The queer beats down the drama queens

It’s another of those rare occasions wherein I completely agree with Andrew Sullivan:

And, yes, thank God for Ron Paul.

No one else, except McCain, copped to the GOP’s rank betrayal of fiscal conservatism, limited government, prudent foreign policy and civil liberties. When he was asked to disown the 9/11 Truthers, he gave a revealing answer, and one that reflects on the newsletters issue. It just isn’t in his nature to adopt other people’s views, or to tell anyone else what to believe or what to say. He doesn’t just believe in libertarianism; he lives it. This means that he doesn’t have the instinct to police anyone else’s views or actions within the law or the Constitution.

John Derbyshire, too, hasn’t backed down one iota from his support of Ron Paul. Neither have I. The very fact that a portion of the supposedly conservative commentariat seriously believes that one individual is responsible for another individual’s words, let alone thinks that anyone who values human freedom or the U.S. Constitution might abandon his support for the only candidate supporting both in the race, only goes to demonstrate how far what now passess for conservatism has fallen from the real thing.

Since when do real conservatives believe words speak louder than actions anyhow? (And since when do real conservatives think Martin Luther King is a sacred icon, for that matter? Given all the drama-queening reactions, you would have thought Paul was accused of insulting Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.) First the liars of the Left stole “liberal”, now we are witnessing the theft of “conservative” before our very eyes.

People often try to blame me for comments that are made here. This is an intellectually shabby tactic, as there are literally hundreds of thousands of my own words from which to choose, and yet they still have to try to put words in my mouth in order to attack me. But like Ron Paul, I am a practicing libertarian; a failure to respond to a comment is as likely to mean that I think it is completely insane as it is to indicate that I agree with it. (Most likely, it means I think it’s obvious, idiotic or irrelevant, but then, I AM a superintelligence.) As Derb says of Paul, if you’re crazy, I’m fine with it.

Today’s “conservatives”, being every bit as PC and prone to playing thought police as their “liberal” ideological kin, simply can’t seem to understand that your thoughts are not my responsibility.

Another Liberal Fascism interview

Alex Koppelman of Salon does an excellent job questioning Jonah Goldberg about Liberal Fascism. It was interesting to see the difference between my interview with Jonah and this one, in which the interviewer is obviously more familiar with the outmoded ideological interpretation of Fascism. Even the title of the piece demonstrates that Koppelman at least understood the book, even if he didn’t entirely agree with it. I thought his question about the seeming dichotomy between progressive passivism and fascist militarism was very good, as was Goldberg’s explanation:

What appealed to the Progressives about militarism was what William James calls this moral equivalent of war. It was that war brought out the best in society, as James put it, that it was the best tool then known for mobilization … That is what is fascistic about militarism, its utility as a mechanism for galvