Category Archives: Conservatism

After Imus

Conservatism, Free Speech, Political Correctness, Race, Racism, Republicans, The Zeitgeist

Libertarians will tell you that there is no such thing as free speech, only property rights. In other words, you have no right to deliver a disquisition in my living room, unless I allow it. Your speech rights depend on whose property you’re on. Similarly, Imus’ speech rights depended on the good graces of those holding title to the news network that employed him: CBS.

A libertarian would not dispute that CBS was perfectly entitled to terminate Imus, and thus curtail his speech on their behalf. But this case is not strictly about the libertarian law—most cases rarely are. One cannot neglect the backdrop to, and implications of, a termination that was, on its face, perfectly legal in libertarian law.

It began with a tasteless comment, which, I believe, was not intended to be racially offensive. Imus, rather, was probably trying to be hip, not hurtful. Imus lapsed into Wigga mode in an attempt to get down with the hoodniks.

Cora Daniels, author of Ghettonation: A Journey Into the Land of Bling and Home of the Shameless, examines, in a Newsweek interview, how “the hip-hop lifestyle and behaviors attributed to inner-city neighborhoods—celebrating gangsters and violence, revering fancy cars and bling, flaunting women’s bodies—has permeated American culture and created a widespread ‘ghetto’ mentality.'”

From soda-filled baby bottles to black men calling each other the ‘n’ word to MTV’s ‘Pimp My Ride,’ Daniels chronicles the pervasiveness of ‘ghetto’ thinking and shows how people from all walks of life engage in and celebrate ideas, language and behavior they should find repulsive.

Neither was this about what the conservative representative on The View, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, called market forces. Imus’ show, I believe, was doing well. But because of the racial lobby, the advertisers, and subsequently the proprietor, froze in fear of being labeled racists. Fear and cowardice drove CBS to forsake a product for which there was demand.

Speaking of Elisabeth Hasselbeck: she’s a real lightweight in the contemporary tradition of the conservative, female teletwit. Her “conservative” credentials include support for breast cancer prevention and research, the Amber Alert Initiative, the war, Our Leader. And being blond and bubbly, of course.

Indeed, conservative thinking is constantly evolving in the age of the idiot. Many prominent conservatives, Michelle Malkin and Bill O’Reilly come to mind, celebrated this frightful coup of mob over free speech. The fuss these conservatives are making, moreover, over hip-hop lyrics is a red herring. A result of complete confusion, the premise of which is that these lyrics ought to also be censored. In that, conservatives resemble Democrat Tipper Gore and her comical attempt in the 1980s to censor rock lyrics.

The media tell us the Imus Affair has inaugurated the beginning of a debate about race. For a change. Prepare, then, for members of the besieged majority to be constantly bashed by the racial lobby—professors, journalists, assorted shakedown artists, and Paula Zahn. This, despite the fact that there is nothing remotely racist about Americans. In fact, they’ve been thoroughly brainwashed to believe mankind is one big brotherhood.

Also, watch how debate will become more timid and dishonest as it is in Canada, where there are anti-hate speech tribunals. To seek a remedy against speech they don’t like, the Canadian clones of Sharpton and Jackson need only to turn to the courts. In these kangaroo courts, none of the traditional legal defenses applies. Truth, the absence of intent to harm, etc.—forget about trying to mount a legal defense. You are guilty until proven innocent.

It is my guess that the Imus watershed will lead to a similar speech-limiting code in the US, the Bill of Rights be damned.

In Defense of Hierarchy & the Catholic Church

Christianity, Conservatism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, Religion, Sex

In the Comments Section on “the Pope’s Noble-Savage Catechism,” Ms. Grant condemns the Catholic Church for lifting the pope above the flock. I’m not religious, and am certainly no authority on Catholicism, but, in my limited understanding, this is something of a misrepresentation. From the fact that the Church has a hierarchical structure it doesn’t follow that the Church believes the Pope is better than the flock in the eyes of the Almighty. Catholicism simply puts in place a much-needed hierarchy.

In my thinking, the breakdown of boundaries in society is one of the main sources of all the rot we see around us. The Church in its wisdom appeared to recognize that not all people are equal, and that populism is evil.

The rubble seeking to overturn the structure is mainly of the left, in my understanding. My impression is that the movement to change the structure of the Church gained momentum during the child sex abuse witch hunt, where very many innocent priests were targeted. It goes hand-in-hand with females demanding to be priests. This victim movement has done a great deal more than try and bankrupt the Church.

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.