Tag: politics

Carlos Danger for President

I have to say, I like the cut of his jib. We’ve already got the idiocracy, now all we need is the leader with the insane and unfounded confidence of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.  And I say Carlos Danger, aka C. Anthony’s Weiner, may be just that man.

When the first texts were revealed two years ago, Mr. Weiner lied about
it, saying he had been the victim of hackers. Then he owned up,
tearfully abandoned his office and retreated into private life. Then he
was back, telling the world that therapy and his wife’s forgiveness had
turned him around and that he was ready to begin a new chapter. That
turned out to be the mayor’s race, which he entered in May. What he did
not say then, and what voters did not realize until Tuesday, was that
his resignation had not been the end of his sexual misconduct.

The timing here matters, as it would for any politician who violates the
public’s trust and then asks to have it back. Things are different now,
he insists. “This behavior is behind me,” he said again on Tuesday. He
suggested that people should have known that his sexting was an
unresolved problem well into 2012.

That’s ridiculous and speaks to a familiar but repellent pattern of misleading and evasion.

To the contrary, I say a ridiculous candidate is ideally suited for an American democracy that knowingly re-elected Bill Clinton, Bush the Younger, and Barry Soebarkah. Carlos Danger would be the perfect president to lead America into its final collapse.  As the economy contracts and interracial violence erupts from Florida to California, the citizenry would be cheered and inspired by frequent press conferences featuring the presidential weiner. 

Why should the New York Times be perturbed by what Carlos Danger does with his dongle?  After all, his wife clearly doesn’t care what he does with it so long as he keeps it away from her.

Carlos Danger in 2016!

Boehner prepares his latest betrayal

It amazes me that John Boehner is still the head of the House Republicans after single-handedly saving the Obama administration by raising the debt ceiling.  Now it looks as if he is preparing to mortally wound the Republican Party in the short term and permanently segregate the American two-party system in the long term:

While House Speaker John Boehner is keeping a tight lid on his personal position on immigration reform, conservative activists and lawmakers fear the Republican leader may rubber-stamp Democrats’ controversial legislation in a backroom deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Boehner declined to answer whether he supports what many on the left have come to term a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants during his appearance on CBS News’ Face The Nation on Sunday morning. For conservative lawmakers, that does not assuage fears that he and his deputies House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Whip Kevin McCarthy, and Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan could be working behind the scenes cut a deal with Reid and President Barack Obama to achieve amnesty for illegal immigrants in America.

“We are scared to death of what we figure is already Boehner’s end game,” a senior congressional GOP aide told Breitbart News. “There are so many forces within the GOP establishment pushing for their interests that it’s hard to conceive that Boehner will not cave to them.”

By adding tens of millions of new Democratic voters who are, for the most part, to the left of the Democratic Party’s center, more whites are going to gravitate towards the Republican Party than has been seen since Nixon first successfully launched his Southern Strategy.

Few “anti-racist” white liberals tend to remain that way once they are surrounded by  vibrant neighbors and find themselves living in the diversity they once supported so enthusiastically from afar.  Remember, “white flight” is mostly an urban liberal phenomenon.

Where is the Left?

I find it fascinating how the ideological Left is far more concerned about slavery that ended nearly 150 years ago than slavery that is taking place today.  It appears that if they can’t blame something on white people, they’re just not interested in it:

From the West Coast of Africa to the deserts of Sinai, Bedouin tribes
are conducting a human trafficking trade on a massive scale… This man is just one victim of this widespread modern-day slavery,
kidnapping, and torture trade in the Sinai desert. There are many
pictures and videos of this horrible practice on the Internet. For this story, this Christian man from the African country of
Eritrea is going by “Philip,” but that’s not his real name. CBN News
covered his identity for his protection.

“In some cases, we were tortured simply because we were Christians,” he told us, his chest trembling slightly as he spoke. “Sinai was always a place for human smuggling, but since around two
years ago — even a bit more — it started also to be a place of human
torture,” Shahar Shoham, director of Physicians for Human Rights, told CBN News.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it is readily apparent that everything, including the truth, is nothing more than a useful weapon to the Left.  With a few noble exceptions, for whom I harbor an amount of respect, they just don’t appear to have any genuine principles beyond whatever they find useful at the moment. 

This is true of some who are nominally on the right, of course.  You don’t need to remind me, I was acquainted with Ken Lay and some members of Bush the Elder’s “Houston Mafia”.  But it appears to be true of nearly everyone, especially at the grass roots, on the Left.

Tories favor UKIP

The UK’s nationalist party is on the rise:

Polls conducted in the run-up to Ukip’s local election surge suggested that some 60 per cent of its supporters voted Conservative in 2010, while a survey released by the Tory peer Lord Ashcroft at the end of June indicated that almost a quarter of those who picked David Cameron’s party at the last election would today plump for what he once branded a bunch of “fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists”. More recent research, however, reveals something even more alarming for the Prime Minister: it’s not just Tory voters who are tempted by Ukip; it’s also his own grassroots members.

At the beginning of June, and with the help of YouGov and the McDougall Trust, we surveyed 852 Conservative Party members – enough to ensure that we can be 95 per cent confident that their responses are a true reflection of the membership as a whole, plus or minus 4 per cent. What we found is that at least a fifth and very possibly even just over a quarter of the Tory grassroots would seriously consider voting for Ukip in a general election. Asked whether they’d think about it at a European election, the figures are even more worrying for the Conservative high command: in that case, over a third of its grassroots members are wondering whether to give Ukip a go next year.

Note that these aren’t Tory voters, these are the card-carrying Conservative Party members. They are migrating to UKIP because there is no point in voting Tory due to better policy positions than Labour; a vote for either the Tories or Labour is a vote for Brussels.  Every British voter, regardless of his ideology, who believes in national sovereignty has no choice but to vote UKIP. And that’s why no one should be surprised if an unexpectedly high percentage of Labour party members also go UKIP.

The British have UKIP. The Scots have the Scottish National Party. The Italians have Movimento 5 Stelle. The Greeks have Golden Dawn. The Hungarians have Jobbik. The French have Front National. The Finns have the True Finns. The Swiss have the Schweizerische Volkspartei. Even the Germans have Alternative für Deutschland.

Who do the Americans have?

Deen proves Hoyt right

Prof. Stephen Clark writes in to Instapundit:

The cancellation of Paula Deen’s book at this time is about avoiding
being seen as enabling what appears to be an evolving protest as
expressed through the advance orders, coupled with a desire to flip off
the protesters. Just another page in the ongoing cultural aggression
being waged by the bicoastal elite. It does, however, neatly illustrate
the inherent viciousness of the class.

Taken in
combination with the complete inactivity concerning Alec Baldwin’s
recent comments on Twitter, it also shows the utter hypocrisy of that
class.  By the elite’s standard metric, Baldwin’s speech was every bit
as hateful and unforgivable as Deen’s theatrics, if not more so, but he
hasn’t been fired from his show or lost any endorsement contracts.

Now,
I certainly don’t pity Mrs. Deen in the slightest, as like James
Frenkel, she is simply reaping the harvest that she helped sow with her
active support of progressives and the establishment of today’s
political elite.  And there are worse fates than being paid millions of dollars to not write a book or two. But she does serve as what should be an educational
example to all the Scalzis and Hineses and Goulds of the world; no
amount of goodthink, political posturing, or progressive flag-waving is
going to save you when the pinkshirts and/or savages you have championed
turn on you and tear you apart without warning.

John
Scalzi was very fortunate that his inept political satire last year was
accepted as such. That didn’t have to be the case; it was far more
potentially offensive than the “lady editor” comment that sparked
Bulletingate. If it had served the whims of the pinkshirts to destroy
him, (for example, if they had had a candidate for SFWA president they
wished to push), he would have found himself the bewildered recipient of
the same sort of ideological hysteria to which Messrs. Resnick and
Malzberg were inflicted.  As readers here have probably noted,
pinkshirts tend to fall silent and run away as soon as they meet with
direct opposition willing to openly confront them; the only thing even
the most abject apologizing accomplishes is to inspire them to go into a
feeding frenzy.

In fact, because he has shown obvious Scalzi-like weakness in his obvious desire to appease the pinkshirts, I think it
quite likely that Steven Gould, the incoming president, will soon come
under attack from the organizational left for one reason or another.

To return to Mrs. Deen, the cancellation of her book, which at the time was Amazon’s #1
bestseller prior to its release, also shows that Sarah Hoyt was
absolutely right and that “business reasons” have absolutely nothing to
do with the ideologically driven decisions of the publishing
gatekeepers.  That defense, which was never the least bit convincing to
anyone with actual experience of mainstream publishing, has now been
exploded in a very public and undeniable manner.

And it also demonstrates the importance of building distribution channels that circumnavigate the attempts of the gatekeepers to control what is made available to the public.

Amend or go home

Remember when all the progressives and moderates were saying that a Defense of Marriage Amendment was unnecessary because Congress passed a law?  Yeah, well, they lied:

A divided U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal law that defines
marriage as a heterosexual union, saying it violates the rights of
married gay couples by denying them government benefits.

Between legalizing abortion and the government dismantling of marriage, the USA has now officially entered Sodom and Gomorrah territory.   I wouldn’t put too much confidence in that “God bless America” notion.  The best-case scenario is that He’s not paying attention. Following American politics these days feels like watching Gibbon on fast-forward; an imperial decline and fall measured in years rather than centuries.

I find it remarkable that Republicans still bother passing this sort of law when it has been clear since at least 1973 that the Supreme Court will simply overturn anything that is effectively conservative. Amend or don’t bother.

UPDATE: And they effectively overturned Proposition 8 in California by refusing to hear it.  Taken together, these two “rulings” make it official: American democracy is entirely dead.

The court avoided a ruling on the merits in a second gay-marriage case
involving California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, saying that
both the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court lacked jurisdiction
to hear the case. That means a federal district court’s ruling striking
down Proposition 8 stands, which could clear the way for same-sex
marriage to resume in California.

Notice how the Supreme Court will jump in and wave the Constitution whenever it wants to override something, but turn around and claim it has no jurisdiction whenever it wants to leave a lower court decision intact.  Pass a law, pass a referendum, it doesn’t matter.  The black robes now rule.

Conservatives are still stupid

John Hawkins took a poll of right-wing bloggers concerning the immigration bill. They mostly had enough sense to oppose it, but this was the pair of questions that revealed the irrational position of conservatives on immigration:

6) On the whole, which of these sentiments best describes your thoughts about illegal aliens?
B) They make America a worse place to live? 88.6% (31 votes)
A) They make America a better place to live? 11.4% (4 votes)

7) On the whole, which of these sentiments best describes your thoughts about legal immigrants?
A) They make America a better place to live? 88.6% (31 votes)
B) They make America a worse place to live? 11.4% (4 votes)

Most conservatives genuinely believe that the legality of an action determines the qualitative nature of it.  This is why they so often blithely support whatever evils that the previous generation of progressives have managed to slip past previous conservatives.

It doesn’t matter if 100 million Nigerians and 300 million Chinese enter the country legally or illegally next year, they will substantially change what America is by virtue of their entry.  The legality or illegality of that entry will have no effect whatsoever on the impact they will have over time on American society.

For all their supposed reverence for the Founding Fathers, conservatives have forgotten their wisdom on these matters:

“The opinion advanced in the
Notes on Virginia [by Thomas Jefferson] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will
generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have
left behind; to the country of their nativity; and to its particular
customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government
congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be
led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that
they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential
to real republicanism?”

Offended by silence

This story of internecine offense-taking should be educational for those who believe that if only they remain are sufficiently nice to people and avoid saying anything negative, they will avoid giving offense to the permanently – and in some cases, professionally – offended:

Two state legislators are accusing former Congressman Anthony Weiner of displaying a “lack of moral courage” in the face of what they slammed as a “homophobic, misogynistic slur” made by a voter referring to their chosen candidate: City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. And they want him to apologize.

