Category Archives: Conservatism

NEW Video: Conservatives MUST Recognize Aggregate Group Differences While Cherishing the Individual

Affirmative Action, America, Conservatism, Crime, Political Philosophy, Race, Racism, Science, South-Africa

NEW Video: “Conservatives MUST Recognize Aggregate Group Differences While Cherishing the Individual.” 

This always enjoyable conversation With David Vance  was based on my latest column, “Murray’s Empirical Wisdom Confirms ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’s’ Analytical Truths.”

On ‘The Democrats Drove Them To Riot And Rut’ Reductionism: It’s Doo-Doo

Argument, Conservatism, Crime, Democrats, Morality, Political Philosophy, Sex

“It may be worth watching Tucker tonight,” tweeted Musil Protege. Musil was hoping to hear an impassioned response to a particularly gory South-Africa style homicide, in the course of which a bunch of fellas, during the Puerto Rican Day Parade in Chicago, pulled a young couple out of the car and shot them in cold blood, while gesticulating and hopping about with feral glee.

“He has developed a relationship with Chicago Alderman Raymond Lopez,” posited Musil Protege, “a reasonable law and order Democrat, who has become something of a thorn in the side of Mayor Lightfoot. I don’t think this crime will be disappeared so easily.”

Gyovanny Arzuaga and Yasmin Perez were shot on West Division Street on the Northwest Side around 9:15 p.m. Saturday, hours after the parade had ended.” Both are now dead.

“My mistake,” came Musil’s next tweet. “Tucker Carlson turned to his go-to expert on everything, Candace Owens. Mea culpa.”

Say no more.

Musil is right about Tucker’s disappointing tack. The Fox News host had said that nobody rendered a more “lucid” explanation for the orgies of black crime than Candace Owens’ word salad.

I obviously didn’t get it. To me, Candace’s lucidity was silent (to conjure the great Queensryche ballad, “Silent Lucidity“).  Owens’ tack is essentially the following:  Democrats are just using innocent blacks. With their schemes—their political shenanigans—Democrats drove blacks to do the crime.

To go by Candace Owens, as per her consistent performances on Tucker Carlson’s show, the Democrats made black residents of Oakland CA, simulate coitus and engage in an orgiastic celebration of death and mayhem around the EMT vans.

And in case you don’t know it, US Democrats caused black crime in South Africa, too. My tongue is firmly in my cheek here.

What’s remarkable about these bacchanalias of murder and mayhem is the sexual component: Violence is sexually titillating to these lower-order reptilian brains (with apologies to reptiles).

Pants are often pulled down; and the lower body is thrusting as that of a dog in heat. (My apologies to the canine community for the unfortunate comparison.)

In all, “the Democrats Made Them Riot And Rut” argument is doo-doo. It doesn’t fly. And it’s pretty bad moral reductionism.

*Image credit

MORE Candace fast-talking boilerplate.

UPDATED (6/21 FRIENDS): NEW COLUMN: Murray’s Empirical Wisdom Confirms ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’s’ Analytical Truths

Conservatism, Crime, Ilana Mercer, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Race, Racism, Reason

NEW COLUMN, “Murray’s Empirical Wisdom Confirms ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’s’ Analytical Truths,” is currently on Townhall.com, WND.COM, The Unz Review, American Renaissance, and CNSNews, created by two conservative greats, Brent Bozell III and Terry Jeffrey.

Excerpt:

My 2011 book, “Into the cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” rests on two axiomatic truths, and I excerpt (pp 40-41 & 126-128, 2011):

“In all, no color should be given to the claim that race is not a factor in the incidence of crime in the US and in South Africa. The vulgar individualist will contend that such broad statements about aggregate group characteristics are collectivist, ergo false. He would be wrong.”

“Generalizations,” I continued, “provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, are not incorrect. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decisions in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. That one chooses not to live in a particular crime-riddled county or country in no way implies that one considers all individual residents there to be criminals, only that a sensible determination has been made, based on statistically significant data, as to where scarce and precious resources—one’s life and property—are best invested.” (“Into The Cannibal’s Pot,” pp 40-41)

In short, generalizations about certain group characteristics are, in aggregate, valid. These, however, do not contradict the imperative to treat each and every individual as an individual.

In his infinite wisdom, but with a different—strictly empirical approach—social scientist Charles Murray has ushered into mainstream this very same truth. In a luminous little book, “Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America,” Murray counsels precisely that:

“…when mean differences between groups are real, it is absolutely essential to resist generalization; it is essential to accept the reality of documented group differences but to insist on thinking of and treating every person as an individual.”

Next, in “Into the cannibal’s Pot,” I explained that we conservatives and libertarians who oppose affirmative action, set asides and quotas, because of our unfettered fealty for a merit-based, free-market based society are, sadly, promoting “half-truths,” as I put it. Here’s why:

“Free market economists have long since insisted that the rational, self-interest of individuals in private enterprise is always not to discriminate. ‘The market is color-blind,’ said Milton Friedman. ‘No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or atheist; by whites or blacks.’ As Thomas Sowell put it, ‘prejudice is free, but discrimination has costs.’” (ITCP pp. 126-128)

Inherent in these arguments, I had argued, in 2011, is that, while not untrue, they are incomplete, mere half-truths: …

“Arguably, however, [our] good economists … are still offering up a half-truth. Rational self-interest does indeed propel people, however prejudiced, to set aside bias and put their scarce resources to the best use. But to state simply that ‘discrimination is bad for business’ [and that a pure, free-market meritocracy would solve the problem of racial underrepresentation] is to present an incomplete picture.” …

… READ THE REST… NEW COLUMN, “Murray’s Empirical Wisdom Confirms ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’s’ Analytical Truths,” is currently on Townhall.com, WND.COM, The Unz Review, American Renaissance, and CNSNews

UPDATE (6/21/021): I am thankful for having quality readers. My writing has drawn wonderful people; giving, good people. Writes one such soul:

Ilana it’s a very brutal world for someone like yourself. When I said that you are alone, I didn’t mean that in the sense that you are banished to isolation or similar. I meant you are unique, you stand out, have value, yet the many are abject cretins, and will never comprehend you, couldn’t give a damn, and on account of their low level of culture will never encounter the likes of you till the end of time. This does not signify you should cease being the thinker that you are, for you must continue, whenever it occurs to you, to impart your intelligence to us. Your great worth will always find fruition somewhere with someone.

So kind and so soulful and, above all, giving. This is a giving person who really wants to impart strength, where he perceives that it’s waning. And he is not alone. “Musil Protege” is such a gem of a friend. Kerry Crowel, too, and David Vance: what a pro. Online, there are Matt Ray and Dissident Mama: good people who “drop by” to strengthen me and give of themselves.

I hope that these fine people find me as loyal a friend as I find them.

Richard Spencer Forces The Truth About Demographics Out Of Me

Conservatism, Democrats, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Politics, Republicans

Richard Spencer forced the Meta out of me on demographics. He was probably right to do it. In a blog post,Candace Owens In Immigration Wonderland, ‘Discovers’ Demography,” I had marveled at how Candace has discovered a plot to change the country’s demographics and thanked Tucker for helping her get the word out.

Hmm. I wonder what Peter Brimelow, Michelle Malkin, Steve Sailer, Ann Coulter or myself have been writing about for decades? Next, Candace will discover that, “legal immigration is the real catastrophe.” (from “IMMOLATION BY IMMIGRATION,” 2003.)

Tweeted Richard:

Ilana, how long are you guys going to complain about “demographics”? If your goal is to sustain a 1950s White America, that is clearly impossible at this point. Secondly, Hispanic waves are clearly not decisive in creating cultural change; they might even be retardant. …

And:

You guys have this issue, to which you have no real solution, but which you can complain about *endlessly*.

Mercer:

“You guys”? U lump my thinking b/c you haven’t read it w/care. Had u, you’d know I no longer write about immigration for a reason, to quote 11/020: “U might have to accept the Tipping Point has arrived.” I focus on anti-politics & ethnocide awareness, notice? Think before u lump, sir.

Richard:

Fair enough. Just reacting to the people you mentioned. Ann Coulter discovered demographics precisely at the point that nothing could be done. She’ll have a lot to whine about in upcoming columns.

Mercer:

Republicans keep the dance going; like liars that they are, the players move into opposition place to pretend ‘Democrats did it; they ended America.’ Maybe it’s good you made me state where I am. But it’s obvious from my focus. The Candace blog post was a historic comment.

 I try not to broadcast the Mercer meta, because of dumb clones, but careful readers will have noticed a focus on dismantling [conservative] Orwellian speak, in service of combating enthnocide a la South Africa. I’m in anti-politics, GOP/RIP mode, highlighting duopoly politics as Big LIE.

As for Candace Owens, let me repeat: “A media conservative has no intellectual history or coherent philosophy; he or she is but a grab-bag of talking points. For the media conservative, the history of ideas begins when he or she gets their TV gig. All is tabula rasa before that. The GOP circus goes on—on TV.”