Category Archives: Conservatism

Updated Again: Coulter, CPAC, and Other Contradictions

Ann Coulter, Conservatism, Objectivism

From the Conservative Political Action Conference, Robert Bidinotto, editor of The New Individualist (to which I have contributed), has sent along his impressions of Ann Coulter’s antics there:

“…Ann Coulter is nothing but a right-wing attention slut whose arguments fall shorter than her hemlines, and are even less interesting.”

I would have linked Bidinotto’s blog post on the (principled) BAB had he not offered kind words for the kind of harpy that is way worse than Ann. Why take a shot at the Queen Bee, when you cavort with her wannabe inferiors? The new breed of conservative hussy just seems irresistible to many conservative men, who lose their “principles” over babes with bursting decolletages, mistaking them for babes with brains. Actually, if you are a woman, all you need do to establish intellectual credentials with conservatives and their hangers-on is to have screamed “Sock it to Saddam, Dubya!” back when it was required, and flash your body parts. And blog bloggerel.

At least Ann is accomplished. She also happens to have a facility with syllogisms, writes English with no mistakes, and is ever so good when it comes to the gangreens, for instance. The chapter in Godless on crime and the exclusionary clause is also excellent.

Update: Funny, contrary to Coulter, I would never have thought to pair “faggot” with John Edwards (although it’s a great ploy if one wants to annoy the loathsome Andrew Sullivan, who was at the event). Edwards is all-American good-looking. Giuliani, on the other hand, is positively creepy, quite effeminate, and certainly comfortable with gay culture. Here is the YouTube footage of him in drag smooching Donald Trump. Moreover, to mention Giuliani without speaking of how he Nifonged Michael Milken is to fail as a libertarian, an individualist, or as an individual who cares for liberty and justice. (I like the verb I’ve just coined: Nifonged.)

Further Update: Note that the truly principled Ron Paul was absent from CPAC. (Read how he infuriated George Will.) At least so I believe. I can’t imagine him sacrificing his core values to wallow in that swamp. I’d be surprised if he attended.
Again, individualists and other agitators for real freedoms have an imperative to mention, even in passing, Rudy’s assaults on the authentic Atlases of the world. One reader disagreed, at least implicitly, and exhorted me to promote dreck, which he frames as “intellectual difference.” Sorry.

Updated Again: Coulter, CPAC, and Other Contradictions

Ann Coulter, Conservatism, Objectivism

From the Conservative Political Action Conference, Robert Bidinotto, editor of The New Individualist (to which I have contributed), has sent along his impressions of Ann Coulter’s antics there:

“…Ann Coulter is nothing but a right-wing attention slut whose arguments fall shorter than her hemlines, and are even less interesting.”

I would have linked Bidinotto’s blog post on the (principled) BAB had he not offered kind words for the kind of harpy that is way worse than Ann. Why take a shot at the Queen Bee, when you cavort with her wannabe inferiors? The new breed of conservative hussy just seems irresistible to many conservative men, who lose their “principles” over babes with bursting decolletages, mistaking them for babes with brains. Actually, if you are a woman, all you need do to establish intellectual credentials with conservatives and their hangers-on is to have screamed “Sock it to Saddam, Dubya!” back when it was required, and flash your body parts. And blog bloggerel.

At least Ann is accomplished. She also happens to have a facility with syllogisms, writes English with no mistakes, and is ever so good when it comes to the gangreens, for instance. The chapter in Godless on crime and the exclusionary clause is also excellent.

Update: Funny, contrary to Coulter, I would never have thought to pair “faggot” with John Edwards (although it’s a great ploy if one wants to annoy the loathsome Andrew Sullivan, who was at the event). Edwards is all-American good-looking. Giuliani, on the other hand, is positively creepy, quite effeminate, and certainly comfortable with gay culture. Here is the YouTube footage of him in drag smooching Donald Trump. Moreover, to mention Giuliani without speaking of how he Nifonged Michael Milken is to fail as a libertarian, an individualist, or as an individual who cares for liberty and justice. (I like the verb I’ve just coined: Nifonged.)

Further Update: Note that the truly principled Ron Paul was absent from CPAC. (Read how he infuriated George Will.) At least so I believe. I can’t imagine him sacrificing his core values to wallow in that swamp. I’d be surprised if he attended.
Again, individualists and other agitators for real freedoms have an imperative to mention, even in passing, Rudy’s assaults on the authentic Atlases of the world. One reader disagreed, at least implicitly, and exhorted me to promote dreck, which he frames as “intellectual difference.” Sorry.

Updated: New Socialist Low For ‘Conservatism’

Conservatism

Bravo to Mr. Bush! He recently endorsed the socialist idea of a widening gap between rich and poor, agreeing that it needs to be remedied, presumably through coercive wealth distribution. (See “Addressing Wealth Gap.”)

The concept of an income gap is meaningless in its circularity. Some people are richer than others. Some don’t like it. It’s called envy. In a free society, governments would be unable to placate the envious by stealing from those they envy. In an unfree society that’s precisely what governments do: they pacify the multitudes by mulcting the few.

To lend legitimacy to theft based in envy, intellectuals, members of the “Idiocracy” (bless Mike Judge for coining that catchall caption), constructed grand theories of which Marxism is one. Reasoning backwards, the illogic of these theories is, “If rich therefore exploitative.”

Try substituting wealth with some other individual difference: eye color. Or better still, beauty. Is it fair that some people are so much more beautiful than others? The socialists will argue that beauty is genetic; wealth is not. Wealth is a more complex variable than beauty, for sure. However, why does IQ correlate so well with income? One look at the wild Jim Kramer in action is enough to conclude that the wildly wealthy are a unique —often very brilliant and certainly very daring —breed. As it is, the benefits of their wealth-generating activities redound to us all. Big time.

Update: Socialists weasel with words in order to justify their thieving intentions. Point out that the top earners also pay most of the nation’s taxes, and they invariably reply that the very rich also earn most of “the nation’s income.” The problem is, there’s no such thing as the “nation’s income.” There is no pre-existing income pie from which a disproportionate amount of riches are gobbled up by the greedy rich. Wealth doesn’t exist in nature; individuals create it, and therefore should own it. It is a return for desirable services and resources they supply to others. Labor productivity is the main determinant of wages.
The Marxist-Leninist zero-sum analysis, whereby wealth is seen as having been achieved at someone’s expense, is false. And dangerous. This envy based fabrication has propelled the persecution of “ethnic minorities — which have achieved prosperity from poverty — Jews in Europe, Levantines and Indians in Africa, Chinese in south-east Asia,” in the words of P.T. Bauer.

Alas, the words of another late, great economist explain why The Truth is so unintuitive. In the introduction to F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, Milton Friedman wrote: “The argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for individualism is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.”

Updated: New Socialist Low For 'Conservatism'

Conservatism

Bravo to Mr. Bush! He recently endorsed the socialist idea of a widening gap between rich and poor, agreeing that it needs to be remedied, presumably through coercive wealth distribution. (See “Addressing Wealth Gap.”)

The concept of an income gap is meaningless in its circularity. Some people are richer than others. Some don’t like it. It’s called envy. In a free society, governments would be unable to placate the envious by stealing from those they envy. In an unfree society that’s precisely what governments do: they pacify the multitudes by mulcting the few.

To lend legitimacy to theft based in envy, intellectuals, members of the “Idiocracy” (bless Mike Judge for coining that catchall caption), constructed grand theories of which Marxism is one. Reasoning backwards, the illogic of these theories is, “If rich therefore exploitative.”

Try substituting wealth with some other individual difference: eye color. Or better still, beauty. Is it fair that some people are so much more beautiful than others? The socialists will argue that beauty is genetic; wealth is not. Wealth is a more complex variable than beauty, for sure. However, why does IQ correlate so well with income? One look at the wild Jim Kramer in action is enough to conclude that the wildly wealthy are a unique —often very brilliant and certainly very daring —breed. As it is, the benefits of their wealth-generating activities redound to us all. Big time.

Update: Socialists weasel with words in order to justify their thieving intentions. Point out that the top earners also pay most of the nation’s taxes, and they invariably reply that the very rich also earn most of “the nation’s income.” The problem is, there’s no such thing as the “nation’s income.” There is no pre-existing income pie from which a disproportionate amount of riches are gobbled up by the greedy rich. Wealth doesn’t exist in nature; individuals create it, and therefore should own it. It is a return for desirable services and resources they supply to others. Labor productivity is the main determinant of wages.
The Marxist-Leninist zero-sum analysis, whereby wealth is seen as having been achieved at someone’s expense, is false. And dangerous. This envy based fabrication has propelled the persecution of “ethnic minorities — which have achieved prosperity from poverty — Jews in Europe, Levantines and Indians in Africa, Chinese in south-east Asia,” in the words of P.T. Bauer.

Alas, the words of another late, great economist explain why The Truth is so unintuitive. In the introduction to F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, Milton Friedman wrote: “The argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for individualism is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.”