Friday, December 26, 2014

Prejudice, Postjudice, and Rational Thought

This point has been made before, HERE, but Matt Treasonous Bailey  has a very nice and clear way of putting things, and he had this to say on a forum today:

People are always confusing pre-judice with POST-judice. For instance, if you right now made some assertion about the Wanka-Ponga people of Southern Borneo, you would be acting in a prejudicial manner without sufficient information, such as the fact that the Wanka-Ponga people don't exist because I just made them up. However, what most people call "prejudice" simply involves having actually met members of others groups and observed the objective reality of them. Again, POST-judice, which is another way of saying you possess the ability to observe reality and draw conclusions, which is another way of saying you are not a sponge.
I'll add just one more point myself: Post-judice can also come about not only from one's own personal observation, but from the trusted testimony of others who have proved reliable in the past. For example, I've never met a Chechen, but my opinions about them are formed from what I've read about them and learned from trustworthy observers.
Quibcag: Somehow, an illustration of Akane and P-chan from  Ranma ½ (らんま½) seemed appropriate. I really can't say why.

Cochran on Freud

Some time ago, I remarked that there were three very influential thinkers in the 19th Century — Marx, Darwin, and Freud. Darwin alone has failed to permeate the popular culture, while themes from Marx and Freud are all over the place. I say popular culture, because both Marx and Freud have been pretty thoroughly discredited by actual scientists, but their simplistic ideas remain very popular among the uneducated and half-educated. For example, among virtually all Democrats and a large portion of Repubicans, the notion of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is considered gospel, whether they know the origin of the idea or not.

And then we have Freud, who derailed the study of psychology (and, to some extent, anthropology) for decades. When you look at some Freudian notions objectively, you can see that they're not scientific in any sense of the term, but are rather more like fantasy-writing, a noble profession when it's explicit, but not when it pretends to be a science.

What does an actual scientist think about Freud and his comic-book theories? From Voilà!

The Inexorable Progress of Science: Psychology

If psychology had high validity, people versed in its mysteries would be able to predict behavior and control it some extent. They’d be scary: they could understand things that the man on the street couldn’t, manipulate people in ways that Alcibiades never dreamed of.  They’d beat you at poker, and steal your girl. There would be psychological equivalents of the experiment where you place a tennis ball on top of a basketball, and a ping-pong ball on top of the tennis ball: when you drop the assembly, the ping-pong ball ends up on your roof – an anti-intuitive and dramatic result.
Once upon a time, psychologists were scary, at least in science fiction.  Preem Palver was more frightening than the Mule, if you ask me. Today, psychologists don’t get much respect.  What went wrong?  Or, considering the risk of domination by our very own Second Foundation, what went right?  I think we need to look at the history of psychology in the 20th century.
The better sort of psychologist, circa 1930, would have said that mental illness often ran in families, which it does (Kraepelin). Some cases were caused by tertiary syphilis, cause understood, and some progress had been made on treatment (salvarsan and Wagner-Jauregg’s  malariotherapy). Sometimes a brain tumor was the cause, and once in a while it was benign and easy to get at (meningiomas) Our hypothetical old-time psychologist also would say that there was a strong suspicion that most cases of mental illness had some kind of biological cause, exact nature unknown. They had a few drugs that were occasionally useful, like bromides.  These guys didn’t have all the answers, but they were making progress, and they weren’t crazy.
In the US, such men were largely replaced by Freudian types, for something like 40 years: 1935-1975. They were nuts.  I could go on and on about just how nuts they were – Medawar called psychoanalytic theory “the most stupendous intellectual confidence trick of the twentieth century” – but there’s not much point in a detailed analysis of a load of crap.
Anyhow, the rise of psychoanalysis surely got in the way of real progress in understanding the human mind.   To be fair, its decline doesn’t seem to have generated fantastic progress, at least not yet.   Evolutionary psychology has promise, but I have to say that a lot of the work there looks silly to me – not because it has to be, not because there’s something wrong with the idea that evolution has shaped human behavior, more that it attracts the wrong sort of people, a general problem in the social sciences.
One of the nice things about reading literature from before 1880 is that you never, ever hear a single Freudian  concept referenced. It’s wonderful, like breathing fresh mountain air.
Psychoanalysis does have one practical payoff, however – it serves as a sensitive detector of a hunger for nonsense.  Think about all the people who were significantly inspired or  influenced by Freud’s ideas.  They were loons. Are loons. It’s not just that they made a mistake – they’re the kind of people who make such mistakes, and they’ll do it again, first chance they get.
There is a a straightforward implication : if the human race is ever to get anywhere, we need a better way of  hiring intellectuals.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

An Interfaith Message

A wise man once said that if you diagnosed groups the way you diagnose individuals,  Blacks would come out as hyperactive with arrested development, American Whites would be somewhat neurotic and tending to suffer from low self-esteem, and Jews would be paranoid. Paranoid, because the better they're treated, the more suspicious they get of the people treating them so well.  They think they're being treated nicely to lull them into a false sense of security, I guess. This isn't all Jews, of course — remember that we're diagnosing the group as a group, as though it was an individual. There are a lot of Jews, many of whom I refer to and reprint right here, who know damn well that the United States is tolerant of Jews to the extreme — much more tolerant of Jews than Israel is of Christians, as a matter of fact. But to almost all Jewish leaders, no amount of tolerance is enough. Just listen to the likes of Abe Foxman, who sees anti-Semitism wherever he looks.

Most people don't really notice all that, but one thing that affects your basic American is what many are calling "the war against Christmas," which is, actually, a war against Christianity and all of Christendom. This is not a sensible thing for anybody to participate in, especially not for Jews. But they can't seem to help themselves.  A special plea from The Hateful Heretic:

Season’s Greetings to America’s Jews

Dear Jews,

It’s that special time of year again, you know, that time of year when everyone falls all over themselves to ensure every reference to what exactly makes this time of year so special is made exclusively in terms of snow, presents, candy canes, sleighs, and, if we’re feeling a bit daring, Santa Claus. I took my family driving through the park to see the “holiday” light display, and we were delighted to see seasonal lights in the shape of snowflakes, golfing Santa, sleighs on roofs, and boxes with ribbons on them. Then we took a walk downtown, where only one store had failed to get the memo that “festive decorations” should not include, you know…that word.

So I’ve got a request for a seasonal gift from you folks:

Could you please stop?

We all know the reason the cashier can’t say “Merry Christmas,” the store can’t play “O Come All Ye Faithful” over its PA system, and we can’t have a nativity amongst all those lights. It’s because Americans are the sort of people where if a single Jew throws a noisy tantrum, we shut it down to make him happy. And let’s not kid ourselves; every single Christmas display, festival, or music program that has been ruined in the last 50 years all goes back to some petulant Jew acting like a toddler and either filing a lawsuit or just plain throwing a fit.

Look, we’ve made America the nicest country to be a Jew in since…well…since all of human history. And that includes Israel, as our per-capita level of C4-laced Muslim and daily rate of rocket attacks are much, much lower. The most powerful, highest tiers of US society—from the media to the Harvard student body—are disproportionately Jewish, and almost no one in this country minds. How many pogroms have we had? What’s that, zero? Hey, remember that time Americans didn’t burn down a synagogue, take all the area Jews out to a field, and shoot them? We call that period of time “All of our history.” Shoot, American evangelicals probably donate more to Jews in Israel than they do to fellow Christians, who frequently get the short end of the stick from the Israeli government should they have the misfortune of possessing land a Jew wants.

We let you guys put menorahs in your windows without fear. We let you own and operate all the banks you want. You can go to law school. Open up a deli, and if the sandwiches are big enough, American goyim will line up around the block for some of that sweet, sweet, kosher corned beef. When a couple of Jews get together to make a show about nothing, we tune in, watch every episode, and laugh at your zany, kikey sense of humor. Overall, we’re pretty tolerant of Jews here, and I feel a sense of pride that America’s a pretty good place to be if you have a head for capitalism and manage to refrain from child rape and riots.

A scene not from America.

So could you stop, you know, trying to ruin it? I get it. We all get it. Jews have this deeply-ingrained culture of needing to undermine the social cohesion of every society they’re in. I guess it’s a defense mechanism, and maybe that made sense in medieval Europe, but it doesn’t make sense here. It doesn’t. It just doesn’t. Think about it. You’re so obsessed with undermining the goyim that after ruining Christmas, you’ve actually moved on to demanding that we move on to mass importation of violent, animalistic desert nomads whose entire social organizing principle is murdering Jews. Do you really not understand how retarded that is? I mean, how do you have above-average IQs and conclude that you’d be safer surrounded by this:

Another scene not from America.

…than by this?

A scene from America.

Stop being stupid. There aren’t enough of you to protect yourselves if the wider society decides they’d be better off without you. And you know who’s quite comfortable with saying they’re better off without you? Muslims. Yet somehow, left-wing Jewish academics have all decided that yeah, Islam is way better for Jews than the neutered, non-militant form of Christianity practiced in America.

And, you know, people are starting to…you know…notice things. Like, you know that diversity agenda that left-wing, Jewish academics came up with and foisted on everyone, while conveniently forbidding anyone from including Jews in diversity statistics? Well, the mainstream is starting to notice that anything Jews run sure doesn’t have a lot of non-Jews participating. And they’re starting to wonder why it’s okay for 20% of Harvard’s student body to be Jewish, or why it’s okay for the entire management team of a Hollywood studio to be Jewish, but whites have to actively seek out, hire, and give undeserved bonuses to blacks or risk a huge lawsuit. If ethnic cohesion is literally illegal for whites…why is it legal for Jews? No really. The fact that non-Jewish whites are the most underrepresented group at Harvard has now made it into polite conversation. You aren’t going to like it when we apply our American sense of “equal application of the laws” to your ethnic group.

It’s like you came to the one country in the world where no one minds you, no one minds your religion, and shekel-chasing is a way of life for everyone…and you’re working as hard as you can to try and undermine it. Which will make people hate you. And also result in a mass influx of immigrants who hate you.

I’m not sure what your end game is here.

So, could you please stop? Just enjoy being Jewish, doing your Jewish things, having your all-Jew industries and companies, and whatnot, and stop trying to ruin it for the goy. Because the reason you can be Jewish, do your Jewish things, and have your all-Jew industries and companies, and whatnot, is because you’re surrounded by the Jew-friendliest goyim in human history instead of C4-laced kebab.

So please stop. Stop with the cultural Marxism. Stop with the diversity lawsuits. Stop with the tantrums at Christmas time. Stop it.

Your pal,

Hateful Heretic
Read the original, with more illustrations, here:

Why Hoosiers Don't Vote

Cartoon by BALOO

This piece by Michael Morrison originally appeared in the Goshen News.

Indiana voters were Indiana non-voters in droves this past Election Day.
And editorial pages, including the Goshen News, expressed horror and dismay: Why, they asked, don’t people show up at the polls?
There are, in fact, several reasons.
In no particular order, those include:
1) Very poor education from the government schools as to what elections are about and, more important, and even worse explained, what government is about.
2) Very poor information from the so-called “news” media, except, of course, for the Goshen News.
For example, both media and academia continue to mis-lead the people that there are only two political parties. Occasionally they might mention a new-party or independent candidate, but brush him off, implying or even stating he can’t win principally because he is not with the two old parties. (Interestingly, right here in our state, according to Ballot Access News, on November 4, Indiana independent candidate Mark Smith was elected to the Montgomery County Council in district 3.
One evil of an alleged two-party system is that both tend to cater to that amorphous middle, rather than taking a principled stand on any issue.
With no principles under discussion, what we get instead is demagoguery, including racism and class warfare.
If anyone, including editorial writers, really wants more voter turn-out, here are some ideas to increase it, also in no particular order:
1) Instant Run-off Voting. This is also known as weighted or ranked voting. It means voters get to state preferences in order. Say I prefer, as first choice, the Libertarian Party candidate. I put a one (1) by his name; for second choice, maybe I want a Green Party contender, so I put a two (2) by his; for third, perhaps the Constitution Party nominee; then if I want a Republican or Democrat, I can put a number beside their names.
One benefit: All those people who say, “Gosh, I really want your guy, but he can’t win so I hafta go with one of the two old-party people” this way get to make their first choice clear without worrying the old-party candidate they really hate waltzes in.
(Just consider how many people have said, “I sure wish a Libertarian could win, but he can’t so I have to go with …” Usually it’s a Republican, but by no means always. Or, “I sure wish a Green could win but he can’t so I have to go with …” Usually it’s a Democrat, but by no means always. There are many of us who won’t vote for a Republican or a Democrat under any circumstances.)
Of course, this also means we must have
2) Easier ballot access. That is, more parties must be allowed to list their candidates.
Anyone wanting more voter turn-out must want more choices on the ballot.
By and large, voters are sick to death of having to pick an alleged lesser evil. We all know, or at least most of us do, that the lesser of two evils is still evil. We don’t want an evil, and if one is going to be thrust upon us, we don’t want to be party to allowing it.
A few other changes in government are also vital, again in no particular order:
1) Term limits. Maybe, in fact, this is the most important of all. One reason government is so rotten, not just corrupt, but slovenly and inefficient, is that elected officials live mostly for re-election. Doing the job is secondary to preparing for the next election campaign.
2) Eliminate pensions and other perquisites and benefits, the “perks and bennies” we so often hear about. Living off the working and producing people is wrong, and there is no justification for it.
They keep using the phrase “public service,” so let it be a service, not a highly profitable career.
With these changes, more people would feel there actually is a reason to participate, to go vote, and not just to vote against, because there would be some real choices.

Editor: Here are some Internet links, including one that, serendipitously, discusses an Indiana candidate:
From Michael Morrison,
Michael Morrison is a former journalist, in print and broadcast news, and a former classical music radio announcer, and currently is a free-lance editor, available for independent contractor work on books, essays, letters to the editor, term papers, and anything else – cheap!

Monday, December 22, 2014

A Critique of Pure Nonsense, by Immanuel Rant (Neale Osborn)

You'll all be shocked to learn that there's no Mama Liberty this week, but she'll be back next week. Then a classic comment by Neale on an odd commonality that you find with the massacres. Guess what it is? Then an unwise and imprudent opinion from a North Carolina judge about being unwise and imprudent. Then an interesting story about a shop owner defending himself and his business, with a dissenting opinion from another shop owner, named "Kai Gandhi," who I hereby invite to move his sorry ass back to where he came from. No doubt he came here to make a better life for himself and his family, but if doing so involves screwing my country up, it's time to be a little more picky about who we let in. Or let stay. If this be nationalism, let's make the most of it. Then more proof that "feminism" is the stupidest goddam collection of whims and illogic the human race has come up with so far. And then some Mexican women who aren't behaving like feminists at all, but like human beings instead. Then a hoplophobic scumbag who's at least honest about it. Then some Chicago stuff. Jesus. A list of hoplophobic businesses and how to deal with them. And some nice quotes. Now, this week's illustration is Rika Shiguma, of Haganai (はがない), and I am NOT fixated. Or obsessed. No. Now to Neale:

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant for 12-14-2014
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Sadly, Mama Liberty will be unavailable this week. Imagine the nerve of her—she was busy making CLOTHES rather than writing articles for us!! We all look forward to reading her words of wisdom next week....

I'd like to deal with a topic that some people just refuse to comprehend. Human rights. For some reason, "Human Rights Activists" constantly support disarming people. They NEVER think about the poor, the downtrodden, the victims. They constantly demand someone "do something" whenever a story about poor villagers being massacred, or poor blacks dying in Chicago from a gunshot, or Chinese peasants being killed by their government. Yet they ignore the most important part—the victims are ALWAYS unarmed by law. They are forced to be defenseless, BY LAW. So whether it is government thugs in China, narcotraficantes in Mexico, or gangbanger blacks in Chicago, the killers have weapons, their victims are unarmed. BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THEM. DO you want to see human rights violations drop? REALLY drop? Start collecting guns and ammo (I'll donate a few) and ship them to the people in areas where firearms are prohibited and human rights are violated. Let's all start with those ladies in Mexico I mention down below. Remember, as L. Neil Smith says, "Every man, woman, and responsible child has a human, civil, and Constitutional right to own and carry, anytime, wherever they choose, any weapon, rifle, pistol, shotgun, machinegun, WHATEVER, without permission from anybody" (my paraphrase of The Atlanta Declaration) Let's stop genocides. Let's protect human rights, everywhere. Arm the poor, the tired, the huddles masses yearning to breathe free.

Before we get to the "Armed American Citizen" section, we shall remind people what "Gun Free Zone" means in criminal-speak. Defenseless victims, even outside the venue. [Link]

Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens ruled earlier this month that allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms at the North Carolina State Fair would be "unwise and imprudent." Gun owners across the state were angered by the ruling, but the real consequence was felt when three people at the fair were accosted by robbers, carrying pistols. As we've seen before, the law-abiding citizens follow gun control laws, but criminals don't feel bound by the same constraints.

The armed robbers were likely emboldened to act once they knew citizens would be unarmed. They targeted people leaving the fair, walking to their cars. It is reported they fled in a beige Lincoln.

* * *
Second Amendment Activists had widely criticized the ruling. The Washington Times reported:
The same activists are now blaming N.C. officials after three people were robbed by two men armed with pistols while walking to their cars Saturday night.
"By announcing to violent predators that people attending the North Carolina state fair would be unable to protect themselves, the responsibility for this armed robbery of fair-goers lies squarely with Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler, who illegally banned concealed at the fair, and ... Stephens, who willfully misinterpreted the law to impose his own worldview," Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina, told
Mr. Valone had argued the case in front of Judge Stephens that the state fair gun ban violated a law passed by the state legislature that expanded concealed carry rights, The Blaze reported.
Prior to issuing his ruling, Judge Stephens expressed fear allowing guns in the Fairgrounds "may chill crime, but may chill attendance." He added, "This whole area of the law is an absolute quagmire."

The State Fair increased the number of metal detectors at its gates this year, and installed 200 undercover and uniformed law enforcement officers on the grounds. The robbers, however, did their work outside the gates.

Metal detectors to go to the fair? I guess they lost MY business. I carry. Because I want to get home alive.

We open the "Armed American Citizen" with a really dumb criminal. [Link] What idiot brings a toy gun to a real gunfight??
The entire incident unfolded over the weekend, when the unnamed suspectedrobber walked into Medicap Pharmacy in Cheyenne, Wyoming at around 9:45 in the morning. Once inside, the man allegedly demanded that the pharmacist hand over narcotics while "brandishing" a toy gun that looked alarmingly real.
"The pharmacist then pulled out a firearm—a handgun, a revolver—and shot the suspect once in the chest," said Cheyenne Police Department Chief Brian Kozak to the Eagle Tribune.
Fortunately for the suspected robber, he survived the bullet and was taken to receive medical treatment.
Dude! This is WY-freaking-OMING!! Open carry is unlicensed, concealed carry is easy. It's just a shame the pharmacist missed anything vital....The history of human growth and development is at the same time the

And the next part of this week's "Armed American Citizens". Unfortunately, they both survived. [Link] Believe it or not, a neighboring business owner blamed the SHOPOWNER for shooting at armed criminals!!!!!
The video shows 74-year-old store owner Shirley Cornett drawing her .38 revolver and shooting one of the suspects in the arm before one of them shoots back. Cornett was hit but the bullet did not break the skin because it was deflected by a stack of books. The two then flee the pawn shop having stolen just a single bracelet.

* * *
Somewhat unbelievably, Kal Gandhi, manager of the nearby Scottish Inn and Suites, blamed Cornett for the trouble, accusing her of unnecessarily firing her gun "in heavy traffic" despite the fact that the incident occurred inside the store. Presumably, Gandhi thinks that business owners in the area should just invite criminals in to rob them with zero resistance whatsoever.
"It is not right," said Gandhi, adding that he was "really upset" about the fact that the owners shot back at the criminals.
I have nothing else to say..

AND THIS is why I say that a woman voting for a gun control agenda is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. [Link] Had the anti-Constitutionalists not spent years demonizing self defense with a gun, and fighting to pass laws restricting gun ownership and carry, she MIGHT be alive today.
Fernald had a restraining order placed on Torres before he killed her. A search of google news confirms that fact. This was mentioned as a reason to argue that the killer's sentence was too light. He obviously had premeditated this attack because he had been threatening her before.
I think the restraining order shows something else: that every law and every media and cultural input that made it more difficult for Amber to acquire and carry a firearm collaborated with her killer.
What good is a restraining order? Instead of a restraining order, Amber should have been indefinitely loaned an appropriate sidearm. If we are supposed to get protection from the police, then they should have given her some training.
What was the point of giving her an unenforceable piece of paper?
People act like guns are the cause of crime but they aren't considering the real facts. Every single story of a big man attacking a woman is a story about how the absence of a gun victimized a woman. Every single story about a knife-wielding attacker cutting an unarmed victim is the story of how the absence of a gun caused harm.
A culture without cheap, readily available firearms is a culture where the stronger get to attack the weaker with impunity. Every culture that discourages or discounts gun ownership is a culture where women are trained to be sacrificed to violent men.
It's a simple fact. No matter what feminists say, a 110 pound woman has little or no chance against a 220 pound man EVEN IF HE IS UNARMED. Unless, of course, she has 2 pounds of Hartford steel in her fist, and a few hours at the range with an instructor under her belt.

Passed along by Mama Liberty, I find this one Sehr interessant! [Link] How dare these women defend themselves and their city from armed criminals!!!
This week, hundreds of women in the Mexican town of Xaltianguis formed their own community defense organization to protect their town from organized crime. The women belong to a group called the Union of Peoples and Organizations of Guerrero State, or UPOEG.
According to local community self-defense force commander Miguel Angel Jimenez, the women are spread out between various different teams that patrol the neighborhoods of Xaltianguis, which is a small town just outside of Acapulco.
Jimenez told reporters that the women are well trained in firearms, but unfortunately the group only has about 80 guns and they have to rotate the weapons and share them between members.
"I trust that the people, once they know that the women are participating, they will provide more weapons", Jimenez said.
If I knew how to ship them to Mexico, I'd send along a few myself!!

What's the most common lie we hear from the anti-gunners when they want us to stop defending our rights? Yup, THAT'S the one! "No one is trying to take your guns. We just want 'common' sense controls on them!" Well, THIS reporter tells us what they really mean—and he should know, he's one of them! [Link]

One part of the article claims people just don't understand the true nature of the second amendment.
As the author wrote:
The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted. It says guns are permitted to a "well-regulated militia." That means trained citizen soldiers called into action for emergencies—because in colonial times every able-bodied man was required to be a member of the militia.
It does not mean everyone with $50 and a driver's license is entitled to own a gun.
And they even tried to quote a Supreme Court Justice as reason enough to ban firearms completely.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said in 1990, when he called claims of Second Amendment protection of individual gun ownership, "a fraud on the American public." Earlier this year, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called the Second Amendment one of the six great flaws with the U.S. Constitution. He called for it to be amended to say gun possession was only for state militias, not individuals.
The author even writes that he's OK with criminals having guns.
He idiotically spews the babbling of a liberal detached from reality:
Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That's a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.

* * *
At the ever end the article he practically shouts out what the intentions of liberals truly are "One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is 'He's coming for our guns,' Obama never said such a thing. But I will: We're coming for your guns. And someday, we'll take them."
Yes, they are. And never forget that fact.

Isn't it funny that the Democrat stronghold of Shitcago has made it a felony to record police, DAs, and judges (with a higher penalty than doing so to civilians) even after being told by their own Supreme Court that a similar law was un-Constitutional? [Link]
Illinois—In March of this year the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the state's eavesdropping law, and rightfully so, as it was touted as the most unconstitutional law of its kind in the country.
But Illinois, being the the corrupt and violent police state that it is, couldn't let their police and other government officials be held accountable by its citizens.
The bill is back, and with a vengeance.
The Amendment to Senate Bill 1342 was introduced on Tuesday, Dec. 2, as an amendment to an existing bill on a completely different subject. The amendment removed all of the bill's previous content and replaced it with the new ban on recording. The House passed it the following day, and the Senate passed it the day after that.
This bill passed both the Illinois House and Senate with overwhelming majority votes; 106-7 in the House on and 46-4-1 in the Senate. Democrats and Republicans alike slipped this bill by the citizens as they were debating on whether the General Assembly would raise the state's minimum wage or make the 67% temporary income tax hike permanent, neither of which passed.
Of course, THE Supreme Court of the United States says it's our Constitutional right to do so. Hmmmmm.....

A list of 16 companies that we should not patronize for their craven caving to the anti-Constitutionalists (or for BEING anti-Constitutional in and of themselves).[Link]
Panera Breads
Chuck E. Cheese
Whole Foods
Peet's Coffee
AMC Theatres
California Pizza Kitchen
Buffalo Wild Wings
Disney World
TGI Friday's
Waffle House
Or, of course, you can do as I do when I am forced to go to TGI Friday's for a birthday—I ignore their rules and go armed. Yeah, they have the right to ban it—and if they catch me, they can ban ME. But since I have family that holds parties there, I'm going to be armed there. That's the purpose of concealed carry, after all—NO ONE KNOWS YOU ARE CARRYING!!!!

Its' amazing how far idiots/"reporters" will go to lie about gun sales, or to try to twist a surge in gun sales into an increase in crime rates. [Link]
Last week, Associated Press reporter Matt Stroud incorrectly implied that the recent increase in firearm-related background checks run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) frequently results in violent criminals beating the system and acquiring guns.
Noting that in situations in which NICS cannot complete a check on a prospective gun buyer within three business days, a firearm dealer is allowed to transfer a firearm to the person, Stroud hyperbolically wrote, "More gun sales than ever are slipping through the federal background check system.... [S]omeone is killed with a firearm every 16 minutes. Mass shootings are happening every few weeks.... If three business days pass without a federal response, buyers can legally get their guns, whether or not the check was completed."
What Stroud neglected to mention—besides the fact that gun ownership is at an all-time high and the nation's murder rate has fallen to at least a 57-year low—is that the FBI continues running checks after the three-day period has elapsed and reports all ultimate denials to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) on a daily basis. Thereafter, BATFE personnel and local law enforcement officers can and do take action to separate prohibited persons from any firearms they may have acquired during the delay.
Stroud also implied, incorrectly, that every individual who is delayed is presumptively prohibited and would pose a danger if successful in obtaining a firearm. That is certainly not the case, as identities can be confused, arrests don't necessarily lead to prosecutions or convictions, and later events (like reductions in or dropping of charges, restoration of rights, or reversals of convictions) are not always reflected in the records available to NICS. Indeed, the provisions of the Gun Control Act allowing (but not requiring) licensed dealers to release firearms to purchasers three days after a NICS check is initiated without a subsequent denial recognize that such events are a very real possibility and that people should not be denied their rights based on unsubstantiated or incomplete information.
Now, do not take my inclusion of this article as support for the NICS system, because it is totally un-Constitutional. But it's funny how people like this lie about the system in order to demand more laws, when the Justice Department has only prosecuted few hundred of the 56,000 denials that were not appealed. IF their goal was to keep criminals from owning guns (it isn't, but let's pretend it is) you'd THINK they'd be prosecuting every liar who was denied a firearm for lying on the Form 4473.
And now, the Quotes of the Week. Starting with 2 from Colonel Cooper.

"Already a couple of the faithful have sent in checks for a foundation memorial to the innocents who perished at the hands of the ninja at Waco ... I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as 'ninja' ... Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view."

"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

"I don't believe people should to be able to own guns."—Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."—Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, cause it's gonna be empty."—Clint Smith
That, my friends, is that for this week.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Paul Gottfried on Fascism

"Fascism" has become nothing more than a dirty word, used by communists and communist dupes to smear everybody who disagrees with them. Since most libertarians aren't communists, the ones who use the word "fascism" that way are, alas, communist dupes, at least insofar as vocabulary is concerned. They need to learn a little history.

Fascism, to those who know something about history, was a system adopted to oppose communism in Europe after World War I. It appropriated a lot of techniques that the communists had originated or perfected, in order to oppose, them, in the 'fight fire with fire' sense. The most obvious such technique was to fight communist street fighters with fascist street fighters, while most of the other political factions looked on helplessly while the communists ruled the streets. I'll leave you to decide if there's anything analogous to that situation in America today.

I've had things to say about fascism before, so rather than repeat it all, I'll direct you to it:

As is shown, this post first appeared in The American Conservative in 2012, but I found it just today reprinted by Nicholas Stix here:

By Paul Gottfried
June 6, 2012
The American Conservative

Having been at work on a book dealing with changing definitions of the “F word,” meaning in this case not the one-time obscenity but the ultimate evil in the world of political correctness, I find my comments on the subject have caused considerable irritation. Although I once assumed that only the conventional left was fixated on fascist dangers, I now know the fascist specter is scaring libertarians as well. My statements that fascism must be understood in an interwar European context, that it was a reaction from the right against the threat of Communist and other leftist revolutionary upheavals, that garden-variety fascism — for example, as practiced through the first 14 years of Mussolini’s rule in Italy — was neither really socialist nor totalitarian, have all elicited angry comments from libertarian bloggers.

Like the more conventional leftists, these libertarians seem grossly ignorant of 20th-century history. Right and left for my critics are what they are thought to be in the U.S. at this moment. The two reference points have always been the same, and for the right the eternal battle has been about fighting the “state,” which has been around since the time the pyramids were built. Those who have advanced state power have always been immutably on the left; and presumably the left includes Amenhotep, Henry VIII, Cardinal Richelieu, and Bismarck, just as the right has always featured such stalwart conservatives as Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill.

One hostile blogger was concerned that I couldn’t see this simple truth because “I am so blinded by my hatred for NRO.” This obviously referred to my amusement at how the one-time editor of that site had tried to link Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to the politics of both Italian fascism and German Nazism. Apparently all defenders of the welfare state were or are fascists and somehow implicated in Hitler’s crimes. For partisan reasons, Republicans on this telling are spared association with the F-term, even when implicated in the same welfare politics.

I was amused to see an essay on fascism by a Canadian Bill Gairdner in the New Criterion (October 2012) that resuscitates one of Jonah Goldberg’s assertions, that the multicultural left by supporting minority set asides is moving along the path of interwar fascism. Like Goldberg and like my hostile bloggers, Gairdner makes “fascism” fit anything he doesn’t happen to like. Thus the f-word is stretched to apply to such nuisances as Arab youth rioting in suburban Paris and gender studies at American universities.

Not to dwell overly long on my latest contact with partisan dishonesty and historical ignorance, let me state the following about fascism as a historical phenomenon. Already in 1946 George Orwell, who was definitely a man of the Left, noticed that after the Second World War “everyone in England is calling what he doesn’t like fascist.” Note Orwell was making this critical observation well before the 1960s, when the rise of the New Left and the emergence of Holocaust studies (which often equates all fascism with Hitler and the Final Solution) turned the F-word into the world’s greatest and most insidious evil.

Moreover, the anti-New Deal Right in the U.S. had added to the semantic and conceptual confusion by equating the New Deal with fascism. In this case however there was some justification. FDR and his advisor Rexford Tugwell both expressed admiration for Mussolini’s economic reforms in Italy, the extent of which however they vastly exaggerated.

Viewed contextually (which according to thehistorian Herbert Butterfield and Butterfield’s biographer Kenneth McIntyre is the way historians should be practicing their craft), fascism was a movement that prospered on the European continent between the two world wars. It was an imitation of the left that tried to pull along the working class, but it depended mostly on bourgeois support. Its economics were corporatist in theory but in practice usually left most of the economy in private hands. Unlike the left, fascists believed in hierarchy and in the organization of the nation along organic and vocational lines. But these preferences led only to minimal change in the social structure, and except for their style and fondness for pageantry, it is hard to distinguish some fascist or quasi-fascist regimes from traditional authoritarian ones.

The regime of the Spanish Nationalist leader Francisco Franco was for the most part a military dictatorship that turned into a caretaker government practicing economic modernization. But Franco tried to integrate into his coalition the fascist Falange organization, which had helped him defeat the left in the Spanish Civil War. And so he adopted some of the trappings and personnel of the Falangists, before unceremoniously dropping both after the Second World War.

In Austria, the anti-Marxist and anti-Nazi regime of the “clerical fascist” Engelbert Dollfuss in the early 1930s glued onto a Catholic-bourgeois ruling coalition some of the rituals and rhetoric of his friend Mussolini, who for several years was Dollfuss’s protector against Hitler. The “Austro-fascist” experiment began to unravel when the Nazis killed Dollfuss in 1934, when Mussolini changed sides in 1936, and when Hitler occupied Austria in 1938.

Although the fascists were not “conservative” in any traditional sense, they were probably more so than my libertarian critics. In interwar Europe being “conservative” did not mean “being for markets,” legalizing addictive drugs, or distributing anarcho-capitalist leaflets. It meant favoring a traditional state that accepted a traditional social order and which was usually tied to an established church. In that bygone world my libertarian bloggers would have been considered hopelessly demented leftists. Although fascists were not particularly agreeable to traditional conservatives, philosophical libertarians would have been even less popular in these circles. European liberals may have been closer to the anarcho-capitalist mentality but only slightly. Unlike our libertarians, old-fashioned liberals held Victorian social and moral views and were highly suspicious of democracy.

Being a broadminded reactionary, I would allow for a broad understanding of the right as a counter-force to the left depending on how the two terms are understood at a particular time and in a particular place. In the present American context, being an advocate of minimal government means opposing leftist public administration and its multicultural and leveling policies. Libertarianism, viewed from this situational perspective, is a reactionary position, just as opposing Communist subversives was in Europe after the Bolshevik Revolution. The right has a functional identity, in the sense that it stands athwart the left and tries to limit its destructive power. That is what defines the right operationally, certainly not faith in representative democracy or a belief that each person should be able to do his own thing. Although one may personally like those positions, they are only accidentally right-wing.

Paul Gottfried is a TAC contributing editor and the author, most recently, of Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal.
Quibcag: Fascist girl swiped from