Archive for the ‘Conservatives’ Category

Two Liberal Lists: Lies and Racists

Sunday, March 17th, 2013

Glenn Reynolds starts many posts by saying, “They told me if I voted for Romney….”

Of course Romney lost despite Insty’s support, and all those things are happening anyway, and more, and worse.

But what else did “they”, those liberal prog Democrats, tell us?

Doug Ross has a list, and it’s pretty damn ugly:

They told me that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would turn our streets into rivers of blood.

They told me that taking trillions of dollars from the successful and giving it to those “who truly needed it” would cure poverty.

They told me that giving home loans to those who couldn’t afford them would make the American dream achievable for all.

They told me that paying into the Social Security “Trust Fund” would guarantee a comfortable retirement for everyone.

They told me that allowing teachers to unionize in public schools would help inner city students reach for the stars.

They told me that the federal government could run a guaranteed, affordable health care program for seniors forever.

They told me that the new employment paradigm consisted of millions of “green jobs”.

They told me that their support for immoral and criminal behavior wouldn’t result in the breakdown of the two-parent family.

Of course, that’s not all. You should read the rest.

But his conclusion needs to be cast far and wide:

Everything they told me was a lie.

Everything they told me was wrong.

Intentionally, diabolically, criminally wrong.

And if we don’t begin to turn back the tide of centralized government, if we don’t politically obliterate the Democrat Party, this beautiful Republic, this magnificent country, this bastion of free enterprise and private property rights, this shining city on a hill… well, it will be finished.

Nice little blog you got there, Doug. Too bad if something happened to it, like the dreaded…RICKETY-LANCHE!

BWA-hahaha!

Seriously, the one or two of you out there, go give Ross the attention he deserves.


Then Brad Torgerson, consie SF writer, got into a fight with a liberal, Marguerite Reed, and some other liberals, few as smart or even polite as Reed was.

Still, this was pretty much no more than a fairly well mannered food fight, with tea and finger sandwiches. Eventually, though, the fuss attracted the attention of Larry Correia, he of Monster Hunter International fame, who stepped through the french doors, now transformed into swinging salooners.

And it was on. A good rollicking fight ensued. Noses bloodied, chairs smashed, tables toppled–Torgerson knows how to take care of himself, mind, but Larry just wants to get the job done, with as much fun as can be wrung out of such limp-brained prey.

And then, oh best beloved, and then, Larry called for orbital support, you know, just to be sure, and Tom Kratman laid down this carpet bombing.

He’s given his permission for wide dissemination. Well, I can’t help him with that, of course, but at least I’ll be able to find it again when I need it.

The Left’s 20 Rules of Racism

1. If you believe that general intelligence exists, is heritable and at all testable for, you’re a racist.

2. If you point out that liberal philosophies and programs intended to have a good impact have had a disproportionately bad impact on the ethnicities targeted by liberals, you’re a racist.

3. If you notice that other cultures have some problems, you’re a racist.

4. If you notice your own culture has had some successes, you’re a racist.

5. If you try to identify subcultural problems, you’re a racist. If the problems existed or got worse under liberalism, see item 2, above.

6. If you’re mainstream American culture, and don’t hate that culture, you’re a racist.

7. If you’re capable of noting unpleasant facts about subcultures and discussing them without your brain fogging, you’re a racist.

8. If you won’t kowtow and grovel as soon as someone accuses you of racism for one of the reasons above or below, you’re a hopeless racist.

9. If you do not believe that mankind is a tabula rasa for liberals to make whatever they think would be good to make of man, this week, you’re a racist.

10. If you don’t take personal responsibility for all the evils of slavery, you’re a racist. This is true even if you only arrived from Poland last week.

11. If you’re white, you’re a racist.

12. If you’re white and just arrived from Poland last week and don’t accept that you’re a racist, you’re a racist.

13. If you try to interject logical thought into a discussion of culture, you’re a racist.

14. If you refuse to admit culture is a racial matter, and a liberal wants to conflate the two, you’re a racist.

15. If you believe that race and culture are indistinguishable and a liberal decides that you shouldn’t conflate the two, you’re a racist.

16. If you believe that black or Hispanic girls who are paid by liberal inspired programs from the age of 13 to have babies will have babies, you’re a racist.

17. If you believe that _any_ girls of whatever color who are paid to have babies will then have babies but then, insensitively, observe that a smaller percentage of white girls do, certainly because they haven’t been targeted for as much “help” from liberals, you’re a racist.

18. If it doesn’t bother you that the truth offends liberals, you’re a racist.

19. If your name is Tom Kratman and you write and in your writing your heroes and heroines tend to be from minorities while your villains are white liberals, you’re still a racist.

20. If you read The Bell Curve, you’re a racist. On the other hand, if you didn’t read it but wrote a scathing review on Amazon anyway you might not be a racist provided you take personal responsibility for 300 years of slavery even if you just arrived from Poland last week.

The Right’s Twenty Rules of Racism

1. Anyone responsible for three hundred years of slavery would have to be a lot older than you and me.

2. There has to be some genetics in “racism’s” DNA, some DNA in its gene pool, or it just isn’t racism.

3. Racism could be eliminated in the United States if we could just eliminate the white liberals who so plainly depend on it so much and do so much to keep it going.

4. Reality isn’t racist: The reality is that there are pond-scummy gallows bait in every group. Some of those will be more of a problem to their own group than to you (see Rule 14, below). Some will be more of a problem to you precisely because you’re not a member of their group. It is wise, not racist, to avoid the latter. In Boston, this may be referred to as the “Evelyn Wagler-George Pratt Rule,” and that’s not code. Odd exception to half of Rule 4: Jesse Jackson would much rather be followed by a white on the streets of DC, at night, than a black.

5. There have been two instances in recent history where the concept of “honorary white” held sway. One was in apartheid South Africa where, for example, Japanese were considered “honorary white.” The other was when, in relation to the Trayvon Martin shooting, the American mainstream media made Hispanic George Zimmerman an “honorary white.” This is not entirely coincidence since (see Rule 18) the very liberal American media is as racist in their way as ever the Afrikaner Broederbond was in its.

6. Nobody really thinks whites are as evil as portrayed by white liberals and black demagogues. If they really thought so, they’d be too afraid to ever leave the house, since a) there are a lot more whites, b) those whites are much better armed, c) they’re more likely to be veterans of the Army’s and Marine Corps’ ground gaining combat arms, and d) they have an historically demonstrated cultural aptitude for mass, organized violence.

7. People who insist you’re speaking in code insist on it because they believe it’s true. They believe it’s true because they really do speak in code and can’t imagine anyone who does not speak in code. It’s not racist to think those people are idiots, nor to note that they’re mostly white. (Exception to rule: When conservatives talk about guns and zombies? Especially in terms of using the former to kill the latter? Yeah; “zombie” is code for “liberals of any color.” See Rule 6, above.)

8. It’s not racist to note that white liberalism managed to do in about thirty years something that three hundred years of slavery could not, seriously damage the black family, generally though not universally, and ruin it completely over wide swaths.

9. Speaking of slavery, the bulk of slave raiding and trading in Africa was black, usually Islamic black (see Rule 16, below), on black. The Arabic word for black and slave is the same, “Abd.” And the first registered slave owner in Virginia was black. Pointing this out to liberals, white and black, is always fun.

10. It’s not racist to wish that our first black president had been Thomas Sowell.

11. The “Some of my best friends” defense against a charge of racism is no defense…unless it happens to be true. Sometimes it’s best expressed to a white liberal as, “You don’t have so much as a day in uniform, do you, dipshit?”

12. The system of education that white liberals have inflicted on inner city blacks is a crime against humanity. No amount of money that they toss at it helps to overcome the elimination of discipline liberalism has caused. It’s neither racist to note this…nor wrong.

13. The various college and university minority “studies” programs, because they give a useless pseudo-education, and at very high cost in both money and time, are racist in their effects.

14. Most black crime is black on black crime. It is racist in its effects to deprive the black community of the social good that comes from executing black criminals that prey on other blacks.

15. It takes a white liberal idiot (Lord, forgive us our redundancies) not to understand the difference between casual sex with a member of another race and marrying and investing one’s entire reproductive effort in a member of another race. See, e.g., http://www.tomkratman.com/yoli.html. Dipshits.

16. Islam is not a race. Detesting Islam is not racist. There is nothing in Islam which genetically compels either slightly tanned Palestinians or totally white English reverts to pray toward Mecca five times daily, to self-detonate in crowded squares and movie theaters, to find offense in just about everything, nor even to clitorectomize their women. Flash alert: Lysenko was wrong. Dipshits.

17. When a liberal accuses you of racism, rejoice; it means the dipshit knows he or she is losing.

18. The worst racists are liberals, mostly white ones, who assume that blacks and hispanics are so inferior that only affirmative action in perpetuity would give them a remotely fair chance. (That this also keeps a lot of liberal white social workers and bureaucrats employed is, of course, merely incidental. Ahem. Dipshits.)

19. There was a conservative argument for a kind of affirmative action. Unfortunately, all the money’s already been spent on employing white liberal social workers and bureaucrats, and we’re broke now, so that ship has sailed. Again, blame dipshit white liberals.

20. Screaming “Racism! Raaaacissssm!” on the part of a white liberal, when the matter in question has no DNA in its gene pool, no genetics in its DNA (see Rule 2, above), is the surest proof that said white liberal is genetically defective. And a dipshit. And it’s not racist to point this out.

Thats what he opened with, and all that was left was cleanup, until Reed shut the place down.

Go. Read the whole thing, it’s a lovely little riot, with tasty hot dogs and marshmallows roasting on spits over the still screaming bodies.

[update: fix a few linkage and copy-pasta errors, and some misteaken typing.]

Getting Out of the Vote

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Buttercup puts up an excellent post here, explaining again why voting this time around is not a terrible thing to do.

Even when I voted for George Bush in 2004, I knew I was participating in a sham. It made me angry to realize that I truly did not have a voice, that the political machine in Washington had long since begun running under its own steam and didn’t need my approval or disapproval as gas for the engine. The process of elections was to give people the appearance of control and participation, while in reality it was simply a ceremony every four years that essentially amounted to, “The King is dead. Long live the King!”

It wasn’t until the rise of the Tea Party and the opportunity it offered for genuine citizen activism that I began to believe differently. Finally, the people were raising their voices. Finally, we had a pathway, a focus, a stated goal. Finally, we had a chance.

And that’s all — and everything — Romney is.

A chance.

Voting for anyone else is throwing away that chance. We may never have another.

I’m going to take it.

I said some similar things in this rambling mess. Buttercup did a better, more focused job.

There are some militantly non-voting commentators I truly do admire, and look to for inspiration, who I think are making the mistake of wanting every citizen to be as well-read, as enlightened, as independent as they are. They are dismayed that people actually care about this election.

They are making the mistake of thinking themselves, distant outliers on the political spectrum, as typical of the people at large. (I’ll note in passing that this is similar to the error underlying Socialism and Communism, that people are, and should be, perfectible.) We’re not like them, most of us. We not only want, but we need a strong government as long as it functions within its limits.

We have, however, been lax in doing our part to see that it remains within those limits, and now we are paying the price.

The key thing about this election is not who gets into office, although I do truly believe that if Obama is reelected, or is allowed to claim that he was reelected, things will get worse faster than if Romney succeeds.

(Romney, I believe, has had his eyes opened by this election. I think he’s beginning to understand that we are voting for a way of life, not for him personally, and I think he he’s beginning to see that if he relaxes into the role he thought he was auditioning for, that of the Democrat nominee for the Republican candidacy, it will not go well for him. )

The key thing is that We, the People, are finally waking up. The Dream, that Benevolent Powers care for us and will tend to our needs, is over.

We shouldn’t have to care much who wins. Our votes shouldn’t have to matter that much. The government should be tending to business that we can safely ignore; that’s their damn job.

But now we must care, because we have let our federal dogs forget that we, their masters, own the collar and leash, and believe that they are the masters.

And whoever wins, we’re going to have to wallop uppity noses with more than newspapers, often and hard.

[update]
Or just lock them up in the wine cellarbroom closet.

We have it in our heads that the president of the United States is like the CEO of our country, when in reality his job is more akin to head janitor. Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m not trying to say that politicians work as hard or are as essential to society as the average janitor. But it’s our job as private citizens to do the main work, and the government is supposed to operate in the background doing minor things that support that work — cleaning up the messes we’re too busy to handle. If the head janitor and his staff do their jobs well, we should barely even notice them.

