Category Archives: Argument

WATCH: An Effective Military Must Put Hets, Homos And Anything In-Between Back In The Closet

Argument, Conservatism, Culture, Government, Military, Morality, Paleolibertarianism, Sex

Leave a reply

If “civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy,” in Ayn Rand’s magnificent words, then sexual exhibitionism – homosexual, heterosexual, and everything in-between – is anathema.

That’s the idea behind “An Effective Military Must Put Hets, Homos And Anything In-Between Back In The Closet,” now available as a video.

The “Hard Truth” broadcast, with David Vance and myself, is available in podcast and video, both, for your convenience, from our Podbean location. There you can also get our podcast app from the assorted app stores, so you can listen on the go.

Douglas Murray CAN’T Say ‘Happy, Homogeneous Hungary,’ So I Did

America, Argument, Christianity, Conservatism, Democracy, English, Europe, IMMIGRATION, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Russia, The West

1 Reply

British commentator Douglas Murray proves over and over again that the American right is gulled by utterly banal ideas, so long as they are expressed in posh English.

I give Douglas Murray top marks for English oratory. From there on, it’s downhill: His writing is not nearly as good as his speaking. Once a committed neoconservative, Murray’s ideas are now wishy-washy, safe, middle-of-the-road conservatism.

Tucker Carlson took a daring trip to Hungary. The pointy heads stateside frothed and foamed at the mouth—in the same way they fulminate over Putin and Russia.

Remix News, a central European news and commentary organization, reports that “Carlson, who’s widely regarded as the most influential figure on the American Right today, has endeavored to familiarize his American audience with the widely successful policies enacted by the [Viktor] Orbán government, policies the majority of conservative Americans would like to see introduced in the US.”

Via REMIXNews:

Establishment leftist outlets are using Carlson’s trip to propagate their usual disinformation against right-thinking people. Newspapers and outlets like The Washington Post, CNN, Vox, and Business Insider continue to make outrageous and unfounded claims such as: Hungary’s democracy is in terminal decline; freedom of the press in the country has not only been eroded but no longer exists; and that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has leveraged his position to enrich his political allies and do away with the independence of the country’s judicial branch.

But despite outwardly championing the rights of historically oppressed minorities and appearing, deceptively, to be on the side of righteousness and justice, Western liberal elites – i.e., Western governments, media, activists and intellectuals – are supporting Hungary’s opposition electoral alliance, the two largest parties of which are known for their open anti-Semitism and sympathy for, or membership in, the country’s communist party.

On an August 6 segment of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Murray claimed the West had turned on Hungary around the time the latter had rejected mass Muslim immigration, the kind of invasion Angela Merkel embraced, with tragic consequences for her countrymen.

That’s a typical Murray cop-out: State a comfortable, uncontroversial half-truth. The whole truth Murray would never come out with—for he probably doesn’t grasp it; and he mostly still wants to be welcomed into polite society.

The whole truth about why the progressive West hates Hungary is the one articulated in “Happy, Homogeneous Hungary“:

And it’s not just that “enlightened” western media object to “Hungary exercising its right to self-determination.” No. The media treat the sight of fruitful, happy whites as they would an aberration, a plague. Freud would have called this western attitude Thanatos: “the personification of death.” This mindset is pathological, for Hungarians look beautiful, happy and whole.

A related truth never to be spoken by the likes of Douglas Murray is in “America’s Radical, Foreign-Policy Alinskyites Destroyed South Africa!“

Hungary is oh-so happy in its homogeneity and wants to keep it. But not if Washington can help it. Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s motto is, “Procreation, not immigration.” Orban plumps for closed borders, and pro-Western, Christian, Hungarian-families-first policies. Yet his ongoing campaign against George Soros, an agitator for global government, was met by Donald Trump’s State Department with a stern rebuke to … Hungary claiming that its anti-Soros law will cost the country dearly.

NYC EMT & Fire Department Union Boss Presents Cogent, Comprehensive, Factual, Rational Argument Against Vaccines For Members

Argument, COVID-19, Critique, Ethics, Healthcare, Intelligence, Judaism & Jews, Labor, Race, Reason

2 Replies

I believe uber-progressive anchor Alex Witt, of MSNBC, likely went easy on Oren Barzilay because she must have believed the president of Emergency Medical Services Local 2507 of District Council 37 (President of Uniform EMTs, Paramedics & Inspectors – New York City Fire Department) to be a working-class man of an acceptably exotic ethnicity.

To me of course, the name screamed Israeli. As did the clear, comprehensive argument style, and cogent replies to everyone of the woman’s arguments for vaccine mandates.

Barzilay argued against mandates for his members. These are arguments that not one of the dimwits usually entertained on the idiot’s lantern (the TV) has proven able to rattle off.

