Category Archives: Political Philosophy

UPDATE II (12/21/021): NEW COLUMN: Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech (Part 3)

Free Speech, Individual Rights, Justice, Labor, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Republicans, Technology, The Courts, THE ELITES

Leave a reply

NEW COLUMN: “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” is now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

This column is Part 3 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication” and Part 2, “Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication.”

An excerpt:

It is inarguable that by financially crippling and socially segregating, and banishing politically irksome people and enterprises—the Big Tech cartel is flouting the spirit, if not the strict letter, of the Civil Rights Act.

For how do you make a living if your banking options are increasingly curtailed and constantly threatened, and your ability to electronically communicate with clients is likewise circumscribed?

Do you go back to a barter economy (a book for some bread)? Do you go underground? Cultivate home-based industries? Do you keep afloat by word of mouth? Go door-to-door? Return to stamping envelopes? How can you, when your client base is purely electronic?

Telling an individual he can’t open a bank account on account of the beliefs and opinions swirling in his head teeters on informing your innocent victim he might not be able to make a living, as do other, politically more polite Americans, and despite his innocence: Our only “offenses” as dissidents are thought crimes, namely, speaking, or typing or wafting into the air unpopular, impolite words.

“[I]n assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power,” Justice Clarence Thomas has argued, “what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

To paraphrase this Supreme Court jurist: Sure, there are alternatives to The Big Tech, but these make a mockery of the outcast. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s point about comparability, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes. “Have at it sucker.”

By Deep Tech decree, some Americans are worth more than others, based not on their actions, but on the voiced thoughts in their heads. This cannot stand.

The letter of the law needs changing. Do it.

Civil Rights Act

Thus, the preferred remedy to Deep Tech depredations would build upon existing Civil Rights Act jurisprudence.

As a reality-oriented conservative libertarian, I inhabit and theorize in the real world. From the conservative-libertarian’s perspective, Barry Goldwater got it right. Civil Rights law is an ass, for it infringes on property rights. But the onus is on flaccid Republican lawmakers to ensure that that ass can be ridden by all equally (with apologies to adorable, much-abused donkeys for the cruel metaphor).

These are existing laws that are already enforced. I see no reason to reject the application of civil rights solutions to wicked, woke bullies because existing laws that’ll never be repealed go against my core beliefs. What is libertarianism? The art of losing in life because of a slavish devotion to theoretical purity? …

… NEW COLUMN, “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” can be read now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

UPDATED (10/26/021) I:

UPDATE II (12/21/021) II: “Berenson v. Twitter“:

Twitter is indisputably a messenger service. A longstanding California law regulates messenger services as “common carriers.” This means that they must accept all messages they receive. Twitter thus must accept all tweets it receives. It has no First Amendment rights to refuse them on the basis that it does not agree with them.
A federal law commonly called Section 230 “preempts” the California law, giving Twitter the right to reject tweets or ban users. (Whether that right is universal or whether Twitter must act in “good faith” in restricting service is a separate question; whether Twitter acted in “good faith” in this case is still another question. But put those issues aside for the moment.)
Section 230 is what enables Twitter to claim a First Amendment privilege that supersedes the California law and restrict my own First Amendment right to speak; thus federal courts have the right to review 230 on First Amendment grounds.

MORE.

UPDATED (9/28): NEW COLUMN: No, Lara Logan, Only Simpletons Think Afghanistan Is Simple

Argument, Asia, Critique, Foreign Policy, Islam, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, War

Leave a reply

NEW COLUMN, “No, Lara Logan, Only Simpletons Think Afghanistan Is Simple,” is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, CNSNews and American Greatness.

And excerpt:

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson appears in thrall to Lara Logan’s political observations—to her “philosophical” meditations, too. Alas, Logan is no Roger Scruton.

You might have heard Logan claim, recently and repetitively, that everything in the world is simple. “Everything is simple,” she keeps intoning in her appearances on Fox News.

Applied to the fiasco in Afghanistan, Logan’s Theory of Simple is that, considering that America is omnipotent, whatever occurs under its watch is always and everywhere planned and preventable.

Ridiculous and wrong, yet Tucker, whom we all love to bits, giggles in delight.

“They want you to believe Afghanistan is complicated,” lectured Logan. “Because if you complicate it, it is a tactic in information warfare called ‘ambiguity increasing.’”

“So now we’re talking about all the corruption and this and that,” she further vaporized. “But at its heart, every single thing in the world… always comes down to one or two things …”

Logan likely recently discovered Occam’s Razor and is promiscuously applying this principle to anything and everything, with little evidence or geopolitical and historic understanding in support of her Theory of Simple.

Occam’s Razor posits that, “the simplest explanation is preferable to one that is more complex,” provided “simple” is “based on as much evidence as possible.”

A nifty principle—and certainly not a philosophy—Occam’s Razor was not meant to apply to everything under the sun.

Misapplied by Logan, why? Primarily because Logan’s explanation for America’s defeat in Afghanistan—that the United States threw the game—is hardly the simplest explanation, despite her assertion to the contrary.

The simplest explanation to the US defeat in Afghanistan, based on as much information as is possible to gather, is that, wait for this: America was defeated fair and square. As this columnist had argued, the US was outsmarted and outmaneuvered, in a mission impossible in the first place. …

… READ ON. NEW COLUMN, “No, Lara Logan, Only Simpletons Think Afghanistan Is Simple,” is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, CNSNews and American Greatness.

UPDATED (9/28): Afghans have hereditary disorders due to marriage between relatives.

 

NEW COLUMN: Vetting Afghan Immigrants For A Religious Comorbidity (Islam)

Feminism, Foreign Policy, Gender, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Jihad, Multiculturalism, Political Philosophy, Terrorism

1 Reply

NEW COLUMN is “Vetting Afghan Immigrants For A Religious Comorbidity (Islam).” It’s currently on WND, The Unz Review, CNSNews and The New American.

An excerpt:
… The best way, then, to vet immigrants is by the faith they practice. As the data show, young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out against their hosts across the West. Second-generation Muslim-Americans are more prone to act out on their faith than their parents.

 

Omar Saddiqui Mateen shot up a Florida gay nightclub, in 2016. He was a second-generation Afghan-American. Although Mateern’s father was an admirer of the Taliban, the moron media concluded that junior was no Jihadist, only a latent, self-hating homosexual, fixated on phallic symbols like big guns.

 

Another proud Afghan-American who’ll be welcoming the hundreds of thousands of Afghans airlifted and funneled into America is Najibullah Zazi, arrested for plotting to blow up stuff stateside, in September 2009. He was released in 2019.

 

Since public policy is aimed at the common good—a cohort that commits more faith-based murders than another, say Christian Afghans, is, on average, unsuitable as a source of immigration to the US.

 

The reason for second-generation terrorism is no mystery. More so than girls, boys need strong men in their lives—men who’ll affirm their masculinity. Young men crave manly mentors with a strong moral message. But in contemporary American culture, men are sissified and feminized and biological boundaries blurred. American boys, K-12, are mired in an estrogen-infused, cloistered world, where strong men in authority are an endangered minority.

 

When a Muslim male, moreover, hears American preachers, parents, pedagogues and politicians pounding on about our country’s Founding Fathers as the archetypal pale, patriarchal oppressors—he quickly learns to reject his adopted country’s heritage and look elsewhere for masculine inspiration, maybe at Muhammad and his acolytes.

 

The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn’t mean there is a moderate Islam—or that these moderates won’t sire sons who’ll embrace the unreformed Islam.

 

As painful as it is to say, being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion.

 

By “risk factor,” I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam, we have a religion that doubles up as a political system counseling conquest, not co-existence. “Islam’s borders are bloody,” cautioned famed historian Samuel Huntington. The data support his prescient and profound analysis. …

… MORE. NEW COLUMN, “Vetting Afghan Immigrants For A Religious Comorbidity (Islam),” is currently on WND, The Unz Review, CNSNews and The New American.

NEW COLUMN: Jan. 6 Committee: Menstrual America Vs. MAGA America

America, Argument, Conservatism, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Culture, Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Feminism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, The Therapuetic State

Leave a reply

Kinzinger to the crybaby Capitol cops: “you guys may, like, individually, feel a little broken. … But you guys won. You guys held.” LOL.

NEW COLUMN is “January 6 Committee: Menstrual America Vs. MAGA America.” Read it, for now, on WND.COM, the Unz Review, Townhall.com and The New American.

An excerpt:

Menstrual America has gained the upper hand. Feminized America has been on display in all her undignified inauthenticity, in the crybabies of Congress and in the loud and proud quitting at the 2020 Olympics.

In Menstrual America, medals go to congressmen and cops who wail the loudest when recounting their professional failings on Jan. 6, 2021.

And props are given not to athletes who “bring it” despite the jitters; but to those who crumble and quit, and then crow about the authenticity of it all.

Menstrual America’s rich and famous belong to a fraternity of foolish, showy killjoys. They take a knee anywhere and everywhere, to show the world how gynocentrically great they are.

Speaker Pelosi, of course, is nothing like that; the woman is made of steel. For political effect, though, she lugs around all kinds of crybabies.

One such Pelosi poodle is Adam Kinzinger. The Republican from Illinoi is serving on the January 6th Select Committee at the behest of the speaker.

On Day One of this Democratic happening, Kinzinger denounced Republicans’ attempts to compare the Jan. 6 melee to violence during last summer’s race riots:

“I condemn those riots and the destruction of property that resulted,” Kinzinger whimpered. “But not once did I ever feel that the future of self-governance was threatened like I did on Jan. 6. There is a difference between breaking the law and rejecting the rule of law. Between a crime, even grave crimes, and a coup.”

Kinzinger is correct: There is a difference between a crime and a coup. Crimes against innocent fellow citizens are acts of cowardice; a coup against the State can be heroic–just like the American Revolutionary War was a coup against Britain. …

… READ THE REST. “January 6 Committee: Menstrual America Vs. MAGA America.” Read it, for now, on WND.COM, the Unz Review, Townhall.com and The New American.

Podcast of “Menstrual America Vs. MAGA America” is available:

https://HardTruthWithDavidVanceAndilanaMercer.podbean.com/e/January-6-committee-menstrual-america-vs-maga-america/

Subscribe.

*Image credit, Yahoo.