Category Archives: Logic

UPDATED: Kippah Or Hijab, The Statue of Liberty Is NOT A Symbol Of Immigration Or Immigrants

America, Conservatism, Free Speech, History, IMMIGRATION, Liberty, Logic

Some Democrat, Rep. J. Luis Correa, hung a painting in his office of the Statue of Liberty wearing a hijab.

Conservatives are outraged. Some, like Ms. Pamela Geller, say the “Painting Is Offensive to Every Immigrant Fleeing Sharia Oppression.”

But consider: Would the Statue of Liberty wearing a kippah be more correct, less offensive? What about the Statue of Liberty draped like a Buddhist monk?

The philosophically correct point should be that the Statue of Liberty isn’t a symbol for immigrants or of immigration; it’s an American symbol. It should take on no foreign garb, however philosophically appropriate an immigrant may think his traditional dress is.

Of course, freedom of speech means you draw whatever floats your boat.

UPDATE (8/11): Facebook thread.

UPDATED (7/25): Republicans Or Democrats: Who’s More Tiresomely PC?

Conservatism, Democrats, Free Speech, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Logic, Political Correctness, Republicans

Conservatives habitually engage in this asinine, “No, Democrats are the sexist and racist party blah, blah; we’re the good party, party of Lincoln.” “No, liberals project onto us vices they’re guilty of and we’re free of; they do what they say we do.”

Such group thinkers all.

Any libertarian worth his salt hates this thought-crime policing on both sides. Who cares who’s sexist? Who cares if you have impolitic and impolite thoughts? The more improper thinking is expressed out loud; the more we break down barriers to politically risque thinking erected by both parties. (For instance, what I said in “THE WAR ON TRUMP: The Big Picture for Conservatives, Libertarians & Liberals” was verboten in conservative circles.)

Here Mike Cernovich rejoices, via a retweet, in the GOP nominating members of so-called marginalized identity groups. If you’re all about merit and individualism, not identity, why the hell do you care? Why partake in this idiotic, Democratic dance?

There’s no difference in modus operandi between the parties. Both window dress and virtue signal and accuse each other of not doing these enough.

Another incident sees Cernovich scold the awful Ana Navarro (we have a dossier on her: http://barelyablog.com/?s=Ana+Navarro) for being nasty about Jared Kushner. Why? Navarro is right. Why is Cernovich loving on Kushner?

Kushner looks and sound like a boy in transition.

From my, “What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets”:

The man’s a mouse. … The poor man looks low T—like he might one day go the way of Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn Jenner. (I love LGBTQ, so long as they come in peace.)

Not Jared’s fault. However, Jared’s bloody bad for the country, as well. But conservatives, being part of one tribe, must defend this nincompoop, rather than rejoice that the boring Ana Navarro is being bad, breaking with political propriety. Next, cons will force Navarro to apologize to the transgender Jared.

UPDATE (7/25): THREAD ON FACEBOOK.

Both these good people (Democrats like Gabbard and Webb) are in my book as must cabinet picks for Trump. The days that I imagined prez had the good sense to follow his promise and ignore the Manhattan La Familia are GONE.

Paul Gottfried Ponders Richard Spencer’s Strategy (& My Paleolibertarian Take)

Conservatism, Critique, Left-Liberalism, Logic, Multiculturalism, Old Right, Paleolibertarianism

Well, at least some in the Moron Media have corrected course and are calling Richard Spencer a “white nationalist,” instead of a white supremacist.

Watching Richard’s performance at Auburn University, renowned scholar of the Right Dr. Paul E. Gottfried shared these impressions:

When I criticize him, I am not making moral judgments, except when I note his futile attempt to keep up with leftist Millennials by siding with gay rights and abortion. What I object to in Richard is his, well, strategic stupidity, not the fact that he has committed the “sin” of being a white nationalist. Since “educated” whites are taught to hate their own race, I can’t see how one can appeal to Millennials and leftist college students by calling for white nationalism. Nor does one win their sympathy by mimicking their positions on feminism and homosexuality while trying to convert them to a racialist ideology. What seems to me the only chance left to the Right to be effective is by mobilizing the “Deplorables” and then turning them against the social-cultural Left. I was delighted to see how the pro-Trump people took it to the Antifascists at Berkeley. And I knew these counter-demonstrators were on the side of the angels when David French at National Review began to rail against them.

My impressions? The young, white men in the audience seemed receptive, even enthusiastic, although Richard may be talking above their heads. What Richard was saying conjured an interview I gave, “Self-Segregation Trumps Imposed Multiculturalism.” My views are decidedly LIBERTARIAN, a slant Richard Spencer rejects:

Multiculturalism as practiced in the West amounts to top-down, centrally enforced and managed integration. Show me a historical precedent where forced integration has worked. As it works across the Anglo-American and European spheres, one group (the founding, historical majority) is forced by self-anointed and elected elites—no contradiction there—on pain of public and professional ostracism, to submerge its history, heroes, customs, culture, language, and pander to militant minorities, who’ve been acculturated by the same elites in identity-politics warfare. As a libertarian, I believe that the right to include or exclude; associate with or dissociate from, is inherent in the right of private property. Private property is a civilizing institution. How better to keep the peace than to respect the right of free private-property owners to keep their distance (or not)—to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will? This foundation of civil society is being dismantled for the sake of militant multiculturalism and policed pluralism.
An interesting new book, reviewed by one Barnaby Rogerson, makes the point that the Levant of the 18th century was peaceful and prosperous (and surprisingly libertine), because it was made up of “a grid of self-governing communities.” Integration between disparate communities was not enforced. And surprise, surprise: communities freely chose to live in complete segregation. This freedom fostered “remarkable tolerance” among diverse communities across the cities of the Levant of that time. “Deals before Ideals, City before State, Trade before Politics,” as the reviewer puts it. This freedom of association was the source of strength. These autonomous ethnic communities were free of the top-down, punitive, forced integration that has become the hallmark of the 19th-century nation-state that usurped their authority.

See: “Self-Segregation Trumps Imposed Multiculturalism.”

Equal-Pay Idiocy Refuted

Economy, Free Markets, Gender, Labor, Logic, Reason

The logic is as simple as it is foolproof. An “air-tight free-market argument,” as I explained: “If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, men as a group would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. That entrepreneurs don’t ditch men en masse for women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.”  (“The Week of Whining Womin”)

The logic is not, however, female proof.

Ridiculous: