ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

I am still not a conservative

Ed Trimnell is operating from a fundamentally flawed logical foundation in his defense of what he calls conservatism:
Today I read a piece on Vox Day's blog, entitled "Women ruin everything." (Vox Day bills himself as a conservative.)

Leaving the title aside, most of the blog post deals with the excesses of the radical gender  politics that have arisen in collegiate sports since the passage of Title IX. In other words: the excesses of leftwing, political feminism. This portion of the post is generally reasonable, and generally conservative.

But then Vox ends his post with a non sequitur:

 "Do you really think it was an accident that women were never permitted any voice in the governance of the Roman Republic or the great historical democracies such as Athens, Thebes, Imperial Britain, and Revolutionary America?  Do you really believe it to be a mere coincidence that many modern democracies, including Germany, Italy, and the member states of the European Union, were not able to survive even 100 years of female suffrage?"

What about Jeane Kirkpatrick--and Margaret Thatcher? Would Vox seriously deny these women the vote? (A true conservative would not apportion any political privileges or penalties based on race or gender. Once again--that is the game of the Left and the Democratic Party.)

The implication in Vox's post is that members of one gender are inherently wiser than those of the other. And there is one gender which--by virtue of being that gender--"ruins everything," in his words.

This is exactly what the radical feminists say--only in reverse.

Conservatives cannot fight irrational gender politics by becoming sexists ourselves, just as we cannot fight the tribal politics of the race card by becoming racists. Conservatism is for men as well as women--and for people of all races and ethnicities. (Let us not forget that most of the welfare states in Europe are essentially the creations of white males, while there are some fairly astute Asian capitalists. And yes--some of them are women.)

The logical flaws in Vox's "Women ruin everything" post are obvious. What is not so obvious is how this sort of rhetoric plays into the hands of Obama and the Obamaites.

One phony conservative can do more damage to the conservative movement than all the prattling leftwing lemmings on The Daily Kos and John Scalzi's Whatever combined.
I will begin by pointing out that Mr. Trimnell's reasoning is generally sound, as evidenced by his observations concerning the material difference between Vox Popoli and the warren that is Whatever.  However, his reasoning happens to go significantly awry here because it is built upon false foundations and erroneous assumptions.

First, I do not bill myself as a conservative.  I am not a conservative.  Neither am I a Republican.  I have never claimed to be either since I first began writing political op/ed in 2001.  While I did briefly belong to the Young Republicans in 1988 and attended both the national convention in Houston as well as the inaugural ball, I have never voted for a Republican for President. To the best of my recollection I registered as a Libertarian in 1992 and have only ever voted for Libertarian presidential candidates.  It may be worth noting that my blog is repeatedly listed as one of the top libertarian sites and my positions on the drug war, the foreign wars, immigration, the banks, and free trade, among many others, are considerably different than the conventional conservative positions.

Second, the connection between the observed and incoherent evils of Title IX and female suffrage is far from a non sequitur.  It may be ironic and unexpected that feminism can ruin even the most notable fruits of feminism, but it was both anticipated and predicted by many brilliant past writers that women's suffrage would bring about both "the despotism of the petticoat" better known today as liberal fascism as well as the eventual demise of those societies that were foolish enough to embrace it.

In answer to his question, I would absolutely deny women such as Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Margaret Thatcher the vote if the responsibility was given to me.  (It may interest some to know that I've actually met both women; I even have a picture of me with Mrs. Kirkpatrick around here somewhere.)  While Mrs. Thatcher was a great woman of genuine courage, she betrayed her country in the end.  And she did so for the very reason women would not be permitted to vote in any society that wishes to sustain itself: she was taken in by the lies of dishonest men.

"We had to learn the hard way that by agreement to what were apparently empty generalizations or vague aspirations we were later held to have committed ourselves to political structures which were contrary to our interests.”
– Lady Margaret Thatcher, “The Downing Street Years”

Third, while one "gender" is not wiser than the other, gender being a grammatical construct, it is an observable, provable, statistical, and scientific fact that the two sexes possess different brain structures, different thought patterns, different hormonal balances, and different time-preferences.  By a timely coincidence, I happened to address this very subject on Alpha Game earlier today.

"[I]f one is able to understand how women's cumulative socio-sexual preferences affect the housing market and the economy, how is it possible that one is not able to understand that those preferences will also affect the governance of a nation as well as the scope of human liberty deemed legally permissible."

What Trimnell fails to realize here is that he is inadvertently attempting to undermine everything from insurance premiums to science and human reason, which I would characterize as a profoundly unconservative act.  Due to its false foundations, his "conservatism" is not only neither rational nor coherent, it is more firmly in accordance with the egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution than anything that can be credibly identified with conservative thought dating back to Athens.

Once he claims that "Conservatism is for men as well as women--and for people of all races and ethnicities", it should be eminently clear that he is unwittingly preaching the same sort of revolutionary equalitarian nonsense that real conservatives, who have always understood that there are fundamental differences of race and culture, have rejected for centuries.  It is pure equalitarianism, which is based on an intellectual foundation every bit as credible and materially substantive as unicornology and leprechaunics.

As for fighting tribal politics, I would submit that they cannot be understood, much less engaged, without becoming what he describes as "racist" and what I would describe as "scientifically and historically observant" or even "sub-speciesist".  It is a little ironic that men like Mr. Trimnell are still trying to argue that race does not exist when genetic science has demonstrated that humanity is not even made up of the same sub-species.  As it no doubt justifies its own detailed debate, I shall set aside, for now, the obvious observation that to not be sub-speciesist is absolutely and necessarily equivalent to denying human evolution.

In summary, I recommend Spengler, the real Spengler, to Mr. Trimnell, as well as Aristotle's Rhetoric, as a corrective.  He is an intelligent man, so I have little doubt that even a modicum of exposure to such classic works will prove an effective palliative to the equalitarian propaganda in which he, like me and most of the readers here, was steeped throughout his intellectually formative years.

Since I am not a phony conservative, or indeed, a conservative of any kind, I hope that Mr. Trimnell will understand my concern for any potentially negative effect upon the "conservative" movement is a matter of complete and utter indifference to me.  I should also note that  for once, I am in complete accordance with Mr. Trimnell's commenter, as Hunt correctly notes: "I think it's important to say that you should not feel as if you are in any way obligated to account for anything VD happens to think or say.... VD would probably not pledge any allegiance to the conservatism that you support."

I am, of course, entirely willing to defend my positions from Mr. Trimnell's assertions, be they reasonable and compelling or not.  I hope it is readily apparent that I am only attacking what I see as the deficiencies in his ideas, not his character.

Labels: ,

434 Comments:

1 – 200 of 434 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Make it stop January 30, 2013 9:36 AM  

Shut up, Tad.


Good gravy, he's going to be all over this one...

Blogger Tiny Tim January 30, 2013 9:43 AM  

My wife is a criminal defense attorney. She has been in the courtroom 100's of times and has had 3 clients get the needle in Texas.

She is adamantly opposed to female judges. In her opinion they are "too inconsistent and subject to emotional whims. They have no business as judges."

Blogger Shimshon January 30, 2013 9:44 AM  

Vox, as someone who triple-majored in Unicornology and Leprechaunics and Women's Studies, I take deeply offenzif oommbraje at your insulting dameaner and ugly haircut. lern to spel and rite korektli two!!1!

Blogger Nate January 30, 2013 9:45 AM  

I simply cannot take anyone seriously that doesn't realize that gender is a term of grammar.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 9:49 AM  

@Vox Day

As for fighting tribal politics, I would submit that they cannot be understood, much less engaged, without becoming what he describes as "racist" and what I would describe as "scientifically and historically observant" or even "sub-speciesist".

Of course, your disturbing views, outlined above, are academic. Better peoples have set this view aside, and for the betterment of everyone.

It's notable, however, that folks who have talk about "sub species" and embraced the idea are the kind of people who have taken to killing en mass, whether via torture or some sort of asphyxiant gas. And of course, this kind of view of the people of the world can only lead to extreme suppression of liberty.

But again, we can rest largely assured that this view is so much in the minority that it really matters little among those multitudes that have a more enlightened and truthful understanding of the world. It's only necessary to identify those folks who carry this kind of view in case they rise a little too high. And that's not too difficult as they usually, as you have here, can't help but expose themselves.

Anonymous Make it stop January 30, 2013 9:56 AM  

And Godwin rears his ugly head.

Shut up, Tad.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 9:57 AM  

It's notable, however, that folks who have talk about "sub species" and embraced the idea are the kind of people who have taken to killing en mass, whether via torture or some sort of asphyxiant gas. And of course, this kind of view of the people of the world can only lead to extreme suppression of liberty.

You're talking about Margaret Sanger, right?

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 9:59 AM  

@Tiny Tim

My wife is a criminal defense attorney. She has been in the courtroom 100's of times and has had 3 clients get the needle in Texas.

Being thrice on the losing side in the capital cases, your wife joins a fairly large club where its members face a state that has turned killing into a sport. One wonders if any of the judges she faced along her death path have been women.

She is adamantly opposed to female judges. In her opinion they are "too inconsistent and subject to emotional whims. They have no business as judges."

One also wonders if it is her own inconsistency and emotional whims that were partly responsible for her clients getting the state's needle.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 10:01 AM  

@Josh

t's notable, however, that folks who have talk about "sub species" and embraced the idea are the kind of people who have taken to killing en mass, whether via torture or some sort of asphyxiant gas. And of course, this kind of view of the people of the world can only lead to extreme suppression of liberty.

You're talking about Margaret Sanger, right?


Maybe. But also the Christian inquisitors, those that have engaged in ethnic cleansing, the Hitlers of the world and others with Vox Day's views.

Anonymous Daniel January 30, 2013 10:01 AM  

I knew it was all over when they began teaching leprechaunics as a legitimate university course. On the other hand, it did help me translate the gobbledygook that burst forth following the Manti T'eo scandal.

With proper translation of the odd pr dialect, it turns out that Tad was the girlfriend. Now Notre Dame is feeling the pressure to add leperconics to the curriculum as well.

But, yes, when did sexual politics become "gender" politics? It seems odd, especially considering that no one argues for the normal use of language anymore ("his" instead of "his or her" or "their" or whatever unwieldy and inaccurate monstrosity is coming down the pike next.)

Their is no gender left in the politics of grammar. The gals can have "his or her or its or their" as long as we agree to cut off their mad vote at the knees.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 30, 2013 10:04 AM  

I knew this comment would come from a mental midget, and here it is....

99% of her clients are guilty Tad. They have this thing called evidence, Tad. It convicts the guilty, Tad. It is not a TV show, Tad, where the brilliance of the attorney sets the guilty free. Having said all of that she has gotten the guilty off, as it is their right to have a fair trial, but more importantly it is not that hard for her to defeat prosecutors hired for reasons of "affirmative action" (at times).

Tad, it is sad you are so one dimensional while thinking you are enlightened. You steep in your own ignorance.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 30, 2013 10:05 AM  

Above @ Tad

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 10:06 AM  

Maybe. But also the Christian inquisitors, those that have engaged in ethnic cleansing, the Hitlers of the world and others with Vox Day's views.

How many did the inquisition kill? And how many ethnic cleanings in the past 200 years were undertaken by Christian or conservative groups? And what were their death tolls compared to the ethnic cleanings of non Christians and leftists?

Anonymous Roundtine January 30, 2013 10:06 AM  

I wouldn't give Margaret Thatcher the right to vote, but that doesn't mean I would never vote for her.

Vox, do you believe your position is not "for all people"? Is not the denial of womens' suffrage good for women in the long-run?

Anonymous Daniel January 30, 2013 10:09 AM  

How many did the inquisition kill?

Not damn near enough rabbits.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 10:09 AM  

@Tiny

Tad, it is sad you are so one dimensional while thinking you are enlightened. You steep in your own ignorance.

I'm still wondering what role her emotional whims and inconsistency plays in her defense of her clients. And of course, how she tries to mitigate those inherent problems.

Blogger Nate January 30, 2013 10:12 AM  

"One also wonders if it is her own inconsistency and emotional whims that were partly responsible for her clients getting the state's needle."

Only one that is profoundly intellectually stunted... as in the previous sentenced you claimed that the state had turned killing into a sport. now why... if the state is so hell bent on killing... would attorney incompetence need to enter the picture?

its only necessary for deflection... so that the opponent will hopefully turn to defend the insult... rather than focusing on the glaring stupidity of your supposed position.

Evolution must be a terrifying thing to homosexuals... as its logical conclusion is... they are a total waste.

How scary it must be to know its only religion keeping the wolves at bay.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 10:12 AM  

@josh

How many did the inquisition kill? And how many ethnic cleanings in the past 200 years were undertaken by Christian or conservative groups? And what were their death tolls compared to the ethnic cleanings of non Christians and leftists?

Immaterial. This idea of "sub species-ism" infects all, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or other. The evil attitude is too often in evidence with those who undertake evil acts.

Blogger Nate January 30, 2013 10:14 AM  

"I'm still wondering what role her emotional whims and inconsistency plays in her defense of her clients. And of course, how she tries to mitigate those inherent problems."

No you aren't. You keep bringing it up hoping no one will notice the piss running down your leg.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 10:15 AM  

"This idea of "sub species-ism" infects all..."

Why do you hate science, Tad?

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 10:15 AM  

@Nate

Only one that is profoundly intellectually stunted... as in the previous sentenced you claimed that the state had turned killing into a sport. now why... if the state is so hell bent on killing... would attorney incompetence need to enter the picture?

As we know, the state can be incompetent, even in the pursuit of sport.

I'm just wondering how the good lady lawyer mitigated her emotional whims and inconsistency as she defended her clients in capital cases. I'm wondering if her own knowledge of her limitations, evident by her acknowledgement of her emotional whims and inconsistency, doesn't amount to legal malpractice on her part.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 10:16 AM  

My fiancee has told me numerous times that she would gladly give up her right to vote if it would prevent all other women from voting. I would hazard that a significant number of women who understand freedom would also do so. Hasn't Anne Coulter said the same thing?

And regarding female champions of conservatism, they seem to be vastly outnumbered by female champions of left liberalism.

Blogger Nate January 30, 2013 10:17 AM  

"Immaterial. This idea of "sub species-ism" infects all"

No. No it doesn't. Christians really do men are equally in God's eyes... the scientific classification of man is irrelevant.

Its the evolutionists you need to fear son. As its the atheist science fetishists that kill you for your own good.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 10:18 AM  

Immaterial. This idea of "sub species-ism" infects all, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or other. The evil attitude is too often in evidence with those who undertake evil acts.

Answer the question before you comment again, Tad. You raised the point, so the question is clearly relevant.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 10:19 AM  

Immaterial. This idea of "sub species-ism" infects all, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or other. The evil attitude is too often in evidence with those who undertake evil acts.

Nope, you're not going to hand wave your way out of this. Answer the questions. Your historical fellow travelers - the socialists, the atheists, the leftists - have a great deal more red in their ledger than our fellow travelers.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 10:19 AM  

Just to be clear, these three questions:

1. How many did the inquisition kill?
2. How many ethnic cleanings in the past 200 years were undertaken by Christian or conservative groups?
3. What were their death tolls compared to the ethnic cleanings of non Christians and leftists?

Blogger Nate January 30, 2013 10:19 AM  

"I'm just wondering how the good lady lawyer mitigated her emotional whims and inconsistency as she defended her clients in capital cases."

you wondering any such thing. You are simply trying to change the subject because on some base level you know damned well positions that you hold massive emotional attachment to... are flat out wrong.

You cannot face that... so instead... you hiss and dance.

don't be ashamed. Everyone does it.

Blogger Joshua_D January 30, 2013 10:22 AM  

My wife and I have talked about this as well. She'd gladly give up her "right" to vote if all other women did as well.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 10:22 AM  

No. No it doesn't. Christians really do men are equally in God's eyes... the scientific classification of man is irrelevant.

And...looking at history...are the only ones to consistently do so...

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 10:23 AM  

@Josh

How many did the inquisition kill? And how many ethnic cleanings in the past 200 years were undertaken by Christian or conservative groups? And what were their death tolls compared to the ethnic cleanings of non Christians and leftists?

Inquisition: I don't know
Ethnic Cleansings: I don't know
Compared to "leftists" I don't know

The inquisition death toll is said to be in the thousands. But we can't, of course, pin point it exactly.

Sub-species-ism, this idea that "other people" are lesser people motivates the worst kind of evil. Clearly it was in play Nazi Germany where my people and my family were "cleansed" for the crime of being lesser people.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 30, 2013 10:24 AM  

@ Tad

Great point, she cries and freaks out. You made my point.

Anonymous Matt January 30, 2013 10:24 AM  

Derb's written about this kind of error before. There's a difference between "women are shorter than men" and "Sally's real tall".

There have been many great women in history, and I'd give Thatcher more credit than Vox does. But if we're talking about suffrage then the individual exceptions miss the point - what matters is what the 51% do.

Anonymous Make it stop January 30, 2013 10:25 AM  

"I don't know" - Tard

Exactly.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 10:26 AM  

"Clearly it was in play Nazi Germany where my people and my family were "cleansed" for the crime of being lesser people."

Tad, the people who were carrying this out were doing their duty under the law. What is it you're suggesting that they should have done? Break the law?

Anonymous alexamenos January 30, 2013 10:26 AM  

Conservatism is for men as well as women--and for people of all races and ethnicities.

US conservatives are just slightly slower moving liberals.

Blogger Nate January 30, 2013 10:26 AM  

"
The inquisition death toll is said to be in the thousands. But we can't, of course, pin point it exactly. "

Wrong. We know exactly how many were execute and how many were tortured. The church documented. remember... people who believe they are doing the right thing, are not ashamed of it. They document it, because they think the documentation will benefit them in the future.

These documents exist.

Blogger Nate January 30, 2013 10:27 AM  

Dear God I can't type at ALL today...

I apologize.

Anonymous Loving tribute to Falco January 30, 2013 10:27 AM  

You all seem to think Tadd said only Christians or Conservatives can be resposible for mass killings. He did not say that.

I know you all hate him, but try to read more closely.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 10:27 AM  

The inquisition death toll is said to be in the thousands. But we can't, of course, pin point it exactly. 

Ya know...they kept copious records...as any bureaucracy is wont to do...

Blogger Nate January 30, 2013 10:31 AM  

"You all seem to think Tadd said only Christians or Conservatives can be resposible for mass killings. He did not say that. "

You're reading today about as well as I am typing.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 10:32 AM  

Inquisition: I don't know
Ethnic Cleansings: I don't know
Compared to "leftists" I don't know


Very good, Tad. Now two more questions.

1. Do you admit that when you were brought up the "Christian inquisitors, those that have engaged in ethnic cleansing, the Hitlers of the world and others with Vox Day's views" you were knowingly bringing up events concerning which you did not know either the scope or the scale?

2. How is it that "this kind of view of the people of the world can only lead to extreme suppression of liberty?"

Vox, do you believe your position is not "for all people"? Is not the denial of womens' suffrage good for women in the long-run?

I believe it is for the benefit of many, if not most people. Yes, the denial of women's suffrage is without question to the benefit of women, just as its permission has been to their undeniable detriment.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 10:32 AM  

Sub-species-ism, this idea that "other people" are lesser people motivates the worst kind of evil. Clearly it was in play Nazi Germany where my people and my family were "cleansed" for the crime of being lesser people.

And yet, as a leftist socialist atheist evolutionist, your political inclinations fit rather well with the Nazis...

And evolution is all about the survival of the fittest...so why shouldn't its logical conclusion be the state helping natural selection along?

Of course...it's the state that does the killings...and you wish to give the state more power to go on killing...

Would it have been possible for a libertarian state to engage in the same scale of ethnic cleansing as a socialist state?

