America's First Lady and Russia's First Lady

When Barrack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev were meeting, Michelle Obama took Medvedev's wife, Svetlana Medvedeva, to a performance at Duke Ellington School of the Arts. Above is a picture of them at that event.

I was going to write a post regarding Michelle Obama and her "style" (which the fashionistas are undoubtedly busy fawning over), but I think I'll let the picture speak for itself.

DR Congo Turns 50

Fifty years ago today (June 30, 1960), the present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly called Zaire) gained independence from Belgium. I wonder if the people of the DR Congo really think they are better under African kleptocrats than they were under Belgian colonialists.

"Street Harassment" Public Safety Alert in Toronto

From the Globe and Mail:

June 17: Public Safety Alert, Suspicious man

"It is reported that: - a man has been approaching women in these parks, attempting to start conversations with them, while not criminal in nature, the conversations have generally consisted of the women’s physical characteristics, asking them their names or invitations to attend restaurants."

At first I was going to write a post criticizing the police for wasting time on "street harassment" cases. Then it occurred to me that Canadian cities have certain differences compared to their American counterparts. The fact that Toronto is populated mostly by whites and Asians, rather than blacks and Mexicans, being one of them. Apparently, when the police don't have to respond to ten homicides and dozens of shootings every weekend, they have different priorities.

Dress Codes for Women are a Joke

Ever since "business casual" became popular in the 1990s, work dress codes have essentially become male-only. Women's only restrictions could be summed as "no bare breasts, midriff, or groin."

Take Disney for example. For years Disney's dress code for its employees was described as "conservative," which in the gynocentric, feminized liberal media means "women are expected to dress like they are not at work, not a nightclub." A few days ago, Disney apparently decided that they were wrong to hold women to any standards in appearance:

Disney theme parks' dress coder relaxed
Female employees don't have to wear pantyhose with skirts anymore, unless the leg wear is part of a costume.
By Hugo Martín and Jason Garcia
June 16, 2010
Reporting from Los Angeles and Orlando, Fla. —

Chalk one up for women who work at Disney theme parks: They don't have to wear pantyhose anymore.

In the biggest change to the company's appearance code in a decade, the Walt Disney Co. has decided to let most female employees at Disney theme parks worldwide, including the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, forgo pantyhose when wearing skirts.

Although it may seem a trivial change in any other business, the relaxing of dress codes at Disneyland is a significant move considering that founder Walt Disney was adamant about making sure all employees maintained a well-groomed, all-American look.

"That clean-cut look never went out of style as far as Walt Disney was concerned," said David Koenig, the author of four books on Disneyland and a regular writer for http://www.mouseplanet.com, a website about the Disney parks.

Koenig recounts a time in the 1970s when some Disneyland managers brandished rulers to ensure that employees' sideburns and hair length met strict grooming standards.

But since then, the company has regularly revisited and relaxed its appearance and dress codes. The last major change to the policy came in 2000 when the company let male employees wear mustaches. Disney tweaked its guidelines again a few years later by allowing male employees to style their hair in cornrows.

Disney officials said the latest change, announced companywide May 28, was prompted by a routine review of company guidelines and a comparison with the dress codes of other Fortune 500 corporations.

"We continuously evaluate our appearances," Disneyland spokeswoman Betsy Sanchez said. "We are trying to stay relevant."

The decision to permit female employees to forgo pantyhose applies to most Disney employees, except where the leg wear is part of a particular costume, such as the outfit for characters such as Tinker Bell or Alice from Alice in Wonderland.

Among the 20,000 or so employees at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, the changes will apply mostly to staff who work in offices or behind the scenes at the park.

Among other changes to the code, women will for the first time be permitted to wear sleeveless tops — though in typically restrictive Disney fashion, only if the shoulder straps are at least 3 inches wide. Female employees also will be allowed to wear Capri pants and sling-back shoes that also have open toes.

Men, meanwhile, will now be allowed to wear untucked, casual shirts.

This "dress code" like most modern American dress codes for working women is a joke. Note that under Disney's new dress code women can wear sleeveless shirts, capris, skirts with bare legs, and sandals. They can basically wear whatever they want (except shorts, it would appear). That's not professional looking - that's casual. And keep in mind that this is the dress code at a "conservative" company. But of course, "conservative" means "what was liberal ten or fifteen years ago."

Men, in contrast, are now finally allowed to wear untucked shirts, although women were probably doing that at Disney for years before. But even with untucked (presumably collared) shirts, men will still be wearing slacks, socks, and dress shoes, which look a lot more professional than what the women will be wearing.

The headline writer made a big deal over the fact that women don't have to wear nylons anymore (Disney was probably one of the few places left to require women to wear them after bare legs became ubiquitous throughout the 2000s). Nylons make women look professional and polished, improving their image. Of course, American women stopped caring about their appearances long ago, except to make themselves look sluttier, so it's understandable why they are happy about not having to wear them anymore.

Don't mistake me for a prude. I have no problem with women wearing revealing clothing in general and I'm probably less prudish than most Americans in some ways. For example I wouldn't have a problem with women going topless on American beaches as many do in Europe. But I think that there is a time and place for such clothing. Work is not one of them. If men are capable of dressing professionally, then women should be to.

It really shouldn't be surprising that so many companies have nonexistent dress codes for women. HR departments are run by women, like the spokeswoman quoted, who are to busy "trying to stay relevant" with the latest Sex and the City styles than to hold women to any sort of professional appearance standards. That just wouldn't be fashionable. And corporate men are probably too afraid to hold women to any sort of appearance standards, for various reasons.

Professional jobs are becoming more and more feminized as America reverts to a 21st century female farming system matriarchy. Combine this with the fact that young American women have sluttiness ingrained into them from the time they are kids and it's easy to see why corporations don't (or are unable to) hold women to appearance and dress standards anymore.

When Black Knights Attack

By now, the video of the black girl being punched by a Seattle police officer has been commented on by innumerable bloggers, reporters, and writers. What most of them fail to note is that the police officer did not punch the girl for no reason - he did so after she shoved him when he was arresting her friend.

Liberals, libertarians, blacks, and feminists are uproarious, attacking the police officer for his "excessive use of force," "police brutality," "racism," etc.

They really should just admit that they are upset because a man hit a woman. If a man - even a black man - had shoved a police officer and received a punch to the face, there would be no news stories, no YouTube videos, and no blog posts ranting about the police.

Ashkenazi Jews Protest In Support of School Segregation...

... in Israel.

In some ways, Israeli Jews function as foils to American Jews. While American Jews almost uniformly believe "diversity is our strength," Israeli Jews do not. Not only can they not get along with the Arabs, but some can't even get along with members of other Jewish ethnic divisions.

A few days ago, thousands of ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews protested in Jerusalem against the integration of a girls' school, which forced their girls to go to school with Sephardi girls:

Parents of European, or Ashkenazi, descent at a girls' school in the West Bank settlement of Emanuel don't want their daughters to study with schoolgirls of Mideast and North African descent, known as Sephardim.

The Ashkenazi parents insist they aren't racist, but want to keep the classrooms segregated, as they have been for years, arguing that the families of the Sephardi girls aren't religious enough.

Israel's Supreme Court rejected that argument, and ruled that the 43 sets of parents who have defied the integration efforts by keeping their daughters from school were to be jailed on Thursday for two weeks.

Haaretz's article contained a revealing passage:

Thirty-five men, fathers to the Ashkenazi girls attending an illegally segregated school in the West Bank settlement of Immanuel, arrived at the Ma'asiyahu prison earlier Thursday evening to serve a two-week sentence.

But two other fathers and 22 mothers also sentenced failed to show at the Jerusalem police headquarters as ordered by the court.

Both mothers and fathers were ordered to prison, but the all of the mothers are failing to report. Part of civil disobedience is accepting your punishment, but apparently the women disagree. I wouldn't be surprised if the courts end up dropping the charges against the women. Remember, women are never responsible for their actions - men are.

Anyways, this is yet another example of the fact that diversity is not a strength. Instead, it sows discord and conflict wherever it is found.

Templates

I got tired of the default "simple" template, so I'm experimenting with this black and white one. Any thoughts on it or alternate templates?

Why I Am Not a Conservative, Part II

In the past five years, I've read countless articles and blog posts by paleoconservatives, libertarian-conservatives, constitutionalists, and "traditional conservatives" arguing that the Republicans are not authentic or true conservatives. These arguments strike me as similar to old English teachers who obsess over the use of "who" and "whom." In both cases, they fail to realize that words change. "Conservatism" may have once meant limited government, but it now does not mean that

I probably should have written my original post better, as most of the readers of this blog are probably self-described conservatives, rather than self-described libertarians. I should have focused on the hypocrisy of conservatives (i.e. supporting war while calling for lower taxes, attacking gay marriage while their 17-year old unmarried daughters get pregnant). I also should have focused more on my first criticism of conservatism and how it is a baseless, shifting, incoherent ideology. I also should have made it clear that I don't have a problem with paleoconservatives (although some of my criticisms would undoubtedly apply to them), but rather the mainstream conservatives.

Anyways, I have a lot to respond to. First, I will do so to Justin of The Truth Shall Set You Free:

For example, I would think you would agree that cultural and social libertarianism are abject failures, in fact, totally disgusting and destructive in their support of sexual deviance, for example.

I would argue that there really isn't such a think as social libertarianism. Libertarians believe that people should be free from government interference, but that doesn't mean they have to support the actions they perform.

Clearly, libertarians also fall under condemnation number seven, also being blind on racial issues, and they default to blaming minority pathologies on government programs rather than facing biological realities.

True, although during the 90s, the Rothbardians and Ron Paul understood race. Many of LewRockwell.com's columns from its first year (2000) hinted that their writers understood race - they even had a Rhodesian Bush War veteran write for them. Also, libertarians don't praise diversity to the extent that conservatives do.

As for number eight, don't libertarians also worship democracy? I can't think of any libertarian theorists who have suggested anything else, can you?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian economist and libertarian theorist, wrote a book called Democracy: The God that Failed, eviscerating the concept of democracy. His work is well received on LewRockwell.com, probably the most popular libertarian website. Most libertarians are critical of the 17th Amendment, including the beltway Cato Institute.

Can libertarians claim to have better moral values? Aside from Christian libertarians like Ron Paul, the only other libertarian morality I can think of is Ayn Rand-style Objectivist elevation of selfishness. Which of course lead us into the acceptance of all the moral degeneracy that makes cultural libertarianism attractive to the Left.

I was not saying that libertarians, conservatives, or liberals have better moral values than the others. I was critical of the fact that conservatives use "moral values" as a rallying cry, even though they have no better moral values than people of other political groups.

As for libertarian women's sluttiness, well, I dunno, are there women libertarians? :-) You must admit, they are few and far between. In my own sample, for what it's worth, the girls I knew who were into Ayn Rand were total sluts, and often consciously proud of it.

Female libertarians are rare. Some of them are almost hipster-ish, and hipster girls often seem less slutty than other women. But my criticism is that conservative women, especially young ones, are no less slutty than liberal ones, despite the fact that conservatives attack liberal culture for its sluttiness.

Maybe just being overly semantic here, but saying paleoconservatives aren't conservatives seems a bit unwarranted. In fact, as you seem to recognize, you fit the bill rather squarely as a paleoconservative yourself. I would say you are either a paleocon, or simply Radical Reactionary.

I don't think that paleocons are not conservatives. I just think that when most people imagine conservatives, they aren't thinking of Pat Buchanan and Jared Taylor, they are thinking of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, the kind of people who possess the views and characteristics I criticized.

foseti:

Many of these points apply just as well to libertarians, yet you call yourself a libertarian.

I'd be curious to know why you are ok with the libertarian label.

Only 5 and 7 apply to many libertarians. I'm okay with just being labeled a libertarian because there isn't a term for a race realist who holds libertarian views.

Professor Hale (Rebellion University) wrote an extensive post to argue against my post. My response follows. The numbers in parenthesis were added by me and refer to which of my original points he quoted (I excised the quotations to cut down on the length of this post).

(1)You have made the fallacious argument that the core values of conservatism are unworthy because the practitioners of conservatism do not uphold those values. You are right to point out that censorship and the police state are not conservative values. But your proper conclusion should be that those people who claim to be conservative are not really practicing what they preach.

The problem is, what are conservative values? If you say support for limited government, peace, and liberty, with respect for every person's right to life, liberty, and property, then that would describe libertarianism. American conservatism seems to be a cacophony of various, contradicting ideas.

The size of the military budget is always open for debate among conservatives. But again, BEING conservative means opposing big government and higher taxes, even if that results in a smaller military. Being for a strong defense should always be predicated upon how much is necessary. I, as a conservative, claim we could certainly do with a lot less. A LOT LESS. See? That wasn’t so hard. The fact that other so-called conservatives are for expanding military budgets does not make me any less of a conservative. Conservative principles are against military adventurism, but FOR a strong national defense. Reasonable people can argue about where the boundary is between the two, but the principle is still sound and those who uphold the principle are no less conservative for doing so.

And how many conservative politicians or activists support gutting the military budget? Other than the paleons, none. Instead, they attack Obama for his cuts to the military budget. None of the Tea Partiers, save libetarians, have broached the issue of stupidity cutting taxes while maintaining an empire. Militarism is a tenet of modern American conservatism.

(2)Here you have mistaken the people of the military and its institution with the political powers that control it. It is virtuous to serve others at risk to yourself. Many of those in the military do so at great risk (notably those in the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan). None of those serving in uniform had any say in which countries would be invaded or why. The military service would still be praiseworthy if there were no wars and all of them were at Fort Bragg playing beach volleyball. But according to conservatives, there is no institution IN THE GOVERNMENT more worthy of praise than the military. Conservatives also admire other institutions like industry, church and risk taking. Still, claiming that conservatives "worship" the military is unsupported by your arguments. I tend to think of it as a career choice, like any other. Most of the jobs in the military are just jobs and no more praise-worthy than any other productive employment. The military police is equal in merit to the county sheriff. The nurse at the military hospital is equal in merit to the one at the local clinic.

Worship was hyperbole, but is not far from it. Last year, when Obama slightly cut the military budget, conservatives online and on talk radio were yelling about it for days. Conservatives often attack liberals and libertarians for being "anti-military." Don't forget the early days of the Iraq War, where they were accusing anyone who opposed the disaster as being "anti-American."

The US military is inescapably a part of the federal government. Despite being the most conservative part of the government, as evidenced by surveys of its members, it cannot escape the full control of politicians in congress and politically appointed leaders, who tend to be distinctively not conservative. The military is in no way more PC than other federal or state government agencies. The military is likely the only place in the country where it is still OK to discriminate against gays (for the time being).

Discrimination against gays is still legal in some states, although if a major company discriminated against gays they would end up getting boycotted by liberals. But military has lower physical standards for women than men. That strikes me as being a lot more politically correct than mere affirmative action in civilian departments, considering that physical strength and endurance is necessary in many parts of the military.

(3) I suspect your religious views are a lot less complex than you think they are, but they are not really relevant to this topic. Further, your provably incorrect view of Christianity being detrimental is likewise not relevant. What makes them so is that your initial statement “Conservatives are Christian” is only a half truth. Not all conservatives are Christian. Further, not all Christians are conservative. Our current president was elected by a strong majority of liberal church members. Members of Christianity are a widely diverse and energetic group. As such they are both at the forefront of refugee importation and at the forefront of opposing it. Similarly, Christians were at the forefront of upholding slavery and ending it. You would do better by seeking allies where they are. Defending our national sovereignty is a conservative value. The fact that some so-called conservatives fail at this, does not diminish the strength of the principle. Christianity is the largest religion on the planet. It would be foolish to presuppose that that makes all Christians alike, conservative or otherwise.

I don't disagree with what you wrote. But the fact is, conservatives in America are mostly Christian and I am a non-Christian. Thus, another difference between us exists. And where I live, conservatism and Christianity are thoroughly entwined.