Just American

Sunday, May 6th, 2012

I have expressed my discontent with the standard political labels, like liberal/left and conservative right.

American Digest proposes “rebranding ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ with ‘American’”.

I appreciate the sentiment, and you should definitely read his essay. Gonna have to think about it, because far too many people are convinced that “American” means imperialist, corporatist, fat, lazy, racist, homophobe, sexist, and on and on endlessly. Doesn’t matter that to the extent that those things are true, they mostly arose from the liberal progressive left; that’s what people have been trained to think.

I’m going to start using it nevertheless, if only to cleanse the name. It’s as good an escutcheon as any, and what stains and muck attach to it have mostly been thrown by its — our — enemies.

I’m going to have to explain it, every time I say it. That’s fine. People need to hear it.

I am an American.

Rush, You Idiot

Saturday, April 28th, 2012

Rush Limbaugh is invoking the evil, statist DMCA to block this compilation video from The Daily Kos:

Deal is, Kos posted this video on Youtube. Limbaugh invoked the DMCA to have Youtube take it down. Youtube complied.

Kos immediately reposted at Vimeo.

Kos quite rightly says:

This isn’t 1823, no matter how much Limbaugh might wish it so. He gets the video pulled from one place, it’ll simply pop up somewhere else. If he really wants it offline, he’s going to have to meet us in court. And even that won’t do the trick.

That darn First Amendment will get in his way.

Rush, as often as I agree with many of your sentiments on this matter, swinging the DMCA hammer makes you an idiot. What were you thinking?

No, I’m not being ironic. No, I’m not making fun of Kos. No, I’m not parodying anybody’s manner of speaking.

You are an idiot for doing this. Plain and simple.

Stop embarrassing yourself, and those of us who agree with you.

73,740 Rabid Gun Nuts

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

Ambulance Driver (aka Kelly Grayson) attends Occupy St. Louisthe NRA Convention.

73,740 Rabid Gun Nuts Descend Upon St. Louis…

… and nobody gets shot.

No fisticuffs ensue.

Nobody craps on a cop car.

Nobody gets arrested.

Nobody calls for overthrow of the government, other than at the ballot box.

There are no drunken brawls, no ambulances called, no… nothing.

Nothing, that is, except close to 74,000 men, women and children gathered to celebrate the amendment that guarantees their personal freedom.

And see Lawdog’s comments in the same vein post before last.

[Update: forgot the link to AD's original article.]

Conservatives Understand Liberals…

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

[This is here so I can find this stuff again.]

…But Liberals don’t get Conservatives.

Here’s a study in which Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, and Jonathan Haidt

investigated the moral stereotypes political liberals and conservatives have of themselves and each other. In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do. 2,212 U.S. participants filled out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire with their own answers, or as a typical liberal or conservative would answer. Across the political spectrum, moral stereotypes about “typical” liberals and conservatives correctly reflected the direction of actual differences in foundation endorsement but exaggerated the magnitude of these differences. Contrary to common theories of stereotyping, the moral stereotypes were not simple underestimations of the political outgroup’s morality. Both liberals and conservatives
exaggerated the ideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup. Liberals were least accurate about both groups.

In my quick skim (I need to read this paper more closely) one issue this study does not seem to address is the difference between private and public morality, that is, what is the group justified in controlling individual behavior? I think that right now, liberals are willing to criminalize a far wider range of behaviors than conservatives are, and I believe the reason is that conservatives expect individuals to be responsible for themselves, while liberals expect individuals to have less self control. This is at odds, though, with the usual conservative portrayal of liberals as assuming the perfectibility of man, while conservatives regard themselves as being infected with original sin.

One of the authors, Jonathan Haidt, has wwritten a book exploring the question in more detail, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Religion and Politics.

Intellectuals and Society Don’t Mix

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

…And that’s why intellectuals have no business trying to direct society.

I’m proud to say I own this book. I’ve even read some of it.

I Can See Clearly Now

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

[via SondraK]

Way back in the days when I thought the Republican party was more evil than the Democrats, instead of just more stupid, the ‘Thuglicans had a convention here in Houston.