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 10:34 AM  

Sub-species-ism, this idea that "other people" are lesser people motivates the worst kind of evil. Clearly it was in play Nazi Germany where my people and my family were "cleansed" for the crime of being lesser people.

Amusing, coming from one of the self-styled Chosen. By your own metric, the Jews are the worst kind of evil.

Anonymous Krul January 30, 2013 10:35 AM  

People, the Inquisitions are irrelevent to this discussion. Their targets were heretics, not members of any "sub-species" or "race".

Anonymous Thales January 30, 2013 10:35 AM  

Good gravy, he's going to be all over this one...

What's wrong with that? It's like having the Washington Generals on the premises playing for free! Watching VD intellectually curb-stomp Tard is great sport. /popcorn

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 10:35 AM  

I believe it is for the benefit of many, if not most people. Yes, the denial of women's suffrage is without question to the benefit of women, just as its permission has been to their undeniable detriment.

It's funny that the same logic used by leftists to ban large sodas in NYC or to restrict fattening foods to children in schools is greeted with shrieks and gnashing of teeth when it's applied to freedom.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 10:37 AM  

People, the Inquisitions are irrelevent to this discussion. Their targets were heretics, not members of any "sub-species" or "race".

Hey, Tad's the one with the brilliant idea to drag them into it. Probably because no one expects it, and it's the only "atrocity" he can attack Christians with.

Blogger GAHCindy January 30, 2013 10:38 AM  

Women belong to the realm of the private. That is why government wants to a) abolish womanhood and motherhood and b) have women voting (because we will ALWAYS make the politics personal. We can't help it. Government likes that power over the private lives of its people because it makes us all slaves, not citizens. Women relational creatures, not rational ones. I know this, because I can't say anything rational at all to my female audience without dozens of them commenting to say "You're being MEAN and I don't like you anymore. Sniff." And before some woman says to me "Well, stop voting, then!" let me say: I'll happily lay down my suffrage when you lay down yours. Very, very happily.

Blogger GAHCindy January 30, 2013 10:38 AM  

That erroneous parenthesis is driving me nuts.

Anonymous Roundtine January 30, 2013 10:41 AM  

Was sub-species bait? I read it as being a statement of genetic reality. Sub-species is totally different from sub-human.

Blogger GAHCindy January 30, 2013 10:43 AM  

OK, note to self, read your comment before publishing. Left out half a dozen words and punctuated poorly. Even someone as dumb as I am could do better than that with half a minute of proofreading. ;-)

Blogger Nate January 30, 2013 10:44 AM  

"OK, note to self, read your comment before publishing. Left out half a dozen words and punctuated poorly. Even someone as dumb as I am could do better than that with half a minute of proofreading. ;-)"

I know the feeling...

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 10:45 AM  

Y'all,

Coffee helps.

Anonymous Anonymous January 30, 2013 10:47 AM  

"Due to its false foundations, his "conservatism" is not only neither rational nor coherent, it is more firmly in accordance with the egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution than anything that can be credibly identified with conservative thought dating back to Athens.

Once he claims that "Conservatism is for men as well as women--and for people of all races and ethnicities", it should be eminently clear that he is unwittingly preaching the same sort of revolutionary equalitarian nonsense that real conservatives, who have always understood that there are fundamental differences of race and culture, have rejected for centuries"

In other words, he's a liberal, like most American "conservatives".

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 10:51 AM  

People, the Inquisitions are irrelevent to this discussion. Their targets were heretics, not members of any "sub-species" or "race".

To say nothing of the fact that with the exception of the Albigsenian, they were less lethal on an annual basis than children's bicycles in the USA today.

Blogger GAHCindy January 30, 2013 10:51 AM  

Josh, I'm headed for coffee. Right. Now.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 10:52 AM  

Was sub-species bait? I read it as being a statement of genetic reality.

Do you still not understand how this works?

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 10:53 AM  

To say nothing of the fact that with the exception of the Albigsenian, they were less lethal on an annual basis than children's bicycles in the USA today.

How dare you bring actual facts into a discussion!

Blogger Joshua_D January 30, 2013 10:54 AM  

GAHCindy January 30, 2013 10:38 AM

That erroneous parenthesis is driving me nuts.


Don't stare at it. That will only make it worse.

Blogger Old Rebel January 30, 2013 10:57 AM  

I agree with 99% of Vox Day's opinions, which is why I check him out daily.

But he is wrong on this issue.

Mr. Day is a conservative. Conservatism is an acknowledgement of man's actual condition. Humans are physical beings with intellectual and spiritual dimensions. Our loyalties belong to our people, our traditions, our communities, our heritage.

Contrast that with the leftists, who denounce and despise bonds arising from the traditional and physical. Our minds make us what we are, claim these ideologues. It is our thinking that defines who and what we are. Thus, re-education is the key to creating paradise.

Egalitarianism, then, is central to leftist ideology. It's all just a matter of correct thinking. Open borders? Check. Women in the military? Check.

Conservatives take opposing stances on those and many other issues because they see historical wisdom as the accumulated experience of their particular society. Our true natures, thus, have been revealed over many centuries. Conservatives therefore take their heritage as a standard for their own personal development. The physical is as important as the spiritual, so both the body and mind must be developed to make a whole man. (I believe Vox keeps his body as well tuned as his mind.)

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is just another ideology, an artificial way of living cooked up by those who imagine reason - or should I say, "Reason" - is sovereign.

Here's the Bizarro world image of Vox Day, a libertarian anarchist who's also into sci-fi, philosophy, and blogging - and his rigid egalitarianism, atheism, and disdain for traditional loyalties make Roderick Long the perfect model of a modern libertarian:

http://aaeblog.com/2012/12/08/molinari-beach-safari/

C'mon, Vox - cut your ties to libertarians and join your real allies. We'll leave a light on in the window. ;-)

Anonymous Russell January 30, 2013 11:05 AM  

"Due to its false foundations, his "conservatism" is not only neither rational nor coherent, it is more firmly in accordance with the egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution than anything that can be credibly identified with conservative thought dating back to Athens."

I laughed at this.

I wonder if "conservatives" of Trimnell's type ever realize the forces that drove the Revolutionary Tribunal are the same driving the police state in the US.

Anonymous Vidad January 30, 2013 11:05 AM  

"Vox Day, a libertarian anarchist"

I wish he was an anarchist. It'd make things less lonely around here.

Anonymous RINO January 30, 2013 11:06 AM  

Conservatism is for men as well as women--and for people of all races and ethnicities.

He may believe that, but it doesn't mean those groups are going to share his love of conservative principle. On an unrelated note, has Ed Trimmel found the mystical Republican hordes immigrating in from Mexico?

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 11:07 AM  

"Conservatism is an acknowledgement of man's actual condition."

Then what's with the police state conservatives created to fight the War On Some Drugs?

Anonymous The CronoLink January 30, 2013 11:09 AM  

Tad, the מתנה that keeps on giving.....

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 11:10 AM  

Then what's with the police state conservatives created to fight the War On Some Drugs?

See...um...drugs are bad...mkay?

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 11:11 AM  

On an unrelated note, has Ed Trimmel found the mystical Republican hordes immigrating in from Mexico?

They're natural conservatives! Even though they vote for leftists! Because, um, they have families!

Anonymous Salt January 30, 2013 11:12 AM  

@Josh

Who wants facts? Better just to feel good and stay with the herd.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 11:14 AM  

This is a great post, and shows that when presented with a credible and intelligent opposition, VD is capable of responding with grace and fierce reasoning.

Anonymous Krul January 30, 2013 11:15 AM  

Old Rebel, American conservatives are inheritors of the old Social Gospell progressives and the social engineering ideas of Leo Strauss. We have them to thank for Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the Patriot Act, among other things. Their attacks on liberty are puritanical rather than nihilistic, but they are still enemies of liberty.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 30, 2013 11:26 AM  

I think that there are many definitions flying about for the labels being used.

It always makes these discussions a little difficult as people having the discussion are not using the terms in the same way.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 11:27 AM  

The problem with conservatives is that the America they want to conserve is basically whatever the world was like when they were kids. A generation ago, conservatives wanted to bring the world back to the 1950's. Now, they all want to bring the world back to the Reagan administration. Conservatives are nothing more than children who want to go back to the world of their childhood. In twenty years, conservatives will be nostalgic for the Bush administration and our muscular military answer to terrorism, and they will vehemently support gay marriage in the culture war against unmarried, promiscuous gays. They'll also throw themselves on the floor lauding the inherent conservatism of obamacare as a "market based" healthcare solution against a liberal proposal for single payer universal healthcare.

Anonymous The Most Interesting Man in the World January 30, 2013 11:28 AM  

Probably because no one expects it...

"He is always expecting a Spanish Inquisition."

Anonymous patrick kelly January 30, 2013 11:29 AM  

OT or always On Topic?:

ImmigrantSetsConnStraight

Anonymous RINO January 30, 2013 11:32 AM  

The problem with conservatives is that the America they want to conserve is basically whatever the world was like when they were kids.

That's absolutely true, and I find the most unbearable of them to be the boomer conservatives. Get a group of them together and you get to hear about how wonderful the 50's and 60's were.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 11:40 AM  

@Vox Day

Amusing, coming from one of the self-styled Chosen. By your own metric, the Jews are the worst kind of evil.

You are confusing the religious and the ethnic Jew. No surprise there. Of course over the years, decades and centuries that distinction has mattered not at all to those folks who view Jews through the lens of sub-species-ism. And it mattered even less to those who, upon looking at jews and others they feared through the sub-species-ism lens supported the only possible logical steps.

Happily, most of the peoples subjected to that kind of evil still survive in one way or another.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 11:41 AM  

That's absolutely true, and I find the most unbearable of them to be the boomer conservatives. Get a group of them together and you get to hear about how wonderful the 50's and 60's were.

That's funny, I feel the same way about the Reagan worshipers.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 11:47 AM  

@Crono

Tad, the האמת that keeps on giving.....

There...Fixed it for you

Anonymous CJ January 30, 2013 11:48 AM  

There's a distinct lack of cruelty in Vox's posts today. Is this the day we get the single tear rolling down an alabaster cheek?

Anonymous physphilmusic January 30, 2013 11:49 AM  

Once he claims that "Conservatism is for men as well as women--and for people of all races and ethnicities", it should be eminently clear that he is unwittingly preaching the same sort of revolutionary equalitarian nonsense that real conservatives, who have always understood that there are fundamental differences of race and culture, have rejected for centuries.

Can you elaborate more on this? So if a woman, a black, yellow, or brown person thinks that "real conservative thought" is appealing (perhaps by reading Spengler), you would never "trust" them as "genuine" conservatives? On face value, Trimnell's statement seems perfectly fine - it would be better if more women and people of all races were conservative (although of course that's not the case, and you would be right in saying that statistically women are less likely to be conservative). Even in your view that women should not be given the vote, it would be much better if more women agree with you.

Or are you simply referring to immigration policies, acknowledging racial problems in crime, etc.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 11:51 AM  

You are confusing the religious and the ethnic Jew.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know you said you were Jewish, I didn't recall you specifying if you meant that in the purely ethnic or the religious sense. Ergo, two more questions for you.

1. Are you an ethnic Jew?
2. Do you claim that religious Jews are "the worst kind of evil"?

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 11:53 AM  

I'm with Old Rebel, libertarianism is an anti-capitalist philosophy from the frog revolution. Its basis is equality, but instead of a centrally planned economy and society, its artificiality limited by a lack of wealth building and storing mechanisms. Read Proudhon and see if you still want to be libertarian. Most of you are probably capitalists who just don't like being told what to do. Libertarians would absolutely embrace universal suffrage.

Forcing your libertine ideas on me in no different than me forcing my religious ideas on you.

Anonymous Vidad January 30, 2013 11:54 AM  

Josh: "I feel the same way about the Reagan worshipers."

Me too. I don't understand the fixation. He increased gov't like a madman.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 11:54 AM  

@Vox Day


I'm not confusing anything at all.

Of course you are

1. Are you an ethnic Jew?
2. Do you claim that religious Jews are "the worst kind of evil"?


Yes
No

Anonymous Chuckling January 30, 2013 11:55 AM  

"Libertarians would absolutely embrace universal suffrage. - Roger U"

Are you new here?

Anonymous Athor Pel January 30, 2013 11:56 AM  

"Josh January 30, 2013 11:27 AM

The problem with conservatives is that the America they want to conserve is basically whatever the world was like when they were kids. A generation ago, conservatives wanted to bring the world back to the 1950's. Now, they all want to bring the world back to the Reagan administration. Conservatives are nothing more than children who want to go back to the world of their childhood.
..."




Everybody pines for a long lost ideal world of peace, prosperity and contentment. It's why liberals, (all humans at their most materialistic), of all time periods repeatedly try to recreate Eden.

That it fails repeatedly doesn't concern them. All they need is more money, more power, more authority, once they get that all their plans will bear the right fruit. Yes, they are useful idiots.

Their master knows the premises they are building on are faulty, he counts on it in fact. He wants the failure, the violence, the disease, the famine, the death. The more the better for him. The more he takes down with him the better his case and if he doesn't win then the bigger the figurative loogie he spits in God's eye.



Anonymous DT January 30, 2013 11:57 AM  

Was sub-species bait? I read it as being a statement of genetic reality. Sub-species is totally different from sub-human.

I see what Vox did there.

Anonymous DT January 30, 2013 11:58 AM  

On an unrelated note, has Ed Trimmel found the mystical Republican hordes immigrating in from Mexico?

They are going to vote Republican just as soon as Republicans stop being mean to them and give them amnesty and open borders.

I know it's true. A liberal on MSNBC told me so.

Anonymous Brendan January 30, 2013 12:01 PM  

The problem, it seems to me, is that the word "conservative" is typically used in a very sloppy way to describe fundamentally different things. Old-line conservatism isn't really what Trimnell is describing here -- one need not go all the way back to Athens to recognize that Burke would not subscribe to any kind of conservatism that was separate from notions of race, country, patriotism, and order. This is quite the far cry from Trimnell's distillation of Goldwater conservatism, really, and, in reality, is not terribly different from what currently calls itself "progressivism", at least in terms of politics. What we have in the US at least currently is a fetishization of relatively minor differences between the self-styled "conservatives" and the "progressives", whereby the progressives generally determine and drive the agenda over the long term, with conservatives occasionally having the chance to slow things down a bit but not really changing the overall direction of the society. This is because they are both based in the ideas of the enlightenment -- the difference is a question of speed, and a difference in tolerance for disparate outcomes.

The basic ideas of each "side" in this conflict are essentially the same, and this is also why, with the passage of time, the "conservatives" of today tend to support what the "progressives" of yesterday pushed, because today it is the new status quo. We can see this in the now ubiquitous support of what we might call "everyday feminism" by people like Trimnell, with the only distancing from feminism being aimed at "the excesses of political feminism". Conservatives are now feminist, now denounce "sexism" and so on, even though just a few decades ago, the conservatives at the time denounced and critiqued feminism. Today, the progressives are pushing the gay agenda over the objections of the conservatives. In 20 years time, the conservatives of the future will be in full support of gay marriage, and only criticize the "excesses of political gays" or something similar -- basically co-opting what the progressives want, just on a delay.

In fact, the current group of conservatives provides an essential function to the progressives of being the sugar that helps the medicine go down. That is, by slowing things down slightly, they make things more socially palatable by providing the time in which the society can digest the kinds of changes the progressives want to make. This helps the changes seem less radical than they actually are. And then, a decade or two later, they simply embrace the new reality on the ground as the status quo they are defending, as conservatives, against the newest progressive idea or initiative. In this way, conservatives are actually helpful to progressives, and play a critical role in generating social acceptability for the progressive agenda. To see them as being fundamentally different from the progressives, however, is fundamentally flawed -- they are cut from the same cloth, in most ways, and are simply on a slower, more gradual schedule.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 12:03 PM  

@Vox Day

I know you said you were Jewish, I didn't recall you specifying if you meant that in the purely ethnic or the religious sense

Given that we've discussed issues in the context of my status as a non-believer, it's hard to imagine how you might have confused me with being jewish in a "religious sense". The only explanation is your confusion, the source of which is difficult to know, but in the end not too important since I'm sure, religious or not, you'll view Jews as one of those "sub-species" that you and others throughout history have identified and taken care of.

But then, I may be mistaken. You haven't been stupid enough yet to identify exactly which people you Identify as "sub species.

Which are those, Vox Day?

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 12:08 PM  

"Forcing your libertine ideas on me in no different than me forcing my religious ideas on you."

Yes, libertarianism is a truly frightening philosophy. We want to take over the country so that we can leave you alone.

Anonymous GreyS January 30, 2013 12:08 PM  

I don't know Trimnell, but this sort of thing is basically in the category of "Why are you hurting the Republican Party?" (with all the attendant misconceptions about VD) which is evidenced by his handwringing about how Obama followers will spin it. His post could be titled "We're not all like that you guys-- please don't smear us!"

Anonymous RINO January 30, 2013 12:13 PM  

"Vox Day, a libertarian anarchist"

I wish he was an anarchist. It'd make things less lonely around here.


You know what else would make things less lonely? Giving up on a political philosophy that is little more than a joke.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 12:14 PM  

I'm with Old Rebel, libertarianism is an anti-capitalist philosophy from the frog revolution. Its basis is equality, but instead of a centrally planned economy and society, its artificiality limited by a lack of wealth building and storing mechanisms.

What's your definition of capitalism and how is libertarianism incompatible with it?

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 12:17 PM  

You know what else would make things less lonely? Giving up on a political philosophy that is little more than a joke.

Like the philosophy that always supporting republicans will increase liberty?

Blogger Tiny Tim January 30, 2013 12:17 PM  

Tad, Queen of the Rabbit People.........

Anonymous A Visitor January 30, 2013 12:17 PM  



This reminds me of a topic VA used to visit on a regular basis on her blog: how the "respectable Right" always immediately demonized anyone further to their right, whilst at the same time as promoting themselves as the sole "real" Right.

When conservatives allow racism, sexism, or religious extremism to seep into our rhetoric, we betray our philosophy, ourselves, and most of all--the people "on the fence," who can be easily swayed by the statist deceptions of Barack Obama and the liberal monoculture.

I got news for Eddy boy: if the numbers are to be believed, 51% of our republic's (or what's left of it) citizens were dumb enough to vote for Dear Leader. I personally think the vote was rigged but that's just me. Regardless, most of them couldn't care less what happens on a national level. I doubt that they'll be swayed by "rhetoric." This sounds like the same drivel McCain said at a Politico breakfast today about how we "have to pass amnesty" or the illegals will become Democrats. A) Republicans aren't conservative (I'm not sure if I even consider myself conservative or a traditionalist at this point) B) Are you really that dense to believe that they'll switch parties based on which one proposed and did the heavy lifting on amnesty?

As I've said to many friends and family before: the majority of these illegals (from Central and South America where I've travelled and spent extensive time; I'm not an expert by any means but I understand some basic political concepts) PREFER THE GOVERNMENT'S CRADLE! Crossing our borders is not going to change that! Get it through your skulls!

They're not "conservatives but just don't realize it yet," (if I hear that Reagan quote one more time I'm gonna scream). THEY'RE LEFTISTS, that's how they roll!

I just had a thought that might make the uniformed understand this concept better.
Remember how Morpheus to Neo in The Matrix explains that most people aren't ready to be unplugged from it because they're so hopelessly dependent on the system that they'll fight and even die for it? Well, that's the illegals we have here (and many immigrants, period).

Ah, playing the I'm the true conservative card? What would Ed say to my friend who is a lady who'd rather she not be able to vote if it meant the country became more right-wing as a result?



Wonderful. More power to them. Keep in mind: THEY'RE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE! My friends from Central America who are right wing, are the exception, not the rule.

Alright, rant over. Here's the good part from Armin Van Buuren's remix of "Colours" by Emma Hewitt.

As a post script, please post that photo Vox of you and Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I'd love to see it (one of Thatcher too, if you have it)!

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 12:19 PM  

I don't know Trimnell, but this sort of thing is basically in the category of "Why are you hurting the Republican Party?" (with all the attendant misconceptions about VD) which is evidenced by his handwringing about how Obama followers will spin it. His post could be titled "We're not all like that you guys-- please don't smear us!"

Exactly. It's very similar to the way the beltway libertarians distanced themselves from Ron Paul.

Anonymous A Visitor January 30, 2013 12:19 PM  

Hmm...some of my comment got cut off.

Here are the missing portions:

A true conservative would not apportion any political privileges or penalties based on race or gender. Once again--that is the game of the Left and the Democratic Party. Ah, playing the I'm the true conservative card? What would Ed say to my friend who is a lady who'd rather she not be able to vote if it meant the country became more right-wing as a result?

What about Jeane Kirkpatrick--and Margaret Thatcher? there are some fairly astute Asian capitalists. And yes--some of them are women.

Wonderful. More power to them. Keep in mind: THEY'RE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE! My friends from Central America who are right wing, are the exception, not the rule.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 12:24 PM  

Answer the questions, Tad.

1. Are you an ethnic Jew?
2. Do you claim that religious Jews are "the worst kind of evil"?

Given that we've discussed issues in the context of my status as a non-believer, it's hard to imagine how you might have confused me with being jewish in a "religious sense".

There are no shortage of ethnic Jews who are atheists and yet attend synagogue and would consider themselves "religious" in some sense. I can obviously make reasonable assumptions, but I am asking for the sake of clarification and precision.

And let's add a third one.

3. Do you consider yourself part of The Chosen People or not?

Blogger Beefy Levinson January 30, 2013 12:25 PM  

I think our politics could be significantly improved by restricting the franchise to the married-and-never-divorced male heads of households with at least one legitimate child. I've never understood the liberal mania for getting as many warm bodies to the polls as possible.

Anonymous civilServant January 30, 2013 12:26 PM  

"... it is an observable, provable, statistical, and scientific fact that the two sexes possess different brain structures, different thought patterns, different hormonal balances, and different time-preferences ...."

"As for fighting tribal politics, I would submit that they cannot be understood, much less engaged, without becoming what he describes as "racist".... "

...

"I hope it is readily apparent that I am only attacking what I see as the deficiencies in his ideas, not his character."

Anonymous DT January 30, 2013 12:27 PM  

@Tad ...but in the end not too important since I'm sure, religious or not, you'll view Jews as one of those "sub-species" that you and others throughout history have identified and taken care of.

This might help you out Tad:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sub-species

Question #1: do you agree or disagree that there are observable genetic, physical, and behavioral differences between men and women?

Question #2: do you agree or disagree that there are observable genetic, physical, and behavioral differences between people of different racial groups?

To be perfectly clear, I am not asking, in either question, whether or not you agree that different people are more or less human, or deserving of different levels of respect in regard to their lives. I will stipulate...and believe...that we are all equally human and deserve equal respect of our lives.

Blogger Old Rebel January 30, 2013 12:28 PM  

Krul,

"Neocons" are, as you say, modern-day Straussians. They are ideologues, as opposed to the defenders of a cultural tradition.

Therefore, they are not conservatives - they are users and abusers of language, conservatism, and Americans:

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=818

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 12:28 PM  

Libertarians would absolutely embrace universal suffrage.

No, they would not. I am a libertarian, I am even recognized as a leading libertarian, and I absolutely oppose universal suffrage. As do most of those who support women's suffrage.

And note that I oppose women's suffrage on distinctly libertarian grounds. There is considerable evidence that women's suffrage is not compatible with human liberty.

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 12:28 PM  

I've never understood the liberal mania for getting as many warm bodies to the polls as possible.

Because that helps them elect more liberals.

Anonymous Daniel January 30, 2013 12:33 PM  

It also helps them erect more liberals.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 30, 2013 12:35 PM  

Chuckling
"Libertarians would absolutely embrace universal suffrage. - Roger U"

Are you new here?


I imagine this does apply to those like the Reason magazine types.

They are huge open border fans over there.
(/generalization)

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 30, 2013 12:43 PM  

Old Rebel

Therefore, they are not conservatives - they are users and abusers of language, conservatism, and Americans:

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=818


I am with Ol' Reb here.


And this is what I was getting at with my first post.

Conservative has more than one meaning.
Libertarian has more than on meaning.
Etc.

I think this flexibility causes inherent disruptions.

What would I label myself?
I don't know. The reason why is because it would depend on my audience and what their definitions are.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 12:43 PM  

Chuckling,
Yes I am new here.
My point was that I hear people claiming to be libertarians all over the 'tubes, when what they really are is socially liberal "paleoconservatives", for lack of a better term. Libertarianism is a leftist philosophy with all various ideas of "justice" attached.

Anonymous Randy M January 30, 2013 12:44 PM  

As a taxonomic term, all members of a sub-species would be equally members of the supra-species but distinct in some way.
I don't know what if anything is the criteria for dividing populations into sub-species, though.

If a term such as sub-human was used, that would mean the group or individual so designated was lacking in some characteristic necesary to qualify as human.

And as was said, that really had nothing to do with the inquisition, as one could not convert to Catholicism without being fully human.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 30, 2013 12:45 PM  

Nate,

I simply cannot take anyone seriously that doesn't realize that gender is a term of grammar.

I agree. Doors should not be allowed to vote, at least not in France. Of course, the concept of grammatical gender is literally foreign to a native English speaker, and frankly I think languages that have gender are for aspies. Who else would care if I called it la porte or le porte?

Tiny Tim,

it is not that hard for her to defeat prosecutors hired for reasons of "affirmative action"

I've served on one jury in my life. The prosecutor was an AA hire. She was at least a two-fer, possibly a three-fer. Her case was pathetic. She presented zero evidence the defendant actually committed the crime he was charged with. She presented lots of evidence he was in the general area, and some evidence he may have committed a different, far lesser crime (which he was not charged with). But nothing to prove he was guilty of what he was charged with. I had to vote not guilty.

The only thing more infuriating than her incompetence was how four of the five women on the jury voted. One of them voted not guilty for the same reason I did. But another voted not guilty because I did (she was flirting with me the entire trial). Two voted guilty because they were tingling for the cop who testified for the prosecution, and one voted guilty because the defendant reminder her of her ex-husband.

We all have the right to a trail by a jury of hamsters and rabbits, I guess. Is that un jury, or une jury? I'd prefer un based on my experience.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 12:46 PM  

VD said"I am a libertarian, I am even recognized as a leading libertarian"

I am new to your site, have you defined libertarianism in a post somewhere so I can catch up?

Blogger Old Rebel January 30, 2013 12:46 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Edward Trimnell January 30, 2013 12:48 PM  

Vox:

I appreciate your public response, and your spirit of collegial debate. In contrast to the Whatever-ites, your commenters are a mostly polite crowd.

On the issue of what we might call--for the sake of brevity--genetic determinism, I think you and I may have to agree to disagree. (*Cultural* determinism is another matter; I suspect that you and I would share more or less the same views regarding the inherent superiority of Western Civilization.) The problems in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere are, I believe, the fault of the prevailing ideologies in these places (Islam in the Middle East, Spanish colonial-era statism and Marxism in Latin America, etc.) , not the genetic makeup of the people living there. I likewise do not share some of your views on the nature of women.

Regarding your sources and specific points: Rather than simply stating my disagreement, I'll respond at length at a later date, giving you an opportunity for a rebuttal if you so desire.

That having been said, I enjoy your regular and epic smackdowns of John Scalzi. We do not agree on everything; but no one--myself included--has done so virtuoso a job at stymying, frustrating, and debunking the Darling of the Leftwing Internet.


Warm regards,
Ed Trimnell

Blogger Old Rebel January 30, 2013 12:50 PM  

Conan the Cimmerian said, "It always makes these discussions a little difficult as people having the discussion are not using the terms in the same way."

Exactly! The Neocons deliberately manipulate language to achieve their "noble" aims. Krauthammer's for amnesty and gun control, and Li'l Lindsey Graham's contempt for traditional Americans is as blatant as his prissiness.

Anonymous Mab January 30, 2013 12:51 PM  

I'd vote for Margaret Thatcher over 95% of the male politicians of either party in the U.S. today.

I wouldn't vote for a single female politician in either party in the U.S. today.

Margaret Thatcher is the exception to the rule. Probably the only one. Although, sometimes I think England would be better off abolishing parliament and letting Elizabeth II have full 'reign' again. She couldn't really do all that much worse, and it is easier to get rid of a single tyrannical monarch/ruler than it is a an entire tyrannical bureacracy...

And yes, I would gladly give up my right to vote to keep the rest of my sex out of the voting booth.

I don't believe in universal male suffrage either, I will note. For example, I don't think anyone under the age of 25 should be allowed to vote, and neither should anyone who currently works for the government (with the possible exception of those in the military--possible exception. I admittedly haven't fully thought through this yet.)

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 12:52 PM  

@Vox Day

There are no shortage of ethnic Jews who are atheists and yet attend synagogue and would consider themselves "religious" in some sense.

No...there is a huge shortage of such Jews.

3. Do you consider yourself part of The Chosen People or not?

Only to the extent that my people were somehow chosen to carry the banner for the worst kind of cuisine.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 12:54 PM  

I appreciate your public response, and your spirit of collegial debate. In contrast to the Whatever-ites, your commenters are a mostly polite crowd.

Likewise. Well, you know what they say about a well-armed society....

On the issue of what we might call--for the sake of brevity--genetic determinism, I think you and I may have to agree to disagree. (*Cultural* determinism is another matter; I suspect that you and I would share more or less the same views regarding the inherent superiority of Western Civilization.) The problems in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere are, I believe, the fault of the prevailing ideologies in these places (Islam in the Middle East, Spanish colonial-era statism and Marxism in Latin America, etc.) , not the genetic makeup of the people living there. I likewise do not share some of your views on the nature of women.

Why do you hate Science, Edward, why? Anyhow, I am confident I can, at the very least, encourage you to question some of your beliefs in these regards. You're certainly welcome to attempt to do the same to mine.

Regarding your sources and specific points: Rather than simply stating my disagreement, I'll respond at length at a later date, giving you an opportunity for a rebuttal if you so desire.

That sounds like excellent entertainment all round. I look forward to it.

That having been said, I enjoy your regular and epic smackdowns of John Scalzi. We do not agree on everything; but no one--myself included--has done so virtuoso a job at stymying, frustrating, and debunking the Darling of the Leftwing Internet.

More than happy to oblige. My pleasure, really.

Anonymous Daniel January 30, 2013 12:58 PM  

Roger U, this one is as good as any:

Conservative v. Libertarian

Key quote: [L]ibertarianism is ultimately about preventing the government from killing its citizens by refusing to permit it the means or the justification to do so.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 12:59 PM  

I am new to your site, have you defined libertarianism in a post somewhere so I can catch up?

Not that I recall. I probably should do so. But as a general rule, I hew pretty closely to dictionary definitions in the interests of clarity. If I need a new word, I don't hesitate to coin it.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 1:08 PM  

Daniel,
" [L]ibertarianism is ultimately about preventing the government from killing its citizens by refusing to permit it the means or the justification to do so."

As far as that goes, I'm libertarian, but most of what I hear described as libertarianism still sounds like republicanism/conservatism. Of course, I understand that a self respecting person would be hesitant to call themselves republican due to the stain of the GOP.

This is all off topic of the post, so I'll drop it, now.

Universal suffrage is a bad idea!

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 30, 2013 1:08 PM  

Posting here what I posted there:

Mr. Trimnell,

Your views do not fall in line with the Traditionalist/Conservative Right.

You would perhaps be termed a right liberal in their parlance. (Charles Krauthammer, John McCain, Karl Rove, Bush family, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and most Republicans are right liberal according to this terminology / these definitions).

"Sexism" and "racism" are constructed terms of left liberals (marxists), Newspeak if you will. These terms are not for conservatives, as they feed into the Newspeak reality.

Left liberalism is what you would normally consider liberal, progressive, etc.

Universal suffrage is not a conservative value. The founders did not support it.

The races, or genetic clusters, or variants, or sub species are not fungible. Legal equality and natural rights does not = equality of peoples. Equality is/has become a left liberal term as it is commonly used. Again, a type of Newspeak.

I do not know enough about you and your views, but from what you have written here, I would not term you conservative, though many others would.

Blogger ray January 30, 2013 1:18 PM  

"How many did the inquisition kill?

Not damn near enough rabbits."


clearly, the job was left incomplete

and needs doing again -- but this time, to the utter root of the evil

the matriarchy has spent the past half-century lying about EVERYTHING, including the terrible Inquisitorial purge--of-women administered by Those Evil Males, who attempted to wipe femininity off the planet, killing millions of Good Women, just because males are mean and Patriarchy is Bad

it's a lie, just like all the other lies we hear from womens' collective mouths, thru their government, schools, media, etc

the utter takeover of the western world by women/feminism -- and the totalitarian and sinister methods they and their governments employ against boys and men -- illustrate that the Matriarchal Monstrosity under which we all now live SHOULD have been exterminated when the inquisition had the chance

that mistake will not be repeated, may God get them all next time, and leave none of our "Superior Equal" oppressors and persecutors to criminalize, degrade, and destroy fatherhood and masculnity as they leap for joy and call themselves "victims"

Anonymous Josh January 30, 2013 1:23 PM  

Um, ray, the inquisition wasn't about killing women...

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 1:24 PM  

SHHH. He's on a roll!

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 30, 2013 1:25 PM  

Josh
Um, ray, the inquisition wasn't about killing women...


Forget it, he's rolling.

Anonymous the bandit January 30, 2013 1:25 PM  

This is why I just tell people I'm a classical liberal.

The conversations that follow can be quite amusing.

Blogger hadley January 30, 2013 1:25 PM  

Maybe. But also the Christian inquisitors, those that have engaged in ethnic cleansing, the Hitlers of the world and others with Vox Day's views.

"Those" (AKA "goyim") will always scare the Tads of this world. Tad really should make Aliyah instead of wasting his life in the dreck and shmutz of the Goy World.

Tad, you can be a supremacist in Israel, feel safe, and never have to share power with or worry about being killed by us lesser, un-chosen races. We'll favor our own here, you can favor your own in Israel and we can both get along just fine.

Anonymous Vidad January 30, 2013 1:29 PM  

"This is why I just tell people I'm a classical liberal."

I'm closer to a trip-hop conservative.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 30, 2013 1:33 PM  

Libertarianism is a leftist philosophy with all various ideas of "justice" attached.

That's about the most non-sensical thing I've read this week (granted, I usually skip Tad's comments).

Libertarianism stresses individual choices and a social stucture that favors voluntary cooperation, holding that the best society results when social structures have to compete for the allegiance of individuals. Leftism is a groupist philosophy that stresses community and assumes the best society is one where everybody falls into line behind the annointed leaders, by force is necessary.

To confuse libertarianism with leftism is very confused thinking.

Blogger Nate January 30, 2013 1:33 PM  

" In contrast to the Whatever-ites, your commenters are a mostly polite crowd."

did....


Did he just call the Dread Ilk...


Polite?

Anonymous DT January 30, 2013 1:36 PM  

@Tad And happily, the smug ugliness of those nurtured on notions of "sub-species"

Ummm...did you read this?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sub-species

Also: any answers to my questions?

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 1:41 PM  

Answer the question, Tad. You've already been asked it twice.

2. Do you claim that religious Jews are "the worst kind of evil"?

Blogger The Aardvark January 30, 2013 1:41 PM  

Nate, it is a matter of comparison.

Cleansing breath....

Anonymous Krul January 30, 2013 1:43 PM  

VD, he already answered "No" to that question.

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 30, 2013 1:44 PM  

To be fair, VD, he did answer that one:

Tad January 30, 2013 11:54 AM

@Vox Day


I'm not confusing anything at all.

Of course you are

1. Are you an ethnic Jew?
2. Do you claim that religious Jews are "the worst kind of evil"?

Yes
No

Anonymous Alexander January 30, 2013 1:44 PM  

Tad doesn't believe in letting the definitions of words nor what is actually being discussed get in the way of a nice helping of smug.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 1:45 PM  

@Vox Day

Answer the question, Tad. You've already been asked it twice.

2. Do you claim that religious Jews are "the worst kind of evil"?


Answered here:

January 30, 2013 11:54 AM

Anonymous Jack Amok January 30, 2013 1:47 PM  

As far as sub-species goes, I'm perfectly content to judge people according to their culture rather than their race, but Leftists make that impossible on a practical level.

Because leftists are groupists, and insist everybody fit within their assigned group. So by their rules, if I invite a Thomas Sowell to my circle of friends, but not a Trayvon Martin or Al Sharpton, I'm doing something bad. Because it's at that point where the racial differences crop up. There are far more Trayvon Martins and Al Sharptons than there are Thomas Sowells. If the Leftists didn't insist on counting black, white and brown noses and then making accusations based on disparity, we could be far more colorblind than we are today. We could at least allow the exceptions to rise above the average.

But that's exactly what groupists cannot tolerate, becaues that means treating people as individuals instead of rabbits, and groupists rely on the rabbits for their power.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 1:51 PM  

Jack Amok,
Libertarianism grew out of the French Revolution. It is a variant of the same thought process that brings us "leftism". You have to stop and think about implementing the ideal.
Here's an example from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's General idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century:

"The cultivator had been bent under feudal servitude through rent and
mortgages. He is freed by the land bank, and, above all, by the right of the
user to the property. The land, vast in extent and in depth, becomes the
basis of equality."

"...why should there not as well be
a universal and tacit agreement to renounce increase, that is to say, to sell
and pay at the only just price, which is the average cost?"

These are out of context, they are worse when read as part of the moon-eyed utopian whole.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 1:51 PM  

Ah, I missed that somehow. Fascinating response, absolutely fascinating. I'll answer your question now.

You haven't been stupid enough yet to identify exactly which people you Identify as "sub species. Which are those, Vox Day?

Those sub-species of homo sapiens which are genetically distinct, in part or in whole, from homo sapiens sapiens.

Now it is my turn again.

1. Do religious Jews consider themselves to be distinct people separate from others, a Chosen people?

Anonymous Joel P. January 30, 2013 1:52 PM  

In fact, the current group of conservatives provides an essential function to the progressives of being the sugar that helps the medicine go down. That is, by slowing things down slightly, they make things more socially palatable by providing the time in which the society can digest the kinds of changes the progressives want to make. This helps the changes seem less radical than they actually are. And then, a decade or two later, they simply embrace the new reality on the ground as the status quo they are defending, as conservatives, against the newest progressive idea or initiative. In this way, conservatives are actually helpful to progressives, and play a critical role in generating social acceptability for the progressive agenda. To see them as being fundamentally different from the progressives, however, is fundamentally flawed -- they are cut from the same cloth, in most ways, and are simply on a slower, more gradual schedule.

Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote about this in The Possessed:

“We have responsibilities, and as a result we also serve the common cause as you do. We are only holding back what you loosen and what without us would scatter in various directions. We’re not your enemies; hardly so. We’re saying to you: go forward, make progress, even shatter, that is, everything that is subject to alteration; but when needed, we will keep you within the necessary boundaries and save you from yourselves, because without us you would only send Russia into upheaval, depriving her of a proper appearance, and our duty is to look after proper appearances. Understand that you and I are mutually necessary to each other. In England Tories and Whigs also need each other. Now then, we’re Tories, and you’re Whigs…”

“Well, however you like it,” murmured Peter Stepanovich. “Nevertheless you are paving the way for us and preparing our success.”


-----

"Conservatives" like Ed Trimnell are useful idiots of the progressive left.

Anonymous Ummmmmmmm January 30, 2013 1:54 PM  

(*Cultural* determinism is another matter; I suspect that you and I would share more or less the same views regarding the inherent superiority of Western Civilization.) The problems in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere are, I believe, the fault of the prevailing ideologies in these places (Islam in the Middle East, Spanish colonial-era statism and Marxism in Latin America, etc.)

The prevailing ideologies in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa are universally Western imports. If Africa cannot successfully "do" Western ideology (democracy, communism, or fascism) where does that leave you but a genetic explanation? If Swedes can successfully implement socialism but not Zimbabweans, the problem lies not in the socialism but in some quality that the Swedes have but not the Zimbabweans.

(nb The ideology of the Middle East is not Islam but Western ideology - socialism - with an Islamic gloss. Islamocommunism would be a better term for it than Islamofascism.)

Anonymous Shutup, Tad January 30, 2013 2:01 PM  

Is anyone going to tell Mr. Petticoat that his identity politics definition of sub-species is not what is in the post, and that Jews are not a race?


Or haven't we seen enough lisping idiocy yet.

Anonymous Krul January 30, 2013 2:02 PM  

(nb The ideology of the Middle East is not Islam but Western ideology - socialism - with an Islamic gloss. Islamocommunism would be a better term for it than Islamofascism.)

Having served in the Middle East, I can assure you that the ideology there is most definitely a combination of Islam and ancient pre-Islamic tribal traditions. It is most definitely NOT anything that can reasonably called either communism or fascism.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 2:03 PM  

@Vox Day


1. Do religious Jews consider themselves to be distinct people separate from others, a Chosen people?


Certainly the Orthodox Jew does as well as many Conservative Jews. It is becoming less prominent among Reform Jews. However the key to understanding Chosen-ness is to understand what the religious Jew believes he is chosen for. It is a question of purpose and obligation more than anything else.

Personally, I'm with Einstein on the question.

Blogger Beefy Levinson January 30, 2013 2:07 PM  

"Conservative" is in some ways a relative term. In practice, American conservatives are whatever American liberals were fifty years ago. That's why I self identify as a reactionary.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 2:09 PM  

So the Orthodox Jew as well as many Conservative Jews consider themselves to be distinct, separate, and Chosen. That is helpful. Does the idea of "sub species-ism" that infects all also infect them?

Anonymous John Regan January 30, 2013 2:12 PM  

A little OT but I thought it might fit here or over at Alpha Game:

http://www.france24.com/en/20130130-more-housework-less-sex-married-men-study

Anonymous Roager U January 30, 2013 2:14 PM  

It has been said that "race is a cultural construct", but looking through history, you see all the different races creating different cultures. I would posit that culture is a racial construct in that it reflects the values and temperaments of the people who create it.

I would also point out that "sub-species" could be construed as ethnicity. For instance the Irish created a very different society from the Germans. Both of these people are white, but of different ethnic groups.

I think white, black, brown, yellow and red is too simple a definition of race and plays into the arguments for egalitarianism due to the necessity of "exceptions to the rule" inherent in such a broad definition.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 2:17 PM  

@Vox Day

So the Orthodox Jew as well as many Conservative Jews consider themselves to be distinct, separate, and Chosen. That is helpful. Does the idea of "sub species-ism" that infects all also infect them?

That depends on how you are using the idea of sub-species-ism and your notion of the necessity of being "sub-speciesist". You have already connected this idea of "sub-speciesist" with the modern understanding of "racism" as Trimnell has used the term. So, it's not possible to answer your question without first understanding what you are implying when you say that to understand the politics of "tribalism" we must be racist.

Anonymous DT January 30, 2013 2:19 PM  

Is anyone going to tell Mr. Petticoat that his identity politics definition of sub-species is not what is in the post,...

I've tried. Twice.

Anonymous Dan in Tx (not an AWCA but enjoying the spectator sport) January 30, 2013 2:20 PM  

I love it when Vox finds it amusing to directly engage Tad. It's kind of like watching the spider meticulously and purposefully wrapping up the flailing june bug.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 2:20 PM  

@Roager

I would posit that culture is a racial construct in that it reflects the values and temperaments of the people who create it.

Too little is taken into account for this assertion to be of any value. For example, the impact of geography is not accounted for in considering the evolution of culture. The impact of climate is also not taken into account. And the cumulative impact of history on the development of a culture is also left out.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 2:24 PM  

Tad,

Irish and German climate and geography are not too terribly different. The climates and geographies of Ireland and Germany are not different enough to affect their social organization much beyond planting and harvest.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 2:25 PM  

Tad, I could also point out the similarities between sub-saharan Africa, Haiti and Detroit.

Anonymous Randy M January 30, 2013 2:29 PM  

Climate and geography can affect cultural evolution but not biological evolution?

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 2:30 PM  

That depends on how you are using the idea of sub-species-ism and your notion of the necessity of being "sub-speciesist".

No, Tad, because you used the term already yourself. So answer the question in the same sense that you previously used the term when you said the idea of "sub species-ism" infects all. It wouldn't hurt if you defined what you meant by the term as well.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 2:34 PM  

@roger

Irish and German climate and geography are not too terribly different. The climates and geographies of Ireland and Germany are not different enough to affect their social organization much beyond planting and harvest.

They are entirely different. One is an island. One is not. Ireland possesses an oceanic climate. Germany is largely a continental climate. One is separated from other land masses and peoples. The other is connected by land to a variety of other peoples.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 2:34 PM  

Everybody, define your terms, now!

The ambiguity of English is a more recent thing. It goes along with the general attack on everything western.

Blogger hadley January 30, 2013 2:34 PM  

Tad, think of disenfranchising women the way the Jews think of disenfranchising Gentiles like me in the Jewish Homeland or (as we have discovered in the last few days) secretly sterilizing Ethiopian Jews. When you White Ashkenazi Jews do it you do it because god chose you as his favorites, because everybody needs a homeland where they can be supremacist, and because its for their own good.

It's not like you Jews want to kill all Christians and Muslim in your Jewish Homeland. Goodness knows you Jews would be happy if all us Gentiles would just move to one of our many homelands.

It's not like you white Ashkenazi Jews want to kill all black Jews when you secretly sterilize your Ethiopian Jews. It's just that if you let all your black Jews breed like rabbits (and vote for welfare, and live off the dole) they would make life miserable for all you white Ashkenazi Jews. So you white Ashkenazi Jews chemically sterilize your Ethiopian Jews in secret. But you sterilize Ethiopian Jews for their own good and the good of Klal Y'Isroel, Tad, and that makes all the difference.

So you see, there is a middle ground--a Jewish ground (if you will)---of Supremacism without Genocide and without Hate. That's all we are talking about here when we talk about no votes for women. It's for their own good, Tad, and the good of America, the Gentile Homeland.

To jump, as you do, straight from (a) believing female voting is bad straight to (b) Hitlerian genocide tells me you see us Gentiles as animals that are barely under control. Like we Gentiles are infected with some mental virus that turns us into savage animals if we are not kept muzzled and choke-chained. Like we Gentiles are not capable of Supremacism without Genocide like you white Ashkenazi Jews are. Like we Gentiles living in our own Gentile Homeland are not as fully human as you are.

Anonymous Baruch Spinoza January 30, 2013 2:35 PM  

Phony Pantheists like Tad are discrediting Pantheism in general and must be stopped.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 2:36 PM  

So, an oceanic climate made the Irish more tribal than the Germans?

The oceanic climate made Ireland one of the last European countries to industrialize?

No, the Irish are just more stubborn and pugnacious.

Anonymous Albert Einstein January 30, 2013 2:36 PM  

I'll second that.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 2:39 PM  

@vox day

No, Tad, because you used the term already yourself. So answer the question in the same sense that you previously used the term when you said the idea of "sub species-ism" infects all. It wouldn't hurt if you defined what you meant by the term as well.

I'll use definition: Racism.

That said, yes, sub-speciesism can effect a Jew since, as I said, it effects all. I've just never met a who embraces the the idea that racism is necessary in the way you so vigorously do.

Anonymous Chief Sitting Bull January 30, 2013 2:40 PM  

Phony Pantheists like Tad are discrediting Pantheism in general and must be stopped.

I for one will not stand for it.

Anonymous The Gray Man January 30, 2013 2:43 PM  

Vox,

Although you say you use the dictionary definition of libertarianism, most people who are both libertarians and conservatives have a different idea than what you are thinking of when you define yourself as a libertarian.

Perception is reality to most people. I have always thought you should define yourself with another word, whatever that may be, or have an easy to find explanation of your idea of what a libertarian should be.

Anonymous NateM January 30, 2013 2:46 PM  

OT but interesting : the girl who performed at the inaugural was killed in a drive by in Chicago.. one wonders if the car had government plates.

Anonymous George of the Hole January 30, 2013 2:46 PM  

Tad: "I don't know"

Translation: I can't be bothered with easily discovered facts that refute my deeply held biases.

Disgusting.

Anonymous Scintan January 30, 2013 2:46 PM  

Although you say you use the dictionary definition of libertarianism, most people who are both libertarians and conservatives have a different idea than what you are thinking of when you define yourself as a libertarian.


Ehh..... Being politically conservative is like being libertarian. The impact of the capital letter is significant.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 2:46 PM  

I have a list of hyphenated libertarianisms with links to their wikipedia pages.

http://nclinksandthinks.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/is-libertarianism-what-libertarians-think-it-is-part-four/

Blogger IM2L844 January 30, 2013 2:48 PM  

Tad, would do you agree that clearly delineated groups of human beings exhibit propensities for particular behaviors due to genetic differences or is it strictly due to environmental pressures or is it some combination of the two?

Anonymous Feh January 30, 2013 2:49 PM  

I love it when Vox finds it amusing to directly engage Tad. It's kind of like watching the spider meticulously and purposefully wrapping up the flailing june bug.

It kills fewer brain cells to read the VD reply without reading Tad's inane drivel to which VD is responding.

Quality of the comment thread is inversely proportional to the number of Tad posts.

Anonymous Krul January 30, 2013 2:49 PM  

Although you say you use the dictionary definition of libertarianism, most people who are both libertarians and conservatives have a different idea than what you are thinking of when you define yourself as a libertarian.

Particularly when it comes to open borders, free trade, and abortion.

Anonymous Alexander January 30, 2013 2:51 PM  

Tad, the modern state of Israel requires racism for its continued existence. Or can an explicitly Jewish state somehow survive if the numerous and multiplying Arab population is given equal say?

The entire history of Judaism is a deliberate alienation of us from them as a survival mechanism to prevent assimilation (and thus destruction) of the perpetual minority. It's astonishing that you can deny the idea that Jews do not see the necessity of this, given they've been actively employing it for thousands of years.

Anonymous Tad January 30, 2013 2:52 PM  

@IM2

Tad, would do you agree that clearly delineated groups of human beings exhibit propensities for particular behaviors due to genetic differences...?

For example?

Anonymous DT January 30, 2013 2:53 PM  

OT but interesting : the girl who performed at the inaugural was killed in a drive by in Chicago..

If only Chicago was a city with tough gun control laws!

Oh...wait...

Anonymous Nope January 30, 2013 2:57 PM  

Having served in the Middle East, I can assure you that the ideology there is most definitely a combination of Islam and ancient pre-Islamic tribal traditions. It is most definitely NOT anything that can reasonably called either communism or fascism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/obamas_taqqiya_unravels.html

"Having been a journalist in Egypt for six years in the seventies, I have witnessed socialism with an Islamic twist to be a popular political ideology, especially amongst Arab journalists and intellectuals. Socialism, and even communism, have managed to survive in the ruthless Islamic political system as an alternative to full-fledged Sharia. The two ideologies have blended together in cases including the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq and socialist regimes in Egypt and Yemen. One major difference between the two ideologies is that Islam uses Allah, while socialism uses atheism, to fight the God of Christianity. Free democracies, such as the United States, are alien to Islam and socialism both because they regard government as a servant of the people and hold that human rights are granted by God and not by government or the code of Sharia.

Both Sharia and socialism are united in their envy of Western society and need to change it. That is why Obama has become the savior of both Islam and socialism. He embodies both ideologies. The claim that Obama is a Christian was a silly joke, but a necessary lie for the greater cause of changing America to fit the goals of both creeds."

Blogger IM2L844 January 30, 2013 2:57 PM  

For example?

Any. You tell me.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 2:58 PM  

Let's put it another way. Tad, to what extent to genetics control human behavior?

Anonymous DonReynolds January 30, 2013 3:00 PM  

The so-called conservative journal NATIONAL REVIEW (with the idiot Bill Kristol) is by no means conservative. Anyone who keeps chanting "amnesty, amnesty, amnesty" is not a conservative, no matter what they call themselves.

Strictly speaking, neither of the two major political parties are ideological, both have a Right and Left wing. Clearly, the Right wing of the Republican party is much more significant (in terms of numbers) than the Left wing Rockefeller/Ripon Society members. (Until I was an adult, the only Republicans in the South were black.) Clearly, the Left wing of the Democrat party is more significant than the Right wing, again their influence is not reflective of their actual numbers.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 3:05 PM  

I'll use definition: Racism. That said, yes, sub-speciesism can effect a Jew since, as I said, it effects all.

Okay, so we've established that according to you, religious Jews, particularly Orthodox and many Conservative Jews, are racist, although not evil.

I'll defer to the questions others have been posing for now.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 30, 2013 3:07 PM  

With pointed finger and trembling hand, I see, Tad has followed his dreams.

Meanwhile, Nate...

Dear God I can't type at ALL today...

You cannot typing. However, Tad can.

Anonymous the bandit January 30, 2013 3:08 PM  

Tad, to what extent to genetics control human behavior?

Slow ball! To the extent that one is born homosexual and shouldn't resist it.

Everything else is the parents' religion's fault, which is why the government needs to get to the kids earlier.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 30, 2013 3:09 PM  

I'll use definition: Racism.

We are now halfway to RSHD. Squee for the moon, Rabbit Queen.

Anonymous Anonymous January 30, 2013 3:10 PM  


The question that every conservative should be asked, and that they should be able to answer clearly and concisely, is this:

What is it that you seek to conserve, and why?

As mentioned up the thread, most "conservatives" just want to return to the world of their childhood - be it 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's. That's not "conserving" anything, it's more like pulling the covers up over one's head in bed while hoping Mommy will come for another tuck-in.

Conserve what, and why?

Handwaving such as "freedom" or "the American way of life", etc. is so vague as to be a nonanswer.

Noah B., everyone knows that evolution only affected humans from the neck down. It's common knowledge. That's why Tad sees no need to answer; his common knowledge tells him so.

Borderline Anonymous

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 3:11 PM  

Good answer, Bandit!

Blogger Giraffe January 30, 2013 3:12 PM  

You cannot typing. However, Tad can.

+10 internet points

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 3:12 PM  

Borderline Anonymous,
I have been trying to find a new term to replace conservative when people ask me. I haven't found anything, yet. Suggestions?

Anonymous VD January 30, 2013 3:14 PM  

Let's put it another way. Tad, to what extent to genetics control human behavior?

Noah, I understand some of you are attempting to utilize my Socratic method, but you simply can't do it like this. When you're dealing with a snake, you have to make the question as precise and direct as possible, ideally a yes or no or factual question.

Notice how when he was asked factual questions with precise answers, he promptly retreated to claiming ignorance about the very issues he raised. This destroys his credibility, of course, but he will sacrifice his credibility before he will admit that his base arguments are wrong. And once you know he'll do that, then it is easy to continue to manipulate him at will.

The sort of question you asked, on the other hand, is totally pointless. It's not only child's play to evade, but is actually difficult to answer in any meaningful way. As a general rule, if you don't already know the answer and its conclusions, don't ask the question. You simply cannot deal in any generalities when pinning down this sort of interlocutor.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 30, 2013 3:17 PM  

Roger U,

Your definition of libertarianism is useless. Wrong too, but let's just focus on the uselessness of it. You're equating two divergent strains of thought. Even if libertarianism came out of the French Revolution, it would have been as an alternative to the collectivism of what became today's liberalism. You're not confusing yourself with the root liberty associated with both words are you? You are aware that socialists co-opted and perverted the political description liberal as a means of disguising themselves and advanacing an agenda that would not be supported under a true label?

But I think the source of your problem is found in this statement you made:

As far as that goes, I'm libertarian, but most of what I hear described as libertarianism still sounds like republicanism/conservatism.

You're picking and choosing your definition of libertarianism to fit your preconceived notions of it. You're making a No True Scottsman mistake.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad January 30, 2013 3:23 PM  


Mr. Petticoat is a hostile witness.

Anonymous alexamenos January 30, 2013 3:24 PM  

Quality of the comment thread is inversely proportional to the number of Tad posts.

I get a big kick out of 'em. I've come to think of Liberalism (ala Municious Moldberg) as the dominant orthodox religion of our day, and within this religion "Racism" is the dirtiest of all dirty sins.

You can watch any Tarantino movie and hear (pardon my language) "fuck, fuck, fuck..." all day long. But that's not controversial. A million and one f-bombs won't raise an eyebrow. It's only really controversial when it's "n-word, n-word, n-word..."

(betcha thought I was going to say "nigger", lol...)

So anyway....

Anyone who isn't sufficiently adament about the evil of racism is a heretic (science be damned if it contradicts dogma!).

Meanwhile the uber-Orthodox Tad is fretting over the catharism in our midst ... and citing the Inquisition as an all-time great evil.

There's some real comedy in this....

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 30, 2013 3:24 PM  

This is how I define my own brand of libertarianism to other people that ask me about it:

If I am posed a question that starts with "Should the government...?", then my answer has a 90% probability of being "No."

Anonymous Krul January 30, 2013 3:25 PM  

Popular among intellectuals and journalists =/= ruling ideology, obviously.

While middle eastern countries have been politically influenced in various ways by westerners, it is flat out wrong to say that "the ideology of the Middle East is not Islam." That's like looking at a building and saying that it rests on the graffiti on its wall instead of the foundation beneath it.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 30, 2013 3:28 PM  

Roger U
I have been trying to find a new term to replace conservative when people ask me. I haven't found anything, yet. Suggestions?


I have been waiting for this superior nomenclature myself.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 3:31 PM  

Jack Amok,
I don't think there is a concrete definition of libertarianism, anymore, if there ever was.

That said, the purpose of libertarianism was to make everybody equal, liberty in this case means no special privilege from social class. They were rebelling against royalty and privilege, not tyranny as you and I see it. They were rebelling because they didn't have any.

Libertarianism, as it was understood throughout the 18th and 19th centuries was a utopian philosophy of a totally level playing field. It assumes blank slate theory and that people are rational. I do not know the reason socialism (as we call it today) caught on and libertarianism did not, but they came from the same foundations.

Socialism through central government or socialism through the contract, the point was to prevent the accumulation of wealth and the privilege it leads to.

The problem is in the implementation of theory. I say, no government coercion and you hear freedom, but how to keep the best and brightest from forming a defacto government and taking over? You have to limit people's influence on one another, and that means limiting their ability to accumulate wealth. Otherwise, I can bribe enough people to sign a contract saying I am more equal than you and can levy taxes to maintain the road(for instance).

Anonymous asdf January 30, 2013 3:32 PM  

Ah, Tad is a jew. All is revealed.

Anonymous Roger U January 30, 2013 3:41 PM  

Conan,
I'm currently going with "traditionalist-paleoconservative-Christian-capitalist-libertarianism."

I just through libertarianism on the end because everybody else is doing it.

1 – 200 of 434 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts