Archive for the Principles Category

Collectivism by Any Other Name…

Posted in Principles on August 6, 2008 by ragnard

Oh, the irony.  I somehow ended up, following links from one blog to another, on this site, which looks to be a white supremacist forum.  This is the money quote:

Not only do blacks lack the requisite collective smarts and sense to self-police the menacingly savage element from within their ranks, they are impulsively tribal and thus do not countenance any criticism of their fellow blacks, even of the ghetto thug elements. In fact, the “typical black person” (thanks, Obama for allowng me to make that statement) views criticism of one black person from any source as an attack on all blacks. This is why we cannot share a society with them and this is why we must separate ourselves from them.

So blacks are tribalist, and thus our tribe needs to band together as a tribe and treat their tribe as a tribe?

Hey Mr. Mark Jaws (the guy who wrote this brilliant gem)!  If you could only see the irony in this (or perhaps the right word is blatant irrationality and tribalism)!

Moron!

It seems to me (but then I suppose these people would call me a “race traitor” or a “Jew”) that the issue is culture, not race.  Some cultures have (or had) a universal respect for the rule of objective law.  Others have a nearly universal disrepespect for law and order.

Focusing on race and ignoring culture, values, and ideas is not simply wrong or wrongheaded.  It is immoral and a betrayal of the very you claim to espouse.

 

Update

This article, by Mychal Massie, the chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21, is a clear example of my point.

He is a black man who is able to see the marxism and racism in Obama’s positions.  Thank you Mr. Massie.

Advertisements

Anti-Jihad vs. Pro-Nazi

Posted in Principles on April 29, 2008 by ragnard

It’s almost as if there is a fine line between (a) defending the West’s right to exist against the islamic jihad that is trying to destroy it and (b) advocating mass-murder of muslims living in the west.  I say “almost” because these are not similar things, but the more I read on the Internet the more confusion I see.

So today, a blogger called “Atlas Shrugs” wrote a long piece about the Gates of Vienna piece that I wrote about last week.  It particularly caught my eye because the very name of the blog claims to be related to the ideas of Ayn Rand.  I don’t know much about the ideas on this blog yet, but the analysis of GoV is flawed.  I am going to go through the Atlas post in some detail.

“So the blogs have their bowels in an uproar over El Ingles essay over at Gates of Vienna because he used the word genocide. He never  advocated for it,  mind you …. but  merely used the word…”

Ignore the pejorative tone, and what is Atlas saying?  The GoV piece does not “advocate” genocide, merely “uses the word.”  The GoV piece presents three (false) alternatives: “induce” muslims to leave, force them to leave, or kill them en masse.  One does not need to be a genius to see that race war and genocide is where this inevitably goes.  These are false alternatives.  I presented a different approach last week.

It is disingenuous as hell to make the distinction that Atlas is trying to make here.

Next, Atlas moves to the topic that Pajamas Media has chosen to disassociate with Gates of Vienna.

“The argument, in and of itself, is an act of submission.  Once again free speech is kicked in the teeth so as not to offend.  And each time the West cedes a freedom…”

But even worse is that I wouldn’t expect a typical “liberal” (i.e. fascist) viewpoint to come from someone calling himself “Atlas Shrugs”.  Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this (as GoV themselves acknowledge in one of their recent posts).  And, obviously, it is not “the West” that is “ceding a freedom.”  This is a private decision made by private parties.

There is a moral issue here.  Do we want to impose martial law, and bloody racial civil war?  Do we want a “cure” that is as bad (or worse) than the disease?

Then Atlas moves on to a non-sequitor:

“…genocide on the part of Europeans … is the most impossible of all unlikely outcomes …”

The issue is not whether this is likely.  The issue is whether GoV proposed this.  To reiterate, GoV said that Europe must bribe the muslims to leave, force them to leave, or kill them all.  In their own tripple-bind false-atlernative, genocide is the only possible outcome.

Next, out of left field:

“First off, the Muslims are not the Jews.

“The Jewish genocide of the second World War was possible because the Jews were (and still are)  too civilized.”

Huh?  I guess this means that the Jews didn’t deserve it, and the muslims do?  It’s hard to parse, but I can’t think of any other meaning to this bit of non-sequitor placed in this context.  Maybe it means that it was easily to murder the Jews, but it will be harder to murder the muslims??  I give up on this one.

How many non-sequitors can you count in the next bit?

“The question of Muslim genocide is an intellectually dishonest question. The Europeans have already surrendered …. under the guise of multiculturalism. But what it really is, is fear.  The Brits are giving Muslims with multiple wives, multiple benefits. Their Home Secretary proclaimed the ban of the term Islamic terror, in exchange for “anti-islamic terror“. [emphasis in original]

It starts out saying a certain question is intellectually dishonest, but doesn’t say which question.  Does Atlas mean to question if GoV is poposing genocide?  Or does he mean to propose genocide?  Or does he mean to ask if genocide is feasible (or likely)?

Normally, each sentence in a paragraph is supposed to build on the previous one to support a common theme.  But in this case, each sentence jumps off to its own new realm!  We go from:

  1. Intellectual dishonesty to ask an unspecified question
  2. Europe has surrendered, and this is what multiculturalism means
  3. It’s all about the fear
  4. The Brittish welfare state has sunk to new depths
  5. The Brits have tried to impose politically-correct language usage

The whole mess does not add up to one coherent thought–or paragraph–and it continues with more in that vein!

Next, Atlas does not “advocate” violence.  He says:

“if / when there is bloodshed…”

The article concludes with two more paragraphs that explain that islam is waging a jihad against us, and the stakes are our freedom and our lives.  No kidding, you don’t say?

But in the context of GoV’s call for mass murder, Atlas’ article looks like a defense of that thesis.

I want to make a few things perfectly clear, so you will know where I stand:

  1. muslims are waging a jihad against the West
  2. they want us dead because of who we are and what we stand for (life and happiness)
  3. the tortoise beat the hare, and islam will beat us if we don’t fight to win
  4. we need to destroy the ability of the islamic nations to wage war against us
  5. repealing welfare and enforcing laws would be a great start to cleaning up our own homelands

I did not write this essay to argue for surrender, submisson, or political correctness.  I wrote this because I think there is an anti-mind faction out there that seemingly offers an alternative to political correctness.  That faction is naziism.  White racism does not address black or muslim racism–it’s just more racism, collectivism, tribalism, altruism, and bloody civil warfare.

Anti-McCainnites for McCain

Posted in Principles on April 9, 2008 by ragnard

McCain is an authoritarian, fascist-leaning politician.  McCain-Feingold did more to destroy the right of freedom of speech and the press than any other 10 bad laws.

But I say vote for him this election.

We are currently in World War IV.  In the Republican Party, there is a basic recognition of this fact and some discussion of how to win.  In the Democratic Party, on the other hand, there is no acknowledgement that we in a war, started by a determined enemy.  Just look at the comments on Ann Althouse’s blog (these people are downright police compared to some I’ve seen).

Compared to the issue of the war: appeasing our enemies vs. fighting them, all other issues are secondary: the economy, business regulation, the fraud of global warmening.  Oh, and don’t even bring up abortion–it’s not in the top 20!

The money quote comes from one of the comments to the blog:

We are in WW4. This is just one of the battles. We can’t stop playing the game. Even if we withdraw, we’re still in it. We cannot take our ball and go home. [emphasis in original]

Fighting to Win

Posted in Principles on April 9, 2008 by ragnard

Taliban troops murdered construction workers in Aghanistan.  These are definitely bad guys.

So Holger Danske should be lauded for saying what few have the courage to say that we need to:

“…wipe the Taliban off the face of the Earth.”

I don’t agree with him that we need to tripple troop levels or that we have any kind of duty as a result of their attacks on Afghans.  I think that they have started a war with us, is enough reason.

Remember 9/11?

The Taliban played a prominent role in this mass murder of Americans on American soil, and thus have made themselves our enemies.

There is only one way to fight.  If you must fight (and I by no means believe this should be a light decision), then fight to win.  Win as quickly and cheaply as possible.  This will usually be by the simple method of killing as many of the enemy as possible, and doing it using big bombs (even nuclear bombs).

No mercy to the enemy!  Our job is to minimize first the deaths and injuries of our own troops, and then the cost to us in dollars.  The cost to the enemy is not our problem, nor our consideration.

Along with the Taliban, we need to anihilate Iran.  If we went in one day and reduced it to a massive pile of death, and took back the oil (which they looted from us about 50 years ago), the world would be a lot better for America and a lot safer for everyone.

If we continue to play chicken with them, they will eventually build their nuclear bombs.  After that will comes some very bad days for America and everyone else.