In arguing against the mandates, Barzilay told Witt:

        1. No conclusive evidence exists to show the vaccines are not harmful. On the contrary, the CDC website reports over 12,000 deaths from these vaccines and thousands injured, or having sustained some medical issues.
        2. The vaccines are not FDA approved and clinical trials have been limited and of short duration; no longitudinal data.
        3. In reply to Witt’s idiot question—which nobody in American media seems capable of refuting, and it is, “Have you and family not received the mumps, measles, polio vaccinations, and once the vaccines move from Emergency Authorization to FDA approved status, will you instruct your guys to take it?”—Barzilay did not miss a beat. He returned to Witt’s first point, emphasizing that older vaccines (I’ve recently gotten two Shingles shots) have over a decade of data behind them. The COVID vaccines went to market and into arms after 6 months of production, and even less time devoted to data collection and analysis.
        4. He is not telling his people not to get vaccinated; all Barzilay is insisting on is choice for his members, as to what they place in their bodies until the data are in.
        5. He wants to know (asking in a cynical, rhetorical manner) if the City will cover the expenses of those who have an adverse reaction. That’s unknown, argued Barzilay. I would argue one better: When admitted into hospital following vaccination, with a plethora of symptoms, you are more often than not subjected to batteries of tests that always appear aimed at ruling-out correlation with vaccination, instead of treating what could be dangerous symptoms.
          In the zeal to avoid implicating the vaccine in a reaction—individuals who suffer a reaction in proximity to vaccination might not even receive antidotes as soon as they need them. The aim of untrustworthy medical personnel seems to be to exonerate the vaccinators rather than assume a reaction and prevent a patient from dying.
          Essentially, medical personal have lost our trust that indeed they can spring into action, in the event we suffer adverse reactions to their ill-researched vaccines.
        6. Oren disputes that all his members are, as Witt assumed, grateful for the vaccines, since some have died following vaccination. He cannot definitively prove causation, but they died shortly thereafter. Two of Oren’s Local members died within 4 days of receiving the vaccine.

       

    3. RELATED READING: “Could Vaccine Resisters Be WACO’d?”

UPDATED (8/1): Unheard Of In America: British Parliamentary Committee Issues Report About Underprivileged Whites

America, Argument, Britain, Conservatism, Government, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Race, Racism

Leave a reply

It could not happen in the USA!

The Economist reports that “a [British] parliamentary committee,” no less, has issued a report about the difficulties of  “working-class white pupils.” They are underperforming.

The magazine covers evenhandedly  how “the use of the phrase ‘white privilege’ may harm poor white youngsters who, by definition, are nearer the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid than the top.”

More crucially, can you imagine a US Congressional committee even commissioning such a report? I can’t. The Republicans would certainly not push for such long-overdue fact-finding. They have not! Why not? UPDATED (8/1): Humor: Question: Why have Republicans not got a congressional committee looking into white underprivilege and disadvantage, as the British have? Answer: Because Republicans “think” JD Vance’s novel, Hillbilly Elegy, is social science. 

Why, there would be riots in the streets if white poverty and underprivilege got attention from the representatives of those poor, underprivileged whites.

The Johnson column calmly explains what each side means when it asserts or rejects “white privilege”:

As is often the case, the two sides of this debate seem to mean very different things by this concise but explosive term. Sensible folk who give credence to the idea of “white privilege” argue that, whatever their other problems, white people do not face the same race-based disadvantages as ethnic minorities, from the minor (a shopkeeper training a wary eye on them) to the more serious (teachers reflexively judging them to be less capable than they really are).

But some sceptics of “white privilege” think it implies that every white person is privileged in an overall way—or even that, merely by existing, white people are complicit in the discrimination suffered by minorities. For some who interpret it this way, the concept is discredited by the existence of poor white people.

In recent years, however, the word has been widely used to refer to the advantages enjoyed by the white majority in countries such as Britain and America. In the raging culture wars, “white privilege” is now among the many phrases lobbed like online grenades between opposing camps. Since the combatants cannot agree on what it means, it is not surprising that there is no consensus on whether it exists and what should be done about it.

The problem with these terms is their compression. They are signposts rather than arguments, only making sense in the context of more elaborate reasoning. Those who use them often seem to hope that the catchphrases invoke all the nuances of the underlying concepts. In the vituperative, tweet-length exchanges that now pass for political debate, that is usually wishful thinking.

Kind of banal and sanctimonious. The take-away news here being that a British “parliamentary committee [actually] released a report into under-performing working-class white pupils.”

Unheard of in American halls of power.

FROM: “Culture-war terms can compress complex ideas in an unhelpful way:In discussions of group differences and grievances, nuance is vital.”