Category Archives: Political Correctness

UPDATE II: The Law Of Rule Doubles Down

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Energy, Free Speech, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Political Correctness, Race, Racism

A member of the South African opposition (as I have already mentioned) characterized the effects of the ANC’s deployment of law as living under the law of rule rather than the rule of law. This characterization applies equally to Big Man Obama and his posse.

According to Fox News’ Megan Kelly, who does some fine reporting, the decree to dismiss the New-Black-Panther voter intimidation case originated with 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Recall: the thugs who received a reprieve flanked the voting location in formation shouting variations on “kill crackers and their kids.”

A note to libertarians celebrating free speech and the beauty of an exhortation to kill in a “free society”: I’m sympathetic even to the last, believe it or not. But this is not about free speech. this is about a legal apparatus under which some are better than others. Don’t get me wrong: we’ve always lived under such an apparatus; my new book, Into The Cannibal’s Pot, (completed now and being prepared for publication), records this very reality. However, it has become manifestly obvious that things have gotten way worse (albeit on the same continuum) under the racial rule of Brother Barack.

To those interested in the law’s position on speech, here it is stated in one of my columns:

American jurisprudence allows the regulation of speech only under very limited circumstances. .. the jury would have had to find that … [the] speech posed a “Clear and Present Danger.” While the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t protect words that are likely to cause violence, the required threshold is extremely high. And so it should be.

However, speech that falls under the rubric of civil and voter rights law seems to get different treatment—when uttered against the pigmentally privileged.

UPDATE I: To prove this post’s point, the White House is threatening another lawsuit against Arizona. I believe it will try, this time, to make the racial profiling fiction stick. Is this an attempt to prosecute an infraction that has yet to occur? You see what I mean by the law of rule. As I write, coverage of this is hard to come by on the Net, so please do some digging.

UPDATE II: BHO will not abide by a “no you can’t!” The Law had ruled against the Rule in the matter of a moratorium on deep-water offshore drilling.

“[J]udge, Martin L. C. Feldman of United States District Court, issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a late May order halting all offshore exploratory drilling in more than 500 feet of water. A ‘blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium … with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger,'” is how the judge justified smacking BHO. (Here is District Judge Feldman’s decision.)

But the law of rule wants an outcome of its own. And so, th “Obama Administration Issues New Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling.”

UPDATED: In Defense Of Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Free Markets, Free Speech, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Political Correctness, Political Philosophy

Tom Piatak’s article, “Nazis and Other Delusions: A Response to Hoppe,” is generating a lot of heat at Chronicles Magazine, edited by the peerless Dr. Fleming. Hans Hoppe, whom I know and like, is said to have referred to some prominent paleoconservatives, Pat Buchanan and the late Sam Francis, as national socialists.

Writes Piatak, “All the paleoconservatives present at the 1996 meeting with whom I spoke confirmed my recollection of this, and I can attest that Sam Francis understood Hoppe to be calling him a Nazi as well.”

Hard-hitting, for sure, I have always understood Hoppe’s “national socialism” comments to be a condemnation of the economic thinking of his philosophical foes. Besides being an unbelievably hackneyed and meaningless label, libeling someone a Nazi usually refers to their alleged anti-Semitism or racism. Hoppe’s libertarianism is the kind that doesn’t give a hoot if someone harbors such sentiments, just as long as the so-called Nazi keeps his mitts to himself.

That’s my position as a paleolibertarian. I don’t care if you hate me for being Jewish, just stay out of my face. In fact, I will go so far as to say that I despise sanctimonious neocons (like the stupid E. Hasslebeck on “The View”) who go out of their way to hunt down and humiliate anyone who shows “prejudice.” (I want to start a “Protect the Prejudiced” movement.) I think Hoppe is pretty much like that.

More important: Hoppe has been hounded by the PC police and accused of racism, homophobia—you name it. He is pretty uncompromising on race, culture—is a defender of the natural aristocracy and the West they way it ought to be. Mr. Piatak himself quotes the uncompromising Hoppe using designations such as “human trash” and “inferior people” quite comfortably. This doesn’t sound like a person who would turn around and, self-righteously, call another a Nazi.

Why would someone with Hans’ views,then, use the “national socialism” pejorative in the way he is accused of doing against his interlocutors? It’s just not Hoppe’s style. Coming from Hoppe, I am inclined to see any use of the national socialism label as descriptive of their economics. Economics is his field, after all.

“What have Hoppe’s fellow libertarians done on immigration since 1996?” asks Piatak. Unless he has backpedalled on immigration, Hans was one of the few libertarians to oppose the mass immigration immolation.

See “TRADE GOODS, NOT PLACES.” I’ve always taken Hans to be both anarchist and immigration restrictionist, which is, some would argue, inconsistent. “TRADE GOODS, NOT PLACES” does not paper over the inconsistencies:

Matters would be simple if all libertarians agreed that a constitutional government has an obligation to repel foreign invaders. They don’t, not if they are anarchists. Both open-border and closed-border libertarian anarcho-capitalists posit that an ideal society is one where there is no entity—government—to monopolize defense and justice functions. In a society based on anarcho-capitalism, where every bit of property is privately owned, the reasoning goes, private property owners cannot object if X invites Y onto his property, so long as he keeps him there, or so long as Y obtains permission to venture onto other spaces. Despite their shared anarchism, limited-immigration anarcho-libertarians and free-immigration anarcho-libertarians arrive respectively at different conclusions when they make the transition from utopia to real life.

The latter believe the state must refrain from interfering with the free movement of people despite the danger they may pose to nationals. The former arrive at the exact opposite conclusion: So long as the modern American Welfare State stands, and so long as it owns large swaths of property, it’s permissible to expect the state to carry out its traditional defensive functions. This includes repelling incomers who may endanger the lives and livelihoods of locals. [UPDATE (June 27): This, in my understanding, is Hoppe’s position.]

The open-border libertarian will claim that his is the less porous position. He will accuse the limited-immigration libertarian of being guilty of, on the one hand, wanting the state to take action to counter immigration, but, on the other hand, because of his anarchism, being at pains to find a basis for the interventions he favors. Not being an anarchist, and hence not having to justify the limited use by government of force against invaders, I hope I have escaped these contradictions.

This essay is in my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society. Get it.

By the by, Hans, whom many people vilify as haughty, can be a lot of fun.

UPDATED: Geller: 'Truth Is The New Hate Speech'

Bush, Canada, Free Speech, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Neoconservatism, Political Correctness, Propaganda

Remember BAB posted about one Mosab Yousef, known as “Son of Hamas”—also the title of his book? This bright, young Palestinian underwent, first, a religious conversion, and, in short order, a political one. Once he embraced Christianity, Yousef’s political change of heart followed, and he abandoned the easy, destructive, fashionable path of the Palestinians; stopped rooting for the savagery of his Hamasnik father and joined civilization (such as it is).

Now, as the irrepressible, anti-Islamization activist Pamela Geller reports, the Treason Class running this country is deporting Yousef back to his , the West Bank, where he’ll likely be finished off. (Yeah, Flotilla Fans: that’s what they do to dissenters in Muslim territories; and with the assent of the Muslim Street)

Slight correction to such Bush-supporters as is Ms. Geller (who has called Bush a good man), whose post may give the impression that the current president’s policies are not a seamless continuation of those of the last. Bush would have done nothing different—and was even more of an illegal immigration enthusiast than is Obama. As I like to say, Bush would have wrestled a crocodile for a criminal alien. And he did.

Granted, Obama has been holding back on the matter of immigration because he’s pacing himself. There is only so much destruction and deconstruction the man can achieve at once. In order to push through parts of his political agenda, Obama has to bide his time with respect to other aspects thereof.

Bush, on the other hand, denied us much needed social-security reform, but went full steam ahead with instigating invasions and welcoming invaders, the two sides of the same neoconservative coin.

“TRUTH IS THE NEW HATE SPEECH.” While on the topic of outrages: Ms. Geller reports that PayPal has revoked her account privileges, if I understand their complaint correctly, because they contend she runs a site promoting “hate.” They have, consequently, instructed Ms/ Geller to remove her PayPal button.

This repulsive conduct on the part of PayPal follows YouTube’s reprehensible, Muslim-driven (no doubt) removal of the “We Con The World” clip (hiding being copyright claims).

It seems that in the US, we don’t need a Canadian-style Human Rights kangaroo court; we have the private sector to enforce the tyranny minimized as political correctness.

The solution has to be obvious: credible competition to both PayPal and YouTube that will offer service sans the dhimmi, Acceptable-Use Policy constraints.

UPDATE (June 15): Ms. Geller, a formidable fighter, has beaten PayPal in its cowardly attempts to bully her into submission, and has brought the internet transaction company some bad, bad press.

Ms. Geller exults, “Paypal Called, Paypal Caved Paypal backed down. Excelsior!”

Always on the look for an ethical, as opposed ego-driven, voice on the Right, I’ve picked up in Ms. Geller’s latest battle something quite different—unheard of among the garden variety, ego-bound, conservative female commentators to whom we are subjected:

“I asked what recourse do smaller websites have? As this is my real concern. My soapbox is pretty big, but what about small blogs?”

Yes, should it come under PayPal attack, Barely a Blog would never be able to generate support among mainstream conservatives as Geller has. For thinking of voices such as ours, we thank Ms. Geller.

We also thank her for bringing to our awareness an alternative to PayPal, should they continue to hound truth and freedom:

“Needless to say, I am not going back,” writes Ms. Geller. “I told [PayPal woman] that, too. She wished I would reconsider. But, no. I am sticking with Gpal — the G stands for guns.”

UPDATED: Geller: ‘Truth Is The New Hate Speech’

Bush, Canada, Free Speech, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Neoconservatism, Political Correctness, Propaganda

Remember BAB posted about one Mosab Yousef, known as “Son of Hamas”—also the title of his book? This bright, young Palestinian underwent, first, a religious conversion, and, in short order, a political one. Once he embraced Christianity, Yousef’s political change of heart followed, and he abandoned the easy, destructive, fashionable path of the Palestinians; stopped rooting for the savagery of his Hamasnik father and joined civilization (such as it is).

Now, as the irrepressible, anti-Islamization activist Pamela Geller reports, the Treason Class running this country is deporting Yousef back to his , the West Bank, where he’ll likely be finished off. (Yeah, Flotilla Fans: that’s what they do to dissenters in Muslim territories; and with the assent of the Muslim Street)

Slight correction to such Bush-supporters as is Ms. Geller (who has called Bush a good man), whose post may give the impression that the current president’s policies are not a seamless continuation of those of the last. Bush would have done nothing different—and was even more of an illegal immigration enthusiast than is Obama. As I like to say, Bush would have wrestled a crocodile for a criminal alien. And he did.

Granted, Obama has been holding back on the matter of immigration because he’s pacing himself. There is only so much destruction and deconstruction the man can achieve at once. In order to push through parts of his political agenda, Obama has to bide his time with respect to other aspects thereof.

Bush, on the other hand, denied us much needed social-security reform, but went full steam ahead with instigating invasions and welcoming invaders, the two sides of the same neoconservative coin.

“TRUTH IS THE NEW HATE SPEECH.” While on the topic of outrages: Ms. Geller reports that PayPal has revoked her account privileges, if I understand their complaint correctly, because they contend she runs a site promoting “hate.” They have, consequently, instructed Ms/ Geller to remove her PayPal button.

This repulsive conduct on the part of PayPal follows YouTube’s reprehensible, Muslim-driven (no doubt) removal of the “We Con The World” clip (hiding being copyright claims).

It seems that in the US, we don’t need a Canadian-style Human Rights kangaroo court; we have the private sector to enforce the tyranny minimized as political correctness.

The solution has to be obvious: credible competition to both PayPal and YouTube that will offer service sans the dhimmi, Acceptable-Use Policy constraints.

UPDATE (June 15): Ms. Geller, a formidable fighter, has beaten PayPal in its cowardly attempts to bully her into submission, and has brought the internet transaction company some bad, bad press.

Ms. Geller exults, “Paypal Called, Paypal Caved Paypal backed down. Excelsior!”

Always on the look for an ethical, as opposed ego-driven, voice on the Right, I’ve picked up in Ms. Geller’s latest battle something quite different—unheard of among the garden variety, ego-bound, conservative female commentators to whom we are subjected:

“I asked what recourse do smaller websites have? As this is my real concern. My soapbox is pretty big, but what about small blogs?”

Yes, should it come under PayPal attack, Barely a Blog would never be able to generate support among mainstream conservatives as Geller has. For thinking of voices such as ours, we thank Ms. Geller.

We also thank her for bringing to our awareness an alternative to PayPal, should they continue to hound truth and freedom:

“Needless to say, I am not going back,” writes Ms. Geller. “I told [PayPal woman] that, too. She wished I would reconsider. But, no. I am sticking with Gpal — the G stands for guns.”