(4) No. Politicians, some of whom claimed to be conservatives, expanded the scope and power of the state. Real conservatives opposed this. No child left behind was written by Kennedy (not a conservative) and passed by a majority of liberals in congress. It was signed by a president who was in practice more liberal than Clinton. Faith-based funding never really panned out and was likely nothing more than a fundraising stunt, but its principle goal was conservative: Faith-based organizations should be able to compete to perform public service contracts on the same basis as non-faith-based groups. Equality under the law is a conservative value. Patriot act has always been a red herring. It was overhyped by republicans for its terrorist-busting ability and overhyped by the democrats for its violations of freedom. In reality, it accomplished little and was no more intrusive than existing law. The homeland security act was in no way conservative. So your point is again comparing the acts of liberals as a failure of conservative principles. The principle of smaller, less intrusive government is still sound and is still conservative.

That's starting to sound awfully close like a No true Scotsman fallacy. What exactly is a real conservative? Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity seem like real conservatives to me, yet they supported Bush's government expansion. Regarding NCBL, it passed with overwhelming majorities: 384-45 in the House and 91-8 in the Senate. It wasn't just liberals who supported it. As for the Homeland Security Act, then why did so many conservatives support it if it's not conservative? Paleocons opposed (and continue to oppose) it, yet the mainstream conservatives promoted it.

That is the first time I have heard John McCain described as a conservative. He lost the election against Obama because he was never able to convince his conservative base that he was worth the effort. Conservatives in the Republican party are tired of holding their noses and voting for another establishment republican. So in this case, you are misrepresenting Republicans as conservatives. Alternate realities are pointless to argue about but there has been growing discontent among conservatives throughout the Bush presidency. That discontent directly led to the Obama presidency. If McCain had been elected, the result would have been further conservative discontent.

Conservatives weren't very discontent when Bush, who was similar to McCain, was in power. Instead they were chanting "Four more years!"

Sarah Palin energized the conservative base due to her conservatism. She meets most of the characteristics of conservatism I criticized. I predicted the alternate reality based on past events: the Bush administration. When Bush was increasing the size of the federal government, there were no conservative protests. Sure, there might have been a couple of articles in National Review, but there was no mass movement similar to the Tea Parties.

(5) As you point out, I don’t think any group is innocent of this. That does not refute the conservative principle that the free market is the best means for the distribution of goods and services and it is a conservative principle to restrain government from interfering in the free market.

I agree with that principle. The problem is, many conservatives conflate the free market with corporatism.

(6) You seem to be advocating that conservatives should use the power of the state to force people to accept their own cultural and social standards. That is not a conservative value. The conservative value is that government, even conservative-led government, has no role in shaping the culture. Those roles rightly belong to the church and other voluntary organizations.

No, I don't think that social and cultural conservatives should have used the power of the state to force changes in social standards. However, I think George W. Bush and conservative congressmen could have used their influence to promote their cultural and social standards, just as the Obamas are doing now.

(9)I am not getting your argument here. I am certain that liberals believe that their moral values are superior but since morality is defined by the user and not by any objective source, this can neither be measured nor rationally argued.

Conservatives generally act as if they have better moral values than liberals, but this is a myth, as anyone who has seen self-described conservative college girls on a weekend night can attest. I was criticizing conservative hypocrisy.

Since neocons have proven to be more “neo” than “con”, anything you wish to say about them is not really a good argument against being a conservative.

They were accepted as part of the conservative coalition during the Bush years. Even now they have not been purged. Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservative talk radio hosts can be heard spouting out their talking points daily.

Unless it is their war. BTW, I reject that whole “lying to start a war” BS. But since it is not relevant to your argument I won’t bother to defend it here. The bottom line is that a government that is truthful with its citizens on the major issues facing the nation is a conservative value. All conservatives should embrace that value.

Yet from 2002, conservatives didn't defend government truthfulness as a value.

And your 11th point is another variation on a theme that because some conservatives are not “good conservatives” you can’t be one either.

No, my point was that conservatives tend to be white knights and I am not one, so I have yet another difference with conservatives.

In summary, the significant weight of your argument is that political leaders who are Republican are not upholding conservative principles so you deem the principles themselves at fault. In fact, if you identify with those principles (and you seem to) then YOU are the true and authentic conservative. This is exactly how the other authentic conservatives see it and why they claim to be conservatives, despite the failings of other people. Your arguments against Christianity are weak but in the end not relevant to the discussion of being a conservative.

If you understand what conservative principles are, and support those principles, then you should be a conservative, without regard to what other people, acting on other principles call themselves.

Most of the commenters on Professor Hale's post express an opinion similar to those in his last two paragraphs.

A good example of the stupidity of modern conservatism is South Carolina's 2008 senate election. a paleoconservative Democrat was running against Lindsey Graham. He lost 57-42 because the self-destructive conservatives voted for Amnesty Graham.

Conservatives allegedly wish to "conserve" the status quo. I doubt Professor Hale and the people reading my and his posts want to do so. Do you really want to "conserve" Third World immigration, federal income taxes, the degenerate culture, foreign wars, "civil rights" laws (including the Voting Rights Act), social services, and feminism?

I'm guessing they probably do not. Yet, conservatives do. They are fine with Third World immigration just as long as its done with the permission of the federal government. They may attack America's degenerate culture, while at the same time they partake in its degeneracy (see 9 and 10 in my original post). They may laughingly attack abortion ("Abortion hurts women!"), but they won't confront feminism. Instead, they laud it now with Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, et al.

It should be obvious by now, in the era of Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties, that conservatism is subjective and its definition varies with time and location. A conservative in modern America is much different from the paleo hero Robert Taft. A conservative in Texas is different than one in New Jersey. A conservative in the 1991 Soviet Union would be considered far left in modern America.

Libertarianism, in contrast, is static with regards to location and time. Peace, limited government, and the rights to life, liberty, and property do not change. While circumstances are different - a 1980 libertarian would have had to advocate against much less government than a 2010 one, the principles are the same. But the principles and goals of the conservative movement are much more dynamic.

Perhaps self-described "conservatives" who support limited government (not just regarding economics), peace, and liberty should cease calling themselves conservatives. They are essentially holding libertarian views.

When Liberals Say They Support Freedom of Speech, They Are Lying

It's a common view that liberals support freedom of speech (or expression) more so than conservatives. The problem is, liberals care more about discrimination and egalitarianism more than they do freedom of speech, so if someone's speech offends a protected group - racial minorities, women, gays - then they do not support freedom of speech and the offending speech must be suppressed. (I realize that there are people with some left-wing views who are free speech purists, but these people are often left-libertarians rather than liberals.)

Here's yet another example. I found this via a link on Feministing, which led to a site named Sociological Images (as an aside, I took an intro to sociology class four years ago and it would have more accurately been termed "intro to socialism). In New Mogadishu Minneapolis, Minnesota, an ISP named USI Wireless put up billboards saying "Fast, cheap and satisfaction guaranteed." A woman named Stacey Burns of Minneapolis (who has an online trail as a feminist activist and Obama campaigner, and is married to this guy) saw one of them, took a picture, posted it on her Facebook. The caption she put is:

"USI Wireless is a pimp. This is how they're selling their wireless service in Minneapolis. Give them a call at 952.253.3262 (Option 1) or email: info@usiwireless.com. When I called, they assured me that they did some test marketing and everybody loved it, but the 100,000 American girls sexually trafficked in the US with an initial recruitment age of 11-14 might not guffaw quite as loudly as the focus group did."

So there you have it. If you put up a billboard that makes a joking reference to cheap hookers, you're a pimp and inconsiderate towards child sexual abuse victims!

Thanks to Burns, the billboards eventually gained the attention of City Council member Gary Schiff (e-mail), a women's studies major (no, I'm not joking), who was unsurprisingly offended and "then talked to city staff, who told him they had been talking to USI's founders for three days but had gotten nowhere. Schiff also called USI, but said his calls were never returned."

Another councilwoman, Elizabeth Glidden (e-mail), joined in: "My message to them was, 'I hope you're taking these down right now." As a result of the governmental pressure, Clear Channel (the billboard owners) and USI caved and removed the billboards.

Predictably, a few scattered "progressive" websites are heralding this as a victory. After all, if they find something offensive, it must be shut down. American Renaissance discovered this a few months ago and Pam Geller is learning this right now.

Can you imagine the reaction if conservative politicians leaned on advertisers to not put up billboards they considered to be blasphemous? It would be a national story in the liberal media, with commentators rushing to condemn the conservatives for their assault on freedom of speech. The conservative politicians would then apologize and withdraw their criticisms.

But when two liberal city government leaders pressure a private company to take down an ad they find offensive, it only garners a few local news articles and posts on liberal websites. This is how liberals work - they slowly take away our freedom and the media ignores it. When whites start getting arrested for "hate speech," the liberal media will probably ignore it, too.

The next time a Republican is in power, libertarians should remember stories like this before allying with liberals against conservatism statism. Despite what they claim, liberals do not support freedom of speech. They are its enemy.

Why I Am Not a Conservative

Libertarians in general are often confused with conservatives. With my particularly reactionary views on race and gender, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm mistaken for a conservative by some. I reject that label for several reasons, some of which I have listed below.

***

1. Conservatism is an incoherent ideology.
Like liberalism, conservatism is characterized by cognitive dissonance. Conservatives claim to support limited government, but they also support wars, censorship, the police state, and anything else that increases the scope of the enforcement arm of the government. Also, when was the last time you heard a conservative politician other than Ron Paul seriously advocate abolishing most of the federal government, social services, and income taxes?

Conservatives claim to oppose big government and taxes, but the fact is, due to the giant military budget, it will be impossible to drastically cut the size of the federal government and federal taxes without cutting the military budget and using the military solely for national defense, rather than foreign adventures.

2. Conservatives worship the military.
According to conservatives, there is no institution more worthy of praise than the United States military. Personally, I don't see what's so praiseworthy about invading countries halfway across the world that pose no threat to us and killing thousands of their citizens. If the military was deployed along the Mexican border, I would support it, but the fact is the US military as it currently exists does not defend America, just the interests of certain Americans.

Also, far from being a conservative institution, the United States military is probably the most PC-infested organization in the United States.

3. Conservatives are Christians.
My religious views are somewhat complex and I will probably write a future post describing them in detail, but for now it suffices that I am not a Christian. I believe that Christianity is a detriment to America and all of white European civilization. It is a global religion, not an ethnic religion, and its adherents are generally at the forefront of the liberal agenda, usually unwittingly (i.e. the refugee importation movement).

4. Conservatives are statists.
The current conservative anti-government sentiment is fraudulent. From January 2001 to January 2009, conservatives did all they could to increase the size of the federal government, from No Child Left Behind and faith-based funding to the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act. Lew Rockwell aptly dubbed this "red-state fascism."

Conservatives only whine about big government when they are not controlling the government. If John McCain had been elected and expanded the welfare state, there would be no Tea Party protests.

5. Conservatives are corporate sycophants.
This applies to many libertarians, too. While liberal attacks on the free market should be opposed, supporting corporations does not defend the free market. Corporations are a product of the state and many of them, such as the military-industrial complex, subsist entirely on taxpayer dollars, while others are privileged by the state, such as media industries with their Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

6. Cultural and social conservatism are abject failures.
The 2000s were a decade dominated by conservatives. And what happened? Our society moved closer to Idiocracy, our culture became trashier, rap music became accepted by whites, women became sluttier, and our values further declined. The Clintonian 90s were more socially and culturally conservative than the Bush 2000s were.

7. Conservatives are blind on racial issues.
Mainstream conservatives are as liberal on race as any Democrat. They may oppose affirmative action, although many don't, but none will defend freedom of association, nor will any acknowledge human biodiversity and racial differences in IQ.

8. Conservatives worship democracy.
Democracy will probably end up destroying conservatism; as the percentage of nonwhites increases in the United States, the likelihood of the Republicans winning the presidency will decrease (John McCain would have won if 2008 America's demographics were the same as those of 1976 America). Yet, conservatives are so fond of this ideology that will destroy them that they seek to export it.

9. Conservatives don't have better moral values than liberals.
Conservatives, particularly those of the religious variety, fashion themselves as having better moral values than liberals. Indeed, this was one of the main themes of the 2004 election. The fact is, outside of the Left Coast, liberals and conservatives have about the same moral values.

Neocons, in my opinion, have worse moral values than liberals. At least liberals acknowledge that lying to start a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people is wrong.

10. Conservative women are no less slutty than liberal women.
This seems like a minor issue, but I've long been irked by the fact that conservatives blame women's sluttiness on liberalism. The fact is, conservative women are no less slutty than liberal ones, especially young conservative women. Plenty of conservative girls go off to college to become binge-drinking dorm rats and if you take a look at pictures from CPAC, College Republican events, conservative internships, etc., you'll find that just like liberal and apolitical women, young conservative women are incapable of dressing professionally.

Sarah Palin's family is a good example. They are often described as a conservative family, yet her daughter spawned a bastard child. Sarah doesn't exactly dress very conservatively either - last year, as the Huffington Post reported, she wore a short skirt, bare legged, with sandals to a Memorial Day commemoration.

11. Conservative men are usually white knights.
While conservatives acknowledge the damage that feminism has wrought on American society, whenever they discuss one of the consequences of feminism, they inevitably find some way to blame it on men. Just like feminists, they believe that women hold no responsibility for their actions, but that men are to blame for every problem women self-inflict. Many also believe that women are naturally morally superior to men.

For example, when they write about campus hook-up culture, instead of blaming it on college girls being sluts, conservatives blame it on predatory men and claim that it harms young women ("women need relationships," etc.). Same with abortion. Instead of blaming women who have abortions, they blame the abortionists - men like George Tiller.

Conservatives also decry the fact that men have responded to female empowerment by becoming decidedly less chivalrous and often question the manhood of men who are reluctant to risk their lives for ungrateful, empowered women. Christian conservatives especially are critical of the lack of gallantry found in the modern American man (there's even an organization of suicidal men and brainwashed boys dedicated to restoring this - the Christian Boys' & Men's Titanic Society). I remember back in 2007, Christian conservatives were astounded that the men at Virginia Tech on April 16 did not throw themselves at Cho Seung Hui to protect the women in their classes.

***

Note that most of the items on this list do not apply to paleoconservatives, but paleocons have been excommunicated from the official conservative movement. When the word "conservative" is used, people don't think of Pat Buchanan, Alternative Right, and The Political Cesspool, they think of Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, and talk radio.

Diversity is (Not) Our Strength

Liberals and mainstream conservatives can often be heard repeating the mantra "diversity is our strength." Apparently, no one bothered to tell that to the Kyrgyz, who have driven out 75,000 ethnic Uzbeks from Kyrgystan and killed around 100 people.

Everywhere diversity exists, violence follows. It's only a matter of time before something like this happens in the United States.

Female Sexuality Is Good; Male Sexuality is Bad

The idea that feminists are hypocrites is probably viewed as an axiom by most of the readers of this blog. One of their greatest hypocrisies is the fact that they attack male sexuality as exploitative, sexist, patriarchal, oppressive, etc., yet at the same time they glorify female sexuality of all kinds.

Over at Feministe, Jill Filipovic posted an entry that is essentially just a picture of World Cup players in their boxers. Now, what do you think would be this cunt's* reaction would be if a magazine posted pictures of female soccer players in their underwear?

That was a rhetorical question, as she would of course lambaste them for "sexism" and "objectifying women."

*Yes, I used the dreaded c-word. Considering that feminists refer to people such as myself as "asshats" and "douchebags," I believe I am justified in referring to them as cunts. Also, I don't fear political correctness.

Fun With Feministing: Lookism Edition

Yesterday, over at Feministing, Samhita Mukhopadhyay, their token nonwhite, is upset because American Apparel requires you to e-mail them a picture of yourself if you want to work there.

Just When You Thought American Apparel Couldn't Fail Any Harder... They manage to.To work at American Apparel you must email a full body shot to some mysterious email address after which you are approved or rejected. Failure.

Via Gawker.

Clearly, that standard leaves a lot of wiggle room. Now, a source tells us that American Apparel has a new hiring policy. For the past several months, they say, job applicants at AA have had their photos taken--photos which are then sent to the email address work@americanapparel.net, where they are "approved" by a nameless person for hiring. The applicant's resumé is a distant second when it comes to hiring decisions, our source says.

Our source also tells us that a new policy now says that in order for current AA employees to be approved for a promotion or raise, they must also have their photos approved. As they put it, "Your looks determine your position and pay rate, not how effective you are at your job."

Douchey D Charney even had the audacity to say last time he was questioned on judging employees by looks that his employees must, "have good fashion sense...But this does not necessarily mean they have to be physically attractive." What do you have to say for yourself this time? And I have been to American Apparel. If what their employees are wearing is a "good sense of style," then I color me anti-fashion.

Not satisfied with fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, agism, cisgenderism, and ablism, leftists are now fighting against lookism - the practice on judging people based on their physical appearance. I've always wondered, if it's wrong for men to judge women based on their looks, is it wrong for women to judge men based on their alphaness?

However, it's perfectly understandable why Samhita is fighting lookism:

For comparison, here's what she looked like four or five years ago:

Talk about letting yourself go. I guess she decided to fight the lookist patriarchy by making herself ugly, Andrea Dworkin style.

To Any Criminals in the Portland, Oregon, Area

If you're looking for an easy robbery, stop by the Red and Black Cafe. This left-wing anarchist-owned establishment, located at 400 Southeast 12th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, does not serve police officers, so you won't have to worry about a police officer being present when you rob it. Once you rob it, since the owners hate the police they wouldn't call them and you won't go to jail since they support "community forums" and "restorative justice" instead of punishment. Also, since it's a radical leftist hangout, the feminists and emasculated "men" who work and eat there probably don't carry concealed, so you won't have to worry about getting shot by an employee or customer.

From OregonLive.com:

Showing a policeman the door turned out -- inadvertently -- to be a good business decision for the Red and Black Cafe in Southeast Portland.

The vegan establishment was deluged with customers in the two days after news came out last week that one of the co-owners had served coffee to a Portland police officer, then kicked him out.

"We had a couple of really busy days over the weekend," said John Langley, the co-owner who served Officer James Crooker and asked him to leave. "We had two $1,100 days, which is maybe double a typical day."

The story sparked a fiery response, with national coverage and about 600 comments posted on oregonlive.com. Along with a boost in customers, the cafe has received five threats of arson and other violence.

Many people also expressed outrage at Langley's treatment of Crooker, who's received an outpouring of support on the streets.

All that after buying a quick coffee on May 18. Crooker was walking out of the cafe when he was approached by a customer, Cornelia Seigneur, who said she appreciated the work of Portland police. Langley, who was watching, said seeing a uniformed officer in the cafe made him uncomfortable. So he went up and asked Crooker to leave, which he did.

And that was that, until Seigneur blogged about it, and the story went viral.

Langley said that most of the criticism has come from people threatening never to eat at the cafe. "I think most of those folks are people who had never or would never come to the restaurant," he said.

The cafe hasn't suffered any vandalism or any other attacks, and Langley doesn't expect any, either. "It would be highly ironic if there were because the folks who are the most upset about this are presumably those who are in support of the police," he said, "so it would be weird for them to commit crimes."

Although business has picked up, some customers voiced support for police. "I wouldn't even think twice about it if a police officer came in here for a bite, maybe to make sure things are running OK," said Stacey Tran, who lives in the neighborhood and was at the cafe Monday. "That's part of their job. It's what our tax dollars go toward."

Online commenters have asked what the cafe's seven co-owners would do if they were attacked. Call the police?

"I don't think we are trying to be purists about it," Langley said. "We would prefer that there be some practical alternative to police like community forums for restorative justice, for example."

At a news conference Monday, Langley rejected criticism that he had discriminated against the officer. "In no way does this compare to racial profiling or racism," he said. "A person can choose to be a police officer but a person of color cannot."

Langley said earlier that many of the customers in the cafe, which draws vegans and environmental and animal rights activists, have been victims of harsh police tactics and were worried about police shootings.

A member of Rose City Copwatch, a police monitoring group, backed up that sentiment at the news conference, saying in a statement that Portland police are focused on arresting people "to maintain a status quo that is built along race, class and gender lines."

Still, Langley said police officers are welcome in the cafe out of uniform. "It's not personal," he said.

Nor did Crooker take the incident to heart. In fact, the reaction has been heartening, he said.

He's received calls from police officers from New York and Washington state offering to buy him, even the entire bureau, coffee. Portlanders have approached him on the street offering to treat him to coffee as well.

"Every single police officer in the area has been receiving the same love from the citizens and that's heartwarming," Crooker said.

None of his colleagues is angry about the incident, he said.

"I don't know of any police officers who have any ill will towards the cafe owner or anyone who's involved in this," Crooker said. "Hopefully everyone walks away from this graciously with the lessons that life has taught us and nobody has any bad feelings about anything."

-- Lynne Terry

-- Kate Mather and Shane Dixon Kavanaugh contributed to this story.

I'm a libertarian, so I am sometimes critical of the police, but it is just stupid for a business owner to refuse service to police officers. First, every society, even an all-white libertarian one, would require someone to enforce the law. Also, the presence of police deters crime. This is why many restaurants will give discounts to police officers and why QuikTrip provides them with free donuts. Criminals are less likely to rob a place when there could be a police officer present.

Left-wing anarchofags (it's not so much of a slur as it is an accurate description - I bet most of the workers and customers are lesbian, bisexual, gay, transexual, pansexual, or something else) like these are particularly hypocritical. They hate the police, yet they whine about how horrible the Tea Party movement is for wanting to cut taxes and "social services."

I thought the comment on abolishing the police and supporting "practical alternative to police like community forums for restorative justice" was particularly naive. These anarchofags should be careful what they wish for. If the police were abolished, in Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle, community forums (and high crime rates) would probably result, but in other parts of the country, the police would be replaced with shotgun blasts, beatings, tarring-and-featherings, and nooses. Undoubtably, the anarchofags would complain about this, just as they do whenever a citizen shoots an armed robber.

Instead of hiding behind a facade of anarchism and anti-authoritarianism, the anarchofags should just be honest and admit that they don't hate the police, but instead they love criminals.

Feminist Upset That an Action Movie Contains Violence Against Women

Back in February, when a feminist remarked on the fact that most speaking roles in films are men, I posted that it was because most of the bad guys are men. I also noted that if filmmakers increased the number of female characters by making female bad guys (bad girls?) for the heroes to kill, feminists would complain about "violence against women."

Over at Feministing, Chloe reviewed Killers and fulfilled my prediction:

Perhaps one of the most upsetting things about this movie is the rather graphic violence against women. It's nice to see women get in on the action, literally: The majority of the assassins who come after Spencer and Jen are women. But it's not nice to note that the assassins who are most brutally killed are women. When the women are killed - impaled on chandeliers made of antlers or shot point-blank - we see it in gory detail, and we see close-ups of their bleeding bodies. When the men are killed, there's no such attention to detail.

I haven't seen Killers so I can't remark on whether or not there really was more gore when women died than men, or if it was just Chloe's perception. Even if it was the case, does it really matter? There are hundreds of films (or more) out there where dozens of men die messily and no women do, so is one film that subverts this trope really that bad? "Graphic violence against men" occurs in virtually every action film. The only difference between this film and the others is that is that the people dying graphically have tits.

It is impossible to please feminists. If what Chloe wrote about a majority of the assassins being women is true (and there is no reason to think that it isn't), then Killers is probably the first action movie in which most of the bad guys are really bad girls. Instead of praising the film for this new step in the full inclusion and portrayal of women in film, she attacks it.

After fifty years of feminism, it should be clear that feminists do not want equality and this is just another example. When hundreds of movies show countless men dying graphically, no one (including feminists) bats an eye, but when one movie shows female antagonists dying graphically, feminists whine about its depiction of "violence against women."

Israel's Gaza Flotilla Raid

The past week has seen Jewish neocons and Christian Zionists defending actions that would have had them clamoring for war had they been performed by Iran. The fact that Israel would attack a flotilla in international waters that was planning to run the blockade (not "break" it as the media often states) shouldn't be very surprising. Israel has shown time and time again that it has no respect for human rights (yes, I realize that none of its neighbors are any better with regard to human rights, but that is irrelevant to Israel's human rights record), which shouldn't surprise anyone, considering that Israel was, like Palestine eventually will be, founded by terrorists.

There have been a couple of propagated by Jewish neocons and their Christian lapdogs regarding the resistance by the flotilla's crew and passengers that shows that when it comes to Israel, "conservatives" leave their conservatism behind:

1. The people on the flotilla attacked the Israeli soldiers, beating them and in one case pushing one into the ocean, so the Israelis were justified in responding with force.

This is perhaps the stupidest argument they are using to justify the massacre (Larry Auster, a man who normally is highly intelligent was spouting this earlier in the week). The Israeli military attacked civilian ships in international waters. The people on the flotilla had the right to fight back in self-defense, the Israelis certainly did not. If a burglar breaks in, you shoot him, and he shoots you, he will be the one charged, not you (unless your DA is a liberal). If anything, the Israeli soldiers got off easy be merely being beaten. Pirates used to be summarily executed.

2. Several of the "peace activists" were carrying firearms.

Everyone is entitled to self-defense, including Muslims and leftists. The idea that peace activists can't carry weapons shows that Christian conservatives and neocons are not immune to cognitive dissonance, considering that most of them probably believe things like "more guns, less crime" and "an armed society is a polite society," meaning the threat of force can deter violence and preserve peace.

The fact that Christian "conservatives" aren't very conservative when it comes to Israel shouldn't be surprising. Considering that most American conservatives belong to a religion where they worship a Jew in the spiritual world, it makes sense that they would worship Jews also in the material world, in the same way that white liberals worship blacks.

I'm Still Here

I haven't posted anything for a week, but I haven't abandoned this blog. I was busy last weekend and never really got back into posting this week. I'll be writing a few posts over the next few days about:
-Deborahlee Lorenzana, the woman who is suing for being fired from a bank for dressing too sexily, and how businesses only have themselves to blame for things like this
-The Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla, wherein I discuss my opinions on Jews in general.
-The media's gender and violence double standard, specifically the gender demographics of protagonists versus those of antagonists.