Abortion was on the agenda, at least as far as the Demons were concerned. I have no idea what the Thugs actually talked about.

There were mass protests at abortion women’s health clinics all over town.

I stood on the clinic side of the line, holding back those who wanted to block the entrances against women trying to enter.

In my mind, I was protesting government interference in women’s lives. I still feel that way, although it’s not my plan to argue the point in this post.

But now I am beginning to understand that pro-choice forces really are pro-abortion. They are anti-life. Not pro-women, but anti-male, too, if it comes to that. Liberty has nothing to do with it.

When the liberal/socialist blinders come off, the world changes. Remember the movie Pleasantville, which starts out in black and white, and then the citizens learn to see color? That’s what I’m living through right now, except it’s no fun at all, because so many of the colors that have been splashed around are so profoundly ugly. Maybe a better example is They Live, where the protagonist obtains a pair of sunglasses that allows him to see his leaders for the alien monsters they are.

These days, I wouldn’t stand on either side of the line. The whole conversation is corrupt and corrupting.

I am so disgusted, so screamingly angry, so ashamed.

Why We Have Children

Saturday, January 29th, 2011

This is not liberal; in the very deepest and best sense, it is profoundly conservative.

We have children because they make us human. Throughout my teens and twenties, I often went for years without being deeply moved. My friends called me even-keeled or unflappable, but the truth is that I almost never felt—really felt—anything at all. Not joy, not sorrow, not anger or hurt or fear. This might sound like a good thing. It was not. Every few years my heart would return to me, and for no apparent reason I would find emotions falling down like spring rains on parched soil. I was always relieved to feel connected again, vulnerable, alive—but then the season of feeling would fade and would leave me impassive again.

That changed when I learned we were having a girl. Perhaps there is something especially sweet in the father-daughter relationship, or perhaps it was just that the image of my child became concrete. Whatever the reason, I spent the remainder of the day staring at the ultrasound photo and downloading father-daughter songs in a joyous tearful mess.

Blessedly wounded, I never recovered.

Gods, yes, read the whole thing.

I am on record in many places as supporting a woman’s right to have an abortion, at least for the first two trimesters. That has not changed since I abandoned my unthinking, unreasoned liberalism over a decade ago. It’s none of the government’s damn business.

But Dr. Dalrymple here illuminates what is wrong with the abortion rights movement, something I saw at the time but didn’t know how to talk about or even think about: it positively defends, even celebrates, the taking of innocent life as a good thing. It insists that children are a burden, that they are links in the evil chains that men use to enslave women to the patriarchy.

I am childless, as are some of my friends. And we lament that, for one reason or another, we lack some crucial qualification for parenthood. At the root, though, is a deadly smugness: we were smart enough to realize that our lives would be better without children.

My generation somehow convinced ourselves that we should pursue with great zeal the principle that our ideas and ideals were so great, so perfect, that we should impose them on everyone around us by fiat and force.

I will not dwell here on those of us who insist that there are enough people already, that there’s something wrong with having or even wanting to have children. They will self-select themselves out of the gene pool.

As will the rest of us, too self-centered and lazy to do the one thing that is naturally given to us to transmit our ideas, our values, our hopes and dreams to the future.

And we are a poor, miserable, dead-end lot.

Taking a Page Out of the Liberal Playbook

Monday, October 25th, 2010

Unfortunately, one of the stupider pages out of the same section that resulted in 10:10′s anti-AGW “no worries” splatter ad, the one showing school kids getting blown up.

A political ad running in Nevada and telling Latinos not to vote “is the brainchild of conservative operative Robert De Posada and produced by Latinos for Reform“.

If you’ve been reading this blog, you know I think there’s a strong argument for not voting. However, that is far from a mainstream idea, and if you’re going to spread it around, you’d better explain it as clearly as possible, and — and this is the crucial point — you’d better aim it at everyone.

Latinos for Reform aimed only at Latinos, and it blatantly calls for Latinos not to vote. I have no idea why they thought this was a good idea.

I’m betting it gives Harry Reid a virtual lock on the Hispanic vote.

Idiots. Thank you ever so much for shitting in your own trench, guys.