The offense occurred in The Washington Post, which published a lengthy story Thursday on the mayor’s race that included this scene that described Mr. Weiner’s interaction with a voter on the campaign trail:

    “You a registered Democrat?” he asked an elderly woman wheeling a shopping cart by him.

    “I am,” she said. “And I’m not voting for uh, what’s her name? The dyke.”

    “Okay. I just need you to sign the petition to get me on the ballot,” said Weiner, who then noticed the incredulous reaction of a reporter and added, “and you really shouldn’t talk that way about people.”

    “Oh, I’m sorry,” the woman said.

    “It’s okay,” Weiner responded. “It’s not your fault.”

The response left Assemblywoman Deborah Glick and State Senator Brad Hoylman–who have both endorsed Ms. Quinn’s campaign–seething.

“We are appalled by the account in the Washington Post of Anthony Weiner’s unacceptable response to a prospective voter’s homophobic, misogynistic slur in reference to Christine Quinn,” they wrote in a statement Thursday. “Weiner’s response to this blatant display of homophobia is completely inappropriate and extremely alarming. There is nothing ‘okay’ about homophobia and it’s never ‘okay’ to condone bias-based slurs or hate speech of any kind.”

They argued that such language was indicative of the larger challenges faced by female and openly gay political candidates.

“The voter’s use of the term demonstrates the challenges women candidates and lesbians in particular face, and Weiner’s failure to swiftly and firmly condemn her language demonstrates his lack of moral courage,” they added. “We demand an immediate apology from Mr. Weiner on behalf of LGBT and women New Yorkers.”

The fascist pinkshirts are not merely speech police, they are totalitarian thought police.  They are the very sort of people of whom George Orwell warned.  It’s not enough to leave them alone, because if you merely happen to show insufficient public enthusiasm for causes they consider morally imperative, they will attack you even more ferociously than those who openly oppose them.  They are the enemies of free speech, and more than that, they absolutely loathe the very idea of human freedom.

The reason the pinkshirts are always seeking apologies is because they view them, correctly, as public rituals of submission.  This is why it is a massive mistake to ever apologize to the monsters or to give them any ground whatsoever.  Stand your ground and they will fade away for the time being, (although they will lurk around and strike again the moment they detect any weakness), retreat and they will press forward with alacrity.

Remember that is always about power with these people.  It concerns power and nothing else. Note how not even being a high profile member of Team Clinton, (which those who know anything about DC are aware is not exactly unsympathetic to dykes), is enough to protect the left-wing Weiner from attacks on this front.  Being offended, or better yet, falsely claiming to feel threatened, is nothing more than a rhetorical tactic for these people, and therefore is best met with a rhetorical response.

46 million more Americans

That’s the CBO estimate for the Senate’s immigration bill:

The Senate’s pending immigration bill will pave the way for the
arrival of 46 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, increase
the federal debt in the same time period and shrink Americans’ average
wage, according Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Session’s critical reading
of two new reports on the pending immigration reform bill provided by
the Congressional Budget Office. But Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, the most prominent GOP
advocate for the immigration reform bill, says the CBO reports are good
news for Americans.

Marco Rubio wants more Hispanic immigrants.  That’s almost as much of a surprise as Italy’s new Congolese Minister of the Interior, whose first action in office was to argue for the importance of making it easier for Africans to get Italian citizenship.  Isn’t it a remarkable coincidence that the absolute top priority of every immigrant who achieves any political power is to bring in more people just like them?

Anyhow, this should suffice to snuff out the last remnants of any grass roots Republican enthusiasm for Marco Rubio.  And I can’t help but notice the reference to that portentous year. 2033. By the time there are 357 million people living in the lower 48, I very much doubt they will still be a single political entity.

John C. Wright explains l’affaire sauvage

In his philosophical explication of the differences between the Conservative, Liberal, and Libertarian political theories, Standout Author John C. Wright explains why the conflict between me and the writers presently dominating SFWA was not only inevitable, but will remain unresolvable.

The reason why political discussions between partisans of these theories
are so often futile is that their goals are unrelated to each other,
and the fears of one seem highly theoretical, if not ridiculous, to the
other…. Libertarian views of Liberals is one of deep seated and scathing
contempt. Where Libertarians are fundamentally intellectual and
conservatives fundamentally men of passion and honor, Liberals are
entirely emotional, and do not have the metaphysical or philosophical
groundwork needed to erect an intellectual defense of their position to
Libertarians, or to mount an intellectual criticism of Libertarianism.

It’s intriguing to see how closely his observations serve well as a predictive model concerning the behavior of both myself and my critics.  I certainly tend to regard this particular set of critics with “deep seated and scathing contempt”.  And, as we have seen, the SFWA writers have not only failed to erect an intellectual defense of their position, or mount an intellectual criticism of mine, [REDACTED PENDING APPROVAL TO QUOTE FROM SFWA FORUM].  They definitely regard me as evil.

This speculation is admittedly harsh.

It would have been gentler had I been asked my opinion in the days
before I exchanged many, many arguments with liberals of all stripes.
The one thing they all have in common, and this includes Catholic
liberals as well as atheist liberals, male and female, young and old,
all of them, all of them, all I have ever met: their argument is
primarily emotional, and they interpret disagreement as a moral failure,
not just an intellectual one.

They do not think you are wrong, my dear conservative and
libertarians readers, they think you are evil. Not one I have met thinks
that there can be honest disagreement with their positions, or that the
matter is one where reasonable men can differ.

This is not due to the personality of the liberals I have met, but it
is due to their theory. I have had angry Catholic socialists denounce
me angrily as wicked for not believing his nonsense, but I have also had
gentle grandmotherly socialists do the same in mild tones, and sneering
atheist socialists utter the same denunciation in sneering tones
without even bother to discover what the argument is or the objections
are. The tone depends on the personality of the liberal, and they are as
different as the whole spectrum the human race affords.

But the the automatic imputation of vile motives and conspiracies by
one mass against another mass is not due to a character flaw in the
liberal psychology. Rather, the flaw is built into their theory. It is
what they have to say. They can say nothing else, since if they did,
they would no longer be liberals. The institutions of civilization are the enemy, since they and only they are the source of mass-oppression and inequality.

Wright’s observations are 100 percent in line with my own considerable experience of what he describes as the Liberal. And this explains why Jamsco’s assertion about the need for inoffensive dialogue is not only wrong, but futile.  Because he only thinks about what he sees as being obviously offensive, he doesn’t recognize that it is not the sharper points of the rhetoric that offend, but rather the way in which the use of that sharper rhetoric correctly communicates to the Liberal that the non-Liberal is immune to their primary emotion-based tactics.  He’s only looking at the surface, and in doing so, he’s failing to see the more substantial forces operating beneath it.

You cannot use Aristotelian dialectic with a Liberal.  You cannot reason with him because he is not reasonable.  You cannot engage in rational discourse with him because he is not rational. To paraphrase Aristotle, you can only rhetorically flay him alive while dialectically exposing the flaws in what passes for his arguments in order to persuade undecided third parties.  And the more cruelly you flay them, the louder they shriek, and the more third parties are eventually inspired to see the difference between your reason-based arguments and the emptiness of their emotion-based non-arguments.

It would surprise – no, it would horrify – the rabbits if they had any idea how more and more people are coming over to agree with my positions as a direct result of Liberal pointing-and-shrieking combined with their total inability to make a coherent case, let alone a compelling one.  Perhaps you recall how only last year various rabbits were trumpeting the significance of how popular Whatever was and asserting that I was jealous of their Chief Rabbit’s massive blog traffic?  Less than a year later, my blogs have 4553 percent more pageviews than the Chief Rabbit’s warren.

Now, Wright’s series of posts – read the whole thing from the start – are not about my conflict with a group of SFWA members, and yet they demonstrate that those who see that conflict as a petty writers squabble are entirely missing the point.  It is, rather, a micro-model of the great civilizational conflict that is already engulfing the entire West, whether most of those on either side realize it yet or not.