Posts Tagged ‘Conservatives’

Twitter cuts (#95)

They have to know what this looks like, but they can’t help themselves.

October 19, 2016admin 30 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Pass the popcorn
TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

Twitter cuts (#44)

Obnoxious ‘Alt-Right’ trolling explained (well):

Continue Reading

January 20, 2016admin 47 Comments »

Quote note (#180)

A usefully depressing account by Paul Gottfried of Conservative Inc. and the shifting boundaries of hate-think:

Well into the 1990s, it was almost universally accepted by the scientific community, except for Stalinoid propagandist Leon Kamin and the perpetually PC Stephen Jay Gould, that human IQ varied significantly, that IQ tests could measure these differences, and that up to 85 percent of intelligence may be hereditary. In an enlightening work The IQ Controversy (1988) Stanley Rothman and Jay Snydermann document the premises that the overwhelming majority of scientists, biologists, and psychologists fully accept the axioms that a significant part (indeed well over one half) of intelligence is hereditary, and that general intelligence is testable.

(No longer, at least as far as its official gate-keepers are concerned.)

Western Civilization has been disgraced indelibly by its craven surrender of all intellectual integrity on this topic. The degree to which it will be despised, eventually, for what it has become almost certainly exceeds its power of historical imagination.

August 27, 2015admin 26 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

What’s in a word?

The vulgarity of pop-reaction is matched only by the stupidity of mainstream conservatism:

I bring this up because I suppose it’s possible that some conservatives might embrace this term without fully understanding the racial and sexual implications. To some, it might be seen as an innocent jab — like calling someone a “squish” or a “RINO.” But as Erickson correctly observes, “Remember, if you hear the term ‘cuckservative,’ it is a slur against Christian voters coined by white-supremacists.”

If anyone deserves a gutter-fight with degenerates, it’s the GOP. It seems quite probable that they’ll lose.

(If you’re tempted to roll out your degeneracy in the comments thread, think again. We gibbet people for such things in these parts.)

ADDED: Official XS Health Warning — a popcorn diet is ruinous for the soul. It is recommended that you scrupulously avoid following these links (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

ADDED: Jim’s take.

ADDED: Hood.

ADDED: “I think this is the ugliest development I’ve seen online.”

ADDED: We’re going to need a bigger popcorn barrel.

July 23, 2015admin 201 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Pass the popcorn
TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

Zack-Pop II

Zack politics is interesting enough to have generated concern:

Zombie apocalypse logic inevitably paints humans — the ones who survive, anyway — as selfish, dangerous, and ready to turn on one another when confronted with hardship. It’s a vicious, social Darwinist vision of a society that unravels quickly and easily; the only things apparently holding us together are police departments and electricity. […] … The basic tenets of zombie logic also track with ​hardline conservative principles (self-sufficiency, individualism, isolationism), which have been increasingly forcefully articulated over the last fifteen years. In his 2012 book, Thomas Edsall examines the work of Wharton professor Philip Tetlock, which found that conservatives “are less tolerant of compromise; see the world in ‘us’ versus ‘them’ terms; are more willing to use force to gain an advantage; are ‘more prone to rely on simple (good vs. bad) evaluative rules in interpreting policy issues’ are “motivated to punish violators of social norms (e.g., deviations from traditional norms of sexuality or responsible behavior) and to deter free riders.” Sound familiar? Pretty much describes the moral compass of successful zombie survivors. Funny, then, that Republicans actually​ tend to hate the Walking Dead. […] Regardless, the proliferation of zombie culture, at this point, is mind-boggling. How are we, as an audience, still enthralled by the same scenario, the same brain-dead villains, the same emptied wastelands? “It’s feeding back on itself,” [Daniel] Drezner said. “Every time someone says we’ve hit peak zombie, something else comes along.”

