Thursday, July 19, 2018

What to do if we are doomed

Roy Scranton writes in a NY Times op-ed:
A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.

Anyone who pays much attention to climate change knows the outlook is grim. It’s not unreasonable to say that the challenge we face today is the greatest the human species has ever confronted. And anyone who pays much attention to politics can assume we’re almost certainly going to botch it. ...

Some people might say the mistake was having a child in the first place. As Maggie Astor reported, more and more people are deciding not to have children because of climate change. This concern, conscious or unconscious, is no doubt contributing to the United States’ record-low birthrate. ...

Take the widely cited 2017 research letter by the geographer Seth Wynes and the environmental scientist Kimberly Nicholas, which argues that the most effective steps any of us can take to decrease carbon emissions are to eat a plant-based diet, avoid flying, live car free and have one fewer child — the last having the most significant impact by far. ...

To take Wynes and Nicholas’s recommendations to heart would mean cutting oneself off from modern life. It would mean choosing a hermetic, isolated existence and giving up any deep connection to the future. Indeed, taking Wynes and Nicholas’s argument seriously would mean acknowledging that the only truly moral response to global climate change is to commit suicide. There is simply no more effective way to shrink your carbon footprint. Once you’re dead, you won’t use any more electricity, you won’t eat any more meat, you won’t burn any more gasoline, and you certainly won’t have any more children. If you really want to save the planet, you should die. ...

When my daughter was born I felt a love and connection I’d never felt before: a surge of tenderness harrowing in its intensity. I knew that I would kill for her, ...
If Scranton really believes all this, then the logical conclusion is not to kill himself. That will not solve anything. It is to kill for the sake of his daughter.

He should favor a World War III, the purpose of which is to exterminate everyone from China, India, and Africa. That is where population growth and economic development will cause those disastrous carbon emissions.

Going vegan or avoiding flying is silly. Such personal decisions will have no effect on carbon emissions, as he recognizes in his essay. Neither will any other likely policy. Only massive war and genocide have any hope of saving us.

I think that he has greatly exaggerated the harm from climate change, but that is not the point here. If you are convinced that billions of people are destroying the planet, what can you do? Killing billions of people is drastic, but the climate change doomsayers present such a bleak picture of the future that killing billions may be preferable.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

The plot to destroy Papa John's Pizza

The NY Times reports on the plot to destroy Papa Johns:
Last fall, he complained that the National Football League had hurt Papa John’s sales by failing to handle football players who protested racism and police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem.

The comments were praised by white supremacists but denounced by many consumers and investors. Mr. Schnatter stepped down as chief executive. Papa John’s gave up a longtime sponsorship deal with the N.F.L. and was promptly replaced by Pizza Hut.
No, the NFL players started by protesting Ferguson Mo, which means they sided with a black thug who tried to kill a white cop.
The latest furor stems from a May 22 conference call with Laundry Service, a marketing agency, that was intended to prepare him for future questions about diversity.

During the call, he was confronted about the N.F.L. uproar and asked whether he was racist, Mr. Schnatter wrote in a letter to the Papa John’s board that was reviewed by The New York Times. He denied the assertion and then, Mr. Schnatter wrote, he said Col. Harland Sanders, who founded the Kentucky Fried Chicken fast-food chain and was its longtime spokesman, used the racial slur to describe black people. Colonel Sanders died in 1980.

But Mr. Schnatter said he would never use that word.

“Let me be very clear: I never used the ‘N’ word in that meeting as a racial epithet, nor would I ever,” he wrote.

The day after the call, Papa John’s decided to fire Laundry Service, Mr. Schnatter wrote. The pizza company owed $1.3 million for the marketing firm’s services, but Laundry Service said that some of its employees had been offended by Mr. Schnatter’s comments on the call and demanded $6 million, with one of its lawyers threatening to conduct “a smear campaign,” Mr. Schnatter wrote. Papa John’s offered to pay $2.5 million, he wrote.
So Schnatter just quoted someone a private call with his marketing firm?!

This appears to be simple extortion by the marketing firm. Even if Schnatter had made a racist comment, and it appears that he did not, the marketing firm had a confidential duty to suggest what should be said publicly. Instead, it decided to leak a distorted version of the conversation in order to force Papa John's to pay more money.

If the marketing firm's employees are really so offended, they could suggest that the firm quit working for Papa John's. But to demand that they get more money to compensate them for being offended?

I doubt that anyone will want to hire that marketing firm again.

Friday, July 13, 2018

Roosh is banned from England

Roosh V. writes:
For my June trip to Washington D.C., I chose Icelandic discount air carrier Wow Air to save $400 compared to the airline I normally use. There was only one catch: on my return, I would have a connecting flight in London’s Stansfeld airport. I know I’m banned from England, but it should be safe to have a layover where I don’t have to go through customs, right? Four-hundred dollars was enough motivation to find out.
Iceland recalled the airplane, at the request of the UK.

It is pretty crazy that he is banned from England. He runs a web site that expresses opinions on a variety. Some people think that he is part of the Men's Rights Movement, but actually he hardly every writes about men's rights. He does write about issues of interest to men, and some of it is not politically correct to leftists. You might disagree with some of it, but it is all well within legally acceptable opinion in the USA. He does not advocate any violence or illegal acts. I have enjoyed many articles on his site.

Saturday, July 07, 2018

Why Mohammedans make war against infidels

From WSJ:
From a March 28, 1786, letter written by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were American diplomats at the time, to U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay reporting on their conversation in London with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States:
We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
This is what Moslems believed in 1786. It is also what they believed a millennium ago, and what they believe today.

Not all Moslems, of course. But it is hard to find any Moslem leaders who disavow these beliefs, or any majority Moslem country that gives full civil rights to infidels.

Books today are not allowed to tell the truth:
Random House is reportedly spiking the planned publication of a book from a controversial German author over worries it could drum up anti-Islam sentiment.

According to German outlet Bild Daily (via Agence-France Presse), the publishing giant is pulling the plug on a book titled Hostile Takeover — How Islam Hampers Progress and Threatens Society, by controversial German writer Thilo Sarrazin.
They keep calling him "controversial" to indicate that he is telling truths that are not supposed to be said. They cannot censor 1200 years of history.

Thursday, July 05, 2018

Who are the American people?

From a NY Times op-ed:
I have devoted a substantial part of my intellectual life to defining and defending conservatism, as a social philosophy and a political program. ...

Americans are conscious of their constitutional rights and freedoms. These assets are not guaranteed by human nature and exist only because Americans have fought for them. And they have fought for them as a nation, facing the future together. National identity is the origin of the trust on which political order depends. Such trust does not exist in Libya or Syria. But it exists in America, and the country has no more precious asset than the mutual loyalty that enables the words “we, the people” to resonate with every American, regardless of whether it is a liberal or a conservative who utters them.

Those first words of the United States Constitution do not refer to all people everywhere. They refer to the people who reside here, in this place and under this rule of law, and who are the guardians and beneficiaries of a shared political inheritance. Grasping that point is the first principle of conservatism.

Our political inheritance is not the property of humanity in general but of our country in particular.
It goes on to denounce President Trump, of course. The NY Times only prints something labeled "conservative" if it is from a Trump-hater.

But who are the "people" of the Constitution?

The US Supreme Court's most famous decision explains it this way:
This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language.

The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States -- that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States -- and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. ...

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.
It says that no one would dispute this, but in fact the dissent argues that some states did give rights to free negroes:
The fourth of the fundamental articles of the Confederation was as follows:

"The free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States."

The fact that free persons of color were citizens of some of the several States, and the consequence that this fourth article of the Confederation would have the effect to confer on such persons the privileges and immunities of general citizenship, were not only known to those who framed and adopted those articles, but the evidence is decisive that the fourth article was intended to have that effect, and that more restricted language, which would have excluded such persons, was deliberately and purposely rejected.

On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white," so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged, and both by its terms of inclusion, "free inhabitants," and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice," who alone were excepted, it is clear that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and, by reason of their citizenship in certain States, were, entitled to the privileges and immunities of general citizenship of the United States.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016, we would have a 6-vote leftist majority on the Supreme Court to vote against the very idea of an American people.

America stands for the American people. While there may be some disagreement about who precisely those people are, it does not include gang members from Honduras.

Tuesday, July 03, 2018

Labor Decision is big blow to the Left

Philip Greenspun writes:
“Supreme Court Labor Decision Wasn’t Just a Loss for Unions” (nytimes):
The Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory union fees for government workers was not only a blow to unions. It will also hit hard at a vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates.

Some of these groups work for immigrants…
If the purpose of a labor union is primarily to increase wages for its members, why would they try to increase competition at the lower end of the labor market? (see “Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers” by a Harvard economist for a summary of the literature).
These govt worker associations are not really labor unions. They are leftist political groups, and the Left is determined to destroy America as we know it.

Greenspun gives some theories, but none of them fully explain why these so-called unions would be pro-immigrant.

My theory is that these groups are dominated by those who hate white Christian American men, so they seek whatever policies are most anti-white.

How else to explain the marches last weekend in favor of open borders and abolishing ICE? Supposedly it was provoked by kids being separated from their parents, but that happens to Americans all the time:
Even if President Trump's new order keeps immigrant families at the border from being torn asunder, we will still live in a country where the government can seize children from perfectly loving, competent parents. It happens all the time, and not just to immigrant families — American citizens deal with these injustices as well, thanks to the actions of child protective services.
It also happens all the time in family court. But somehow all those marchers are supposedly excited about criminals from Honduras not having rights that Americans don't have either.

No, of course they don't. They are just Leftists who are out to destroy America as we know.

This is a sensitive topic, as Ron Paul had to retract this:
Their original argument of workers being *exploited* by capitalists, didn't sell. It's obviously not the case.

So Marxists just shifted their "exploitation" schtick to culture:
--- women exploited by men
--- gays exploited by heterosexuals
--- The old exploited by the young -- and vice-versa
--- This list goes on and on.

Anything that is true is to be twisted like a pretzel -- to the point where people can't tell what is true anymore.

How do you think they're doing?

Had enough yet?

Then don't be afraid to stand up for truth, and speak it!

Otherwise, history can most definitely repeat itself.

And the history of Socialism is as nasty and brutish as it gets. Nothing compares to it in terms of human suffering.
Here is the New Republic criticism:
Cultural Marxism, as used by right-wingers like Ron Paul, is the conspiracy theory that modern identity politics is based on the teachings of the Frankfurt School. This theory is in itself anti-Semitic and rests on an absurd fabrication of intellectual history (anti-racism movements have a history that long precedes Marxism and the Frankfurt school theorists were quiescent social critics obsessed with European high culture). The point of the “Cultural Marxism” meme is to blame all the things the right hates on a handful of mostly Jewish thinkers.
Yes, cultural marxists would tell us that we should not use a perfectly descriptive term like cultural marxism. Wikipedia refuses to have a separate article on the subject, and calls it Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Here is the urban dictionary definition.

Sunday, July 01, 2018

Trump-haters say nonviolence is not enough

From a NY Times op-ed:
This misunderstanding is widespread. Democratic leaders have lashed out at an epidemic of uncivil behavior in their own ranks. ...

The theme: We need a little more love, a little more Martin Luther King, a dollop of Gandhi. Be polite, be civil, present arguments thoughtfully and reasonably. Appeal to people’s better angels. Take the moral high ground above Trump and his supporters’ low road. Above all, don’t disrupt.

This sugarcoating of protest has a long history. ...

But, in fact, civil rights leaders, while they did believe in the power of nonviolence, knew that their success depended on disruption and coercion as much — sometimes more — than on dialogue and persuasion. They knew that the vast majority of whites who were indifferent or openly hostile to the demands of civil rights would not be moved by appeals to the American creed or to bromides about liberty and justice for all. Polite words would not change their behavior.
I believe that much of the Left wants to start a civil war.

Every Democrat appointment to the Supreme Court since FDR has been a hard-core leftist ideologue. The NY Times top story today is that one of them (a Jewish woman) complains that conservatives have "weaponized" the constitutional right to free speech.

95% of the news media endorsed Hillary Clinton in the last election, and newspapers like the NY Times print extreme nasty attacks on President Trump on a daily basis. And now it complains that Trump supporters might have free speech rights also!

For the Left, polite debate is not working. They want more name-calling, Hitler comparisons, and uncivil confrontations. Soon they will be actively encouraging non-whites to violently attack whites. I think that this is going to get ugly.