Crystal City camp, which was roughly divided between German and Japanese internees. And while the Japanese inmates would eventually be freed, for some of the German inmates, the worst was yet to come.
Worst indeed. Read the rest here, and be prepared to be astounded.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

The Lazarus Option

What Steve says in the quibcag is just one aspect of it all. There are a lot of reasons that the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) wants mass immigration from the Third World, but one of the main ones, as Steve suggests, is that the presence of such immigrants gives them yet another excuse to clamp down on what freedoms we have left. The basic American stock — British settlers and other European immigrants that readily assimilated to their variant of British culture — is frustrating for would-be dictators. For one thing, we're irritatingly self-reliant. When we have tornadoes or floods, or  snowstorms, we pretty much take care of ourselves and volunteer to help each other out. The Feds, alas, don't have all that much to do. So it's better for them if they add other sorts of people to the population who will need, appreciate, and vote for massive government aid and interference.

We're also very trustworthy with weapons. If you break down the statistics, White Americans of European stock are about as likely to misuse firearms as Danes or Swiss are. Our high rates of such misuse are overwhelmingly caused by the presence of other ethnic groups. And the more such groups are present, and the more they shoot up the place, the more the MAG can shriek for gun control and gun confiscation.

And of course the presence of all these immigrants gives the MAG still more excuses to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, because, for one thing, the immigrants tend to bring along all their old animosities and want the US government to go to Syria or Kenya or wherever and smack around their old enemies.

And it's not just the lack of need for big government on the part of the Old American Stock — it's also their conscious hostility towards the idea, and their tendency to vote against the expansion of government. Third World immigrants, on the other hand, can be counted on to vote for lots and lots of freebies. They come from places where government is the source of all wealth and opportunity, so they see it as the natural state of things. And vote accordingly.

All Third World immigrants are very helpful in these respects for the wannabe dictators, but Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, because of their ideology and history, may be the most helpful of all. Hence the emphasis on Muslim immigration from all the Presidential candidates, except for Trump. I know some have decided to follow his lead, but can we trust them?

Steve Sailer has a plan for a symbolic gesture that would help turn all this around. Check it out here [link].
Quibcag: I got the violent girls from a Russian site, of all places, here [link].

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Are you a statist fascist dude?

Jeff Odgis [link] says:

Why am I a Libertarian Nationalist? Well, this encapsulates the point.

Illustrations is from Fresh Fash Memes [link].

John Craig on Social Justice Warriors as Narcissists

Social Justice Warrions (SJW's), John Craig has your number. This is from his blog here [link].

Social justice warriors as narcissists

Watching the participants during this fall of protest, listening to their complaints, and seeing their patterns of behavior, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that their movement is basically narcissism writ large.

Look at the way they protest. Look at these protesters marchthrough an otherwise quiet library, yelling at people who just want to be left alone to study. Look at these BLM protesters shutting down a Bernie Sanders speech. Look at these protesters blocking off a street. Or these protesters, blocking a train. Narcissists never give any thought to how they inconvenience others, and it never seems to occur to them how they would feel if their lives were disrupted this way. Like children, they throw their tantrums without concern for the consequences.

(Look up "narcissism" on Wikipedia, and among the telltale signs listed are "difficulty with empathy" and "inability to view the world from the perspective of other people.")

The social justice warriors are so convinced of their own righteousness that they are oblivious to the fact that they are driving people away from their side of the argument.

(Wikipedia lists "a lack of psychological awareness" as another sign.)

If you've ever talked to a social justice warrior, you know they tend to be impervious to facts. Quote them a fact that doesn't fit with their narrative and they'll dismiss it with, "Oh…what's your source on that, Faux News?" If it is a conservative source, they'll often respond, airily, oh, I would never listen to anything they'dsay. (This is a statement more revealing than they intend: narcissists only accept the version of events that fits with their narrative.)

Another narcissistic specialty is argument-by-drowning-out. I've never had a conversation with an SJW that hasn't ended with them trying to talk over me. Even if you listen to them politely, they will almost always interrupt and not allow you to have your say.

Anybody who refuses to even listen to the other side is a narcissist. This, of course, applies to people on both the Left and Right, but I've seen the behavior far more often from Lefties.

(Once again, "inability to view the world from the respective of other people." And, it's hard not to suspect, "problems in sustaining satisfying relationships," also per Wiki.)

Look at the difference in hate crimes hoaxes. They all seem to come from the Left, which needs to make up things to get angry about. When was the last time you heard of someone on the Right fabricating a crime in order to look like a victim?

(These hoaxes actually cross the line from narcissism to sociopathy, but since most SJW's don't commit them, we can't say such hoaxes are typical SJW behavior. On the other hand, it isinteresting that these hoaxes all seem to be perpetrated by those on the Left.)

Consider the concept of "micro aggressions." It's a way to claim offense when none was meant. Traditionally, it meant saying something insensitive to black people like, "Can I touch your hair?" or "You people…." Now it can be just saying that America is the land of opportunity. Or "God bless you" after a sneeze.

(From Wiki: "hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults.")

By the way, when was the last time you heard a conservative complain about a microaggression aimed at him?

Being an SJW is, at heart, a pose. I actually had someone tell me once, "I'm a liberal. I care about the less fortunate." In other words, I'm a liberal because I'm a good person. Like that old bumper sticker advertising, "I brake for animals," it's all moralistic preening.

Some people become liberals because they've been brainwashed into thinking that they must be if they want to think of themselves as "good." And their desire to see themselves in that light is so strong, they can't even allow "bad" (i.e., realistic) thoughts to enter their head because doing so would sully their self-image. So, they put on, or at least pretend to put on, politically correct blinders.

(For some reason, some narcissists, like some sociopaths, have a strong desire to appear morally superior. It's not enough to be as good as other people: they must show that they are better.)

Contrast today's campus protests to the campus activism of the 60's. Social Justice Warriors today no longer protest needless wars (in Southeast Asia, or Afghanistan), or nuclear weapons, or for free speech. They now clamor for "safe spaces" -- where free speech is not allowed -- or against "microaggressions," those imaginary slights. Or against that nebulous (and mostly fictional) bogeyman, "white privilege."

It's no longer about larger issues: it's now all about them.

Their mindlessness and demands for ideological purity are reminiscent of Mao's Red Brigades back in the 60's. But instead of having Mao's Little Red Book, today's SJW's obey the (unwritten) Manual of Political Correctness, with its ever-evolving (and increasingly ridiculous) litany of required sensitivities and unmentionable facts.

But there actually is one group which beats the social justice warriors at their own game these days: ISIS. They are so intolerant of other's beliefs, so convinced of their own righteousness, that they give absolutely no thought to other peoples' rights and freedoms. Or even, to their lives. And they feel good about killing people in all sorts of grotesque ways, simply because they know they are right. Not a doubt in their minds.

If you view the terrorists' behavior through the prism of narcissism, and think of them as the ultimate social justice warriors, they become easier to understand.

See, that's the thing about being an SJW, or a narcissist: you can't ever harbor any self-doubt.
Quibcag: the virtuous nun is from

Trump, Muslims, Derbyshire, and the Left

The left in this country has a peculiar relationship with the Constitution. When it says that

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,

they interpret it to mean that the government has the right and duty to disarm everybody. Or, if they're not totally in denial of reality, they say that the Founders were wrong, or old-fashioned, or something.

On the other hand, when the Constitution says that Congress

shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

they take it to mean that we have to let foreign Muslims immigrate.  Well, it doesn't mean that. We once had a law that Soviet Christians had no special right to immigrate, but that Soviet Jews did. No court struck that down. No leftist waved any signs about that.

Actually, of course, leftists don't care a hoot about the Constitution. They want lots of Muslim immigration in particular and third world immigration in general in order to increase the power of the welfare state, move the political center to the left, and, basically, destroy the two things they hate most — Western culture and the White race.

And aside from the constitutionality of a Muslim prohibition, is the idea of Muslim prohibition a good one. You're damn right it is.  At, John Derbyshire writes:

Trump Has A Point–Why NOT Ban Muslim Immigration?

Any conservative who raises his arm above the shoulder in public will be photographed like this. Credit:
How about that Donald Trump, eh? Monday this week the Donald called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He walked the thing back a little bit the next day, saying that U.S. citizens who are Muslim should of course be allowed back in from overseas trips: “They’re a citizen. That’s different.” Naturally I am in total agreement. It does needs breaking down a little, though.
There are three ways a foreigner comes to the U.S.A. He comes on an immigrant visa, or on a nonimmigrant visa, or he comes illegally. Let’s ignore the last category there as being just a law-enforcement issue. What about the others?
An immigrant visa confers the right of permanent settlement and ultimately citizenship, unless the immigrant blots his copybook in some serious way. Should we block Muslims from permanent settlement here?
You’re asking me? I write for We want a moratorium on all new permanent settlement! The U.S.A. has as many people as it needs, and some serious problems of assimilation. Let’s stop all issuance of immigrant visas for the indefinite future, and get down to assimilating the huge numbers we’ve let in this past fifty years.
What, exactly, is the case against this? There isn’t one. You can’t make one; although you can, of course, chant platitudes about huddled masses and “a nation of immigrants.” That’s not making a case, that’s just emoting.
When I first came here forty years ago the U.S.A. had 210 million people, who had somehow just managed to put men on the Moon. I traveled all over that 210 million America — actually drove coast to coast and back in my 1964 Chevy. Let me tell ya, in case you weren’t around, 210 million America was a darn nice place.
Now we have 320 million, a 52 percent increase. Is the U.S.A. 52 percent better off for that, discounting for things that would have improved anyway?
I can’t see it.
The ban on settlement needn’t be waterproof. I’m sure most Americans would allow some minimal family unification — spouse and minor children of citizens, subject to basic security checks. Likewise for foreigners with extraordinary talents. If the world’s greatest chess player wants to settle in America, I’d say let him. Personally I’d even allow Muslims in both cases, subject to security screening.
That would get you down to a few thousand a year accepted for permanent settlement, of whom a few dozen might be Muslims. But he current numbers—well over a million a year, ten percent of them Muslims—are insane. We don’t need these people; and with such huge numbers, we can’t do proper, thorough background checks.
So a moratorium on immigrant visas, Muslim or otherwise. What about nonimmigrant visas—business travelers, academic exchanges, diplomats, students, guest workers, tourists?
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: What could be more politically incorrect than an anime girl in a bunny suit with a gun?

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Running Libertarianism Into The Ground

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The libertarian critique is useful and often very correct. But like all ideologies, it's supposed to match reality, not twist reality to match itself. The idea that people should be allowed to do what they like provided that what the do doesn't violate others' rights by aggression or fraud is a good, basic idea. But when it's applied to the real world, right away a reasonable person realizes that it's very difficult to determine what really constitutes aggression, and even more difficult to agree on what fraud entails.

And of course, as the quibcag suggests, one needs a critical mass of libertarians to have a libertarian society, and for these libertarians to exist, they have to be brought up with the proper characteristics. And unless you already have a libertarian society, it's virtually impossible to bring them up that way with society at large teaching them otherwise.

Libertarians who insist on total adherence to the force and fraud principles of course would find it impossible to bring children up, because you often have to use force on children to keep them alive. I'm not talking about punishment. I'm talking about grabbing them to stop them from running out into the traffic.

And, obviously, force has to be used to keep foreigners from immigrating illegally, which is why the flakier libertarians out there favor open borders. With a couple billion third-worlders eager to walk in and sign up for freebies and vote for more freebies, that's a pretty self-defeating attitude.

All of this is why, to distinguish myself from the flaky libertarian contingent, I refer to myself as a libertarian nationalist.

Vox Day has this to say:

Why John C. Wright is not a libertarian

In which Mr. Wright explains why he is no longer a libertarian:
I often introduce myself as a recovering libertarian. It is not an entirely serious introduction, but it is not entirely frivolous either.

Why “recovering”? Sad experience teaches that any ideology, even a sound one, like libertarianism, is intoxicating. The appeal of ideology is the appeal of elegance. Just as Newton reduced all motions from the orbits to apples falling to three expressions, every intellectual craves a simple formula to explain the human condition. Libertarianism is based on a single principle that limits the state’s use of force to retaliation against fraud and trespass.

Nearly all the natural moral rules all men carry in their hearts are satisfied by the simple rule that you may do as you like provided you leave your neighbor free to do as he likes. No neighbor may rob, defraud nor attack another.

The intoxication comes with each case that fits neatly to the theory. Natural morality agrees that wars to defend the innocent are permissible, as is killing in self defense. Natural morality agrees that a man should keep his contracts, and so on.

The theory says the state must remain carefully neutral in all cultural and moral questions: the use of intoxicating drugs for recreational use, suicide assisted or no, polygamy, prostitution, gambling, pornography, duels to the death (provided only all participants fully agree!) or, for that matter, copulating with a corpse on the roof of your house in plain view of the neighbors’ children playing in their backyards, and then eating the corpse, all must be legal.

For me, the intoxicating spell ended in three sharp realizations, each one as forceful as a thunderbolt.
Read the rest of it there.

As for me, I've always been a small-l libertarian rather than a large-L one. These days, I consider myself more of a Christian nationalist, or a Western Civilizationist than a libertarian per se. Human liberty is an important priority, but we now have a sound historical basis for understanding that a free and open society of the sort that Libertarianism assumed is simply not an option. 
Quibcag: Illustrated with the Shonen Tantei from Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン), who were brought up very well>