Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism. Putin is plugging into some of the modern world’s most powerful currents. Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America’s arrogant drive for global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated. He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.
In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia’s flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity.
The PC hysteria caucus is predictably outraged because a long time South Carolina Republican who may have something other than scorn and contempt for his ancestors and state has been picked to head the College of Charleston.
I don’t know if a retiring politician is actually qualified to be a University President, but a school picking a politician is certainly not without precedent. David Boren became the President of the University of Oklahome. Donna Shalala became the President of the University of Miami, and those are just off the top of my head. So who really believes these PC enforcers are more worried about credentials than they are right think?
McConnell, who spent more than 30 years in the state Senate (including 11 as its leader before becoming lieutenant governor) is being eyed suspiciously for two reasons: his political connections and his association with Confederate history.
Faculty said the search process was a sham, given that McConnell emerged at the top of the heap despite reports the search committee didn’t choose him as a finalist.
His critics also paint him as a Confederate sympathizer. He used to own a shop that sold memorabilia of the South’s rebellion; he appears in a widely circulated picture dressed as a Confederate general; and he is a longtime supporter of flying the Confederate flag on the statehouse grounds. McConnell, whose office did not respond to a request for comment, has previously said his affiliation with Confederate regalia has to do with history and states’ rights.
David Yeagley has passed away from cancer. I was not aware he was sick. May he R.I.P. From the linked announcement, it sounds like he was a Christian.
Yeagley was recently the subject of a flurry of headlines because of his lawsuit victory over the folks who shut down the 2010 American Renaissance conference, although the significance of that victory outside the state of Oklahoma is disputed. It was at the least a moral victory, despite the protests of the “antifa.”
I am not familiar enough with Yeagley to know where he stood on all issues, but I appreciated his battle against the machine.
Richard Spencer posted the following on FaceBook. It is a retweet, but I assume it reflects his feelings about his recent foray into CPAC.
Retweeted Dark enlightenment (@enlightdark):
CPAC is an exercise in futility. Libertarianism is the most coherent ideology currently available and it’s completely suicidal.
Libertarianism is a coherent philosophy, and that is one reason I believe it is so attractive to young people. It is coherent and reductive and eliminates messy contradictions. While there are libertarians who can be sensible on immigration, the non-nuanced libertarian position is borderless with no governmental restrictions on movement. IMO, NPI types might do better making their pitch to more traditional conservatives on the basis that demographic change dooms the Republican Party and conservatism. Conservative intuitively understand this, they just make public PC arguments because they are afraid to do otherwise.
Update: I looked for a comment on CPAC at Radix Journal, and didn’t find one, but it turns out they were in the blog section rather than the front page.
Here is a post on the plans for the conference.
Here is a post on immigration at CPAC.
The SPLC has labeled Liberty Alliance a hate group. Liberty Alliance affiliated sites send me a lot of emails, and while they tend to promote articles full of red meat for the base, they are always well within the norm of mainstream conservatism. So the SPLC is essentially naming a mainstream conservative enterprise a hate group because it’s perhaps a more scrappy mainstream conservative group. That’s a reach even by SPLC smear standards.
(The most interesting part of this story is identifying the various Liberty Alliance sites which explains why I often get similar emails from different sites.)
Since we’re on the subject of pop culture, this is worth noting. Steven Seagal has called for Obama’s impeachment.
The actor appeared at the Western Conservative Conference in Phoenix, AZ on February 22, 2014, and was not aware that he would be speaking but what he did say, he spoke plainly in the seriousness with his message.
During the conference, a lot of funny political jokes were said but Seagal said that what he is about to say will not fit into the funniness of the night’s event.
Seagal said, “What I have to say is quite serious. What I want to say is that never in my life did I ever believe that our country would be taken over by people, like the people who are running it… at this day.”
I know that Seagal is mostly a straight to video actor these days, but since so few people in Hollywood and pop culture are on our side, any defections are noteworthy. I don’t know where Seagal stands on all the issues, but what he says here is pretty hard core, and that he was willing to attend this venue is comendable. He has clearly identified himself with us Reds in the us against them war.
Why Don’t They Just Get it Over With and Start Calling the Oscars the PCscars?
Let’s see, Ellen, practically dressed like a man, was the hostess.
Jared Leto won Best Supporting Actor.
Matthew McConaughey won Best Actor.
Twelve Years a Slave won Best Picture.
The bottom three were entirely predictable.
I’m not saying that McConaughey and Leto didn’t give deserving performances or that Twelve Years a Slave wasn’t well done. What I’m suggesting is that having a PC angle clearly gives you a leg up on the competition. For example, last year Django Unchained won recognition way out of proportion to its merit because it was a white guilt fest.
This story is a couple of days old now, but someohow I was asleep at the wheel and missed it. Once I started hearing about it I looked into the details and was outraged, but I wasn’t outraged at the naivete of an newly elected and obviously green Paulesq Campaign for Liberty backed Georgia House member. I was outraged by the calculated attack by Establishment hack Republicans who staged a piece of grand political theater to attack their right flank and put in his place a upstart who threatened to upset their old boys club.
In brief, Rep. Sam Moore submitted a bill to the Georgia legislature that was intended to decrease the authority of the police to arrest people based on vague anti-loitering laws. It contained language that would have loosened some restrictions on sex offenders and the hacks saw their chance to pounce on an uppity new House member whose focus on liberty threatens their reason for being. Whether that particular language was good law or not, what is at issue here is not a particular piece of legislation. What is at issue is the fact that a bunch of shameless hacks chose to grandstand rather than attempt to govern rightly. If the language was bad, either from an actual legislative standpoint or from a looks bad politically standpoint, then just calmly suggest to Rep. Moore that he might want to make some changes. For several House members to take to the floor to publically express outrage reeks of an orchestrated political hit job.
Here is some commentary on this travesty that gets it right.
And here is one that gets it wrong.
I include this particular example, among many that get it wrong, because I posted a comment below it. My comment is a bit harsh, but hardball from hacks begets hardball back.
Give me a break Jason. The Establishment Republicans deliberately used this opportunity to attack someone they see as a threat and not part of the old boys club and YOU KNOW IT! To pretend like this was all a legitimate uprising because of some truly awful offense is a deliberate sham. Any issues with the bills, whether actual or just potential opportunities for grandstanders to make rhetorical political hay, could have been addressed in a measured sensible way in a back room somewhere as is usually the case. More senior members of the party who were actually interested in right governing instead of striking a blow against their right flank would have quietly made suggestions to Rep. Moore with an eye toward protecting a new member rather than grandstand like a bunch of shameless peacocks. They have taken a page stright from the PC Cultural Marxist rightthink enforcement playbook with their “point and sputter” and feigned outrage game playing. Pretending not to recognize this does not make you a “statist” or a “patsy.” It makes you a co-conspirator. And I dare you to forever sacrifice your credibility as a political commentator to here for all the world to see pretend that you don’t realize that this was about political game playing and not about the merits or lack thereof of any piece of legislation.
I hate it when the left uses these tactics, but I expect it from them. It’s what mindless morally stunted leftists do, but when supposed conservatives do it to their right flank, it makes my blood boil.
Update: Here is an article that gives an explanation of the background of the bill.
This is how Thomas Fleming announced his new column on FaceBook:
I’ve posted a deliberately provocative piece on our website. It should offend all respectable people. https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/kansas-bleeds-again/
Well, provocative it is, but he is right. Take a look. The right in America is so whipped by its fear of being called bad names, that they can’t make logical arguments. The arguments they need to make are inherently illiberal, but they are afraid to make them. Partially because they have absorbed so much of the ambient liberalism that they believe it, and partially because they fear reprisal. So they often end up making convoluted liberal arguments toward an illiberal end. The argument against gay “marriage” for example, is inherently illiberal because it is based on the rejection of absolute equalism and the defense of righteous discrimination. Reading this you can just see some movement con getting his back up. “I don’t want to discriminate! How dare you!” But yes he does and rightfully so.
Once upon a time, the meaning of the term “constitutional” was understood as “what powers the federal government is given.” But thanks largely to the legacy of the president whose birthday it is today, that term now means “what subjects of the United States are permitted to do.”
Think I’m wrong? Check out this story on yet another DC power grab:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that North Carolina’s attempt to offer a “Choose Life” license plate and not provide an abortion-rights alternative was unconstitutional.
The ruling is the third time one of the Republican-led General Assembly’s abortion laws has been struck down over the past three years.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in a 3-0 opinion written by Judge James Wynn of North Carolina.
“Chief amongst the evils the First Amendment prohibits are government ‘restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others,’” Wynn wrote.
Now there are certain extremists (me, for example) who think the First Amendment, like all the Bill of Rights, defined clear limitations to federal power. Those dangerous extremists would argue the sovereign State of North Carolina not only has the final say on what it puts on the license tags it issues, but would go on to say that North Carolina can adopt any slogan it wants, no matter who in DC disapproves. These days, however, all reasonable and moderate people know the Constitution makes DC sovereign. So it’s only natural that DC tells the people of the States what they can and cannot do.
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, a private Catholic school is being sued by a cafeteria worker claiming he should be allowed to work at that school despite his homosexuality. He’s in a “same-sex marriage,” and the school, which upholds traditional Catholic values, does not want to be seen as endorsing that man’s lifestyle.
But as NPR reporter Tovia Smith observes in her story, “Ultimately the question of how much leeway religious organizations have in hiring will be answered by the Supreme Court.”
Get that? We must look to the federal government to learn “how much leeway” will be permitted.
Notice that the political doctrine being enforced here is that DC views “rights” as belonging to the individual, not to the States or religious institutions.
So when libertarians claim their ideology is the best weapon in resisting an authoritarian federal government, ask how that is possible when they hold the same central belief that justifies that government’s endless expansion into our lives.
Apparently the faculty at Layola University, including the University President, has their panties in a bunch again because Walter Block won’t play by their PC rules. Of course, this is, as usual, entirely feigned outrage. They know good and well that an anarchist libertarian doesn’t think slavery is peachy, and if they don’t know that then they are too ignorant to be teaching at the local elementary school, much less at a respected university. They are just jumping on an opportunity to do the PC “point and sputter” because Block is clearly not a PC rightthinker otherwise.
To address the Presidents’ childish letter (I guess they don’t make Jesuits like they used to) specifically, since Block is a libertarian it logically follows that he doesn’t support anti-discrimination laws such as the Civil Rights Act because he supports the right of private individuals and entities to discriminate, whether he agrees with it morally or not. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be a consistent libertarian. You know, like the cosmotarians at Reason. So again, spare me the feigned outrage that’s obviously calculated to protect you and your institution from charges of wrongthink from the PC though cops, rather than make a sound argument. And spare me the claim that you would fail Block for illogic, when you just wrote a whiny letter to the school paper that is full of its own illogic as I point out above.
Here is the faculty letter which is a little more substantive than the President’s, but still a classic example of “point and sputter” feigned PC outrage. Just to address one point, the letter rants “Block not only attacks the legitimacy and constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…” Well yeah … because the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and from a libertarian perspective was illegitimate for the reason I explained above. (For the record, I consider myself more of a paleocon than a libertarian, but you don’t have to be one to understand logical consistency.) If he didn’t think it was illegitimate then he wouldn’t be a proper libertarian now would he? As for it being unconstitutional, you have to understand that not everyone turns off their intellect and genuflects before the determinations of a modern Court. I assume Block is speaking from an originalist perspective, which would argue that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional because there is no constitutionally delegated power to prohibit private discrimination. If these PC cloistered academics would actually educate themselves instead of just repeating approved platitudes, they would know that such a thing as originalism exists, and then they might actually be able to attempt to counter it rather than run to the student newspaper saying essentially “Mommy, Mommy, Mr. Block uttered wrongthink! Please make him stop!” like a bunch of kindergarteners.
Tom Woods explains the situation below:
Here is the Walter Block resource page Woods speaks of.
Here is Woods’ blog post containing the above video.
The only slavery the faculty and President of Layola University should be concerned about is their own PC thoughtslavery.
Coke’s America the Beautiful ad has been praised by the boosters of multiculturalism, but it has also been harshly criticized by many flyover country yahoos who know a dis when they see it. Coke has apparently heard the criticism and is modifying the ad slightly to include the phrase E Pluribus Unum in Latin and English.
The ad is self-contradictory, as any person willing to look can tell. It features Jews and Muslims who based on attire seem to be at least somewhat observant. Well I have news for Coke, those groups have a history of not getting along. It has what has been widely assumed to be a gay couple. It shouldn’t be news to Coke that observant Jews and Muslims don’t have much use for homosexuals. So it could be argued that what the ad actually suggests is not so much the tired mantra that “diversity is our strength,” as “come to America and we’ll liberalize the diversity out of you and make you into a good little amorphous consumers just like the rest of us.” They’re won’t be any conflict if everyone is taught that their ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. are largely irrelevant or at least not worth differing about.
While I don’t think the addition of E Pluribus Unum helps that much if at all, it’s encouraging that Coke has heard the criticism and that many were willing to speak out despite being called names by the promoters of multiculturalism.
We would like to direct your attention to a group dedicated to opposing the amnesty supporting antics of Dr. Russell Moore and his Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention. The group is ERLC Watch.
They have been giving Dr. Moore a much deserved hard time of late, especially on Twitter.
Rod Dreher, who is normally pretty squemish regarding un-PC topics, has stirred up a hornets nest with a recent post about evolution and the culture wars. His blog post has 348 comments at the time of this writing. Brad Delong has responded with typical PC outrage. I don’t know how many comments his post has because I can’t see where they are numbered, but Steve Sailer says there are 250+.
I have not read the comments at either site yet. I wasn’t even aware that there was a raging Dreher post at TAC until I read the Sailer article above. I’m just passing along the controversy for now. I’ll try to wade through some of the hysteria when I have time.
Dreher has replied here.
The New York Times recently ran a front page hit piece against Rand Paul and the usual cast of boogeymen the centrists and liberals trot out every time they have one of their periodic spasms about alleged extremism. They attack a lot of different people and groups, but Rand Paul is the obvious target. He must have them running scared. It would probably blow their poor little pristine mainstream minds to know that some of us don’t think Rand Paul is extreme enough.
Lew Rockwell responds here
Tom Woods responds here (on FaceBook so I’m not sure everyone will be able to see it)
Ralph Raico here
Chris Rossini here
Update: Walter Block replies here
Tom Woods replies here on YouTube
The ADL has published a hit piece on Ron Unz. The article is dated Jan 20, 2014. My attention was drawn to it by this condensed version which appeared on their blog today (Jan 23, 2014). The article refrains from calling Unz personally anti-Semitic, but states “he provides support to extreme anti-Israel ideologues and his writings resonate with and are regularly cited by anti-Semites.” Curiously, the article does not mention that UNZ IS JEWISH, which seems a relevant piece of information in an article accusing him of giving safe harbor to anti-Semites. Of note, the article does outright call Paul Craig Roberts an anti-Semite.
Walter has already commented below on Mark Shea’s recent PC rant against the Dark Enlightenment. Shea’s post is a virtually content free denunciation of wrongthink, but I want to comment on one of the comments. That comment is by Jordan Bloom, and is an eminently sensible response to Shea’s rant. What stands out about it is that Jordan Bloom (or J. Arthur Bloom) is the same guy who recently wrote a hit piece against Richard Spencer and the National Policy Institute for the Daily Caller. We discussed that hit piece here. I replied to Jordan in the comments. I should have replied specifically to his comment, but I wasn’t thinking at the time and just commented in general, so who knows if I he has seen it. So what gives? Does Jordan oppose PC denunciations of wrongthink, or does he engage in them? Will the real Jordan Bloom please stand up.
On a related topic: I was recently shocked to discover D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation on Netflix Instant Video. Funny how that movie makes the cut, but we’ll never see Gone With the Wind, It’s a Joke, Son!, and Song of the South on Instant Video. Netflix founder and CEO Reed Hastings backs mass illegal immigration after all.
HT: “Sam” from James Edwards’s blog comments for video.