The medical dictionary definition of a phobia is,
[A] persistent, irrational, intense fear of a specific object, activity, or situation (the phobic stimulus), fear that is recognized as being excessive or unreasonable by the individual himself. When a phobia is a significant source of distress or interferes with social functioning, it is considered a mental disorder …
Someone afflicted with phobia is likely to be manic, unstable, and socially malfunctioning. It’s obvious that whatever liberal types are describing as “Islamophobia” does not qualify. It is the same with “bigot,” “racist,” and other common attack terms.
Vox Day is actively developing and marketing the mantra, “Social justice warriors always lie,” and I am glad, because I am a little desperate for this counter-propaganda to make it out into the marketplace of ideas. An academic and media conversation led by left-minded “critical theorists” and social justice warriors amounts to an elaborate dare–a shit-test, if you will–not to call the propagandists out on their obvious nonsense.
I hear a lot of privilege talk. It emanates from respectable figures and influential sources. It seems intended to overwhelm the senses to the point where we begin to forget what the word meant in the first place. Discussions of discrimination, bias, and prejudice have had similar results.
What is privilege? To adapt a phrase from a late sociologist, it is the inherited wisdom and security of the past. An urge exists in all of us to extend ourselves into the future, and one expression of that urge is procreation and raising our children to be strong, wise, and fit. Obviously we try to give our children the best possible chance to succeed and thrive. That way, the immediate future, at least, will know a small part of us, and we’ll have played our role.
Succeeding at this is necessarily defined by cultivating privilege and advantage. Privilege, in various forms, is exactly what the successful pass on to their offspring. One may squander privilege, abuse it, or take it for granted–privilege can be misused, certainly. But the unreflective propagandistic war on privilege itself–white privilege in particular–is an expression of hatred that is plain to those with the senses to perceive it.
Just some micro-takes to show I’m paying at least some attention tonight …
- I was asked today by a respectful liberal-minded classmate whom I would prefer as president after Trump. My next-tier fantasy candidates, among those who actually are running, were Jim Webb, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum.
- Kevin MacDonald notices Trump going after Scalia along PC lines, and predicts blacks will vote for Trump in significant numbers. I don’t disagree–persons of African descent seem to find Big Man politics especially appealing.
- Can we get signed, sworn affidavits from everyone who is vowing they will leave the country if Trump is elected?
Especially on matters like border security and Syrian refugees, I am not greatly invested in poll numbers.
Whatever they are now on any particular issue, as terror attacks increase and war mentality sets in, they will continue to shift in favor of realism.
This, however, amused me:
There is no basis in the law for the premise that Muslim aliens can’t be temporarily banned from entry. Section 1182(f) of the United States Code makes it clear that the president would be within his authority in doing so. Depending on how the presidential order was written and given it may or may not pass subsequent tests of constitutionality, but it clearly passes a threshold test of minimum basis in the Constitution and the written law.
There is no basis in history for the premise that Muslim aliens can’t be entry. Groups expelling each other from their countries is a routine historical occurrence.
The basis in realpolitik and foreign diplomacy is shaky. Under normal circumstances we should be concerned that restricting the movement of foreigners would result in similar treatment of our citizens abroad. But it can’t get much worse for Americans, for example, in many areas in the Middle East. Even if they were restricted temporarily from all Middle Eastern countries, the net result probably would be positive.
Even if there were a basis in morality and ethics that trumped (heh) our own security concerns, I would never accept it from a liberal. At least in the local island nation that is Nathan Wyatt, liberals and progressives have lost their privileges. Their poor record with regard to authentic tolerance and open debate is well-established, and they habitually promote the worst elements both in society generally and the marketplace of ideas in particular. Trump is Hitler, they say, and they’ve been saying similarly erratic and extreme things as long as I’ve been paying attention. There is no reason to heed their cries of, “Wolf!”
Update: Steve Sailer just linked to Powerline’s coverage of this related example of legislative madness.
Yes, the president would be within his constitutional authority in banning entry of non-citizen Muslims. (The New York Times piece also answered a lasting question I hadn’t gotten around to researching–Japanese internment in the U.S. during World War II may have been condemned in the kangaroo court of public opinion, but it was never declared illegal or unconstitutional.)
However, it still is undeniable that Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler.
Not much more to add about news, politics, and events. There’s a big UFC fight on Saturday: lunatic shanty Irish shit-talker Conor McGregor versus favela-born* brutalist Jose Aldo. Get into it.
* I have no idea if Aldo was raised in a favela–it just sounded good.
Pathological shitlib denialism, its smirking self-satisfaction undiminished in the face of all sound arguments and facts, could be a maddening glitch that you’re obliged ever to strive against and correct.
Or, it could be a feature–a test of your faith, your understanding, and your cool–a renewed opportunity to demonstrate once again your mastery and capacity for leadership.
Thank you, shitlibs.