The provisional XS hypothesis: Zack-prep is the commercial-aesthetic response to the death of conservatism. The progs can’t be stopped by any political mechanism yet installed, so it’s time to stock the basement with ammo and beans. Naturally, they’re going to say: you shouldn’t be thinking like that! It’s encouraging that so many people are.

April 3, 2015admin 16 Comments »
TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

Quote note (#130)

Hoppe (from 2005) stirs it up:

… one of the most fundamental laws of economics … says that all compulsory wealth or income redistribution, regardless of the criteria on which it is based, involves taking from some — the havers of something — and giving it to others — the non-havers of something. Accordingly, the incentive to be a haver is reduced, and the incentive to be a non-haver increased. What the haver has is characteristically something considered “good,” and what the non-haver does not have is something “bad” or a deficiency. Indeed, this is the very idea underlying any redistribution: some have too much good stuff and others not enough. The result of every redistribution is that one will thereby produce less good and increasingly more bad, less perfection and more deficiencies. By subsidizing with tax funds (with funds taken from others) people who are poor, more poverty (bad) will be created. By subsidizing people because they are unemployed, more unemployment (bad) will be created. By subsidizing unwed mothers, there will be more unwed mothers and more illegitimate births (bad), etc. […] Obviously, this basic insight applies to the entire system of so-called social security that has been implemented in Western Europe (from the 1880s onward) and the U.S. (since the 1930s): of compulsory government “insurance” against old age, illness, occupational injury, unemployment, indigence, etc. In conjunction with the even older compulsory system of public education, these institutions and practices amount to a massive attack on the institution of the family and personal responsibility.

With the conclusion:

Most contemporary conservatives, then, especially among the media darlings, are not conservatives but socialists — either of the internationalist sort (the new and neoconservative welfare-warfare statists and global social democrats) or of the nationalist variety (the Buchananite populists). Genuine conservatives must be opposed to both. In order to restore social and cultural norms, true conservatives can only be radical libertarians, and they must demand the demolition — as a moral and economic distortion — of the entire structure of the interventionist state.

(Everything works for me except the senseless ‘demand’ rhetoric, which is residual Jacobinism.)

HT Hurlock.

November 14, 2014admin 42 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

End of the Ratchet?

Richard Fernandez makes a basic, but essential point:

Mention repealing Obamacare and you are told it is impossible; even John Boehner said, it’s the ‘law of the land’. Brown vs Board is the law of the land, Roe vs Wade is the law of the land, but Hobby Lobby or Citizens United is an abomination to be repealed or ignored soonest. It’s like a ratchet. It moves only in the way of the approved narrative.

This is the same insight identified by this blog as The Idea of Neoreaction, which is to say: recognition of a degenerative ratchet as the central mechanism of ‘progress’ (to the Left). Fernandez draws explicit attention to its constitutive asymmetry. Partisan polarity is revealed as a one-way conveyor, alternating between ‘stop’ and ‘go left’. Two-party democratic politics is structurally-established as an inevitable loser’s game for the Right. Once this is seen, how is the thought of ‘conservative activism’ in any way sustainable, except as a transparently futile joke? Hasn’t the line already been crossed to the dark side?

Fernandez is still hedging:

… the real news is this: it’s not working any more. Even Obamacare might actually be repealed. Liberal foreign policy might really go down in flames. Already the authorities are warning of bombs on inbound airline flights. And Obama might actually be the worst president since World War 2. Things used to be under control; what happened? […] History suggests that over time all conflict becomes symmetrical.  Eventually both sides become equally brutal. […] If there is any lesson taught by history it is that man when driven far enough is the most dangerous and merciless life form on the planet.

It’s not at all clear to me what’s really being said here. Is this an anticipation of counter-revolution? Or is it merely the tired claim that the next election could really make a difference

Even in the most depressing case, something is being seen that would very much rather not be seen. If acute conservative opinion is tiring of its role as the Cathedral’s loyal opposition, it indicates that the mechanism is beginning to break down.

July 3, 2014admin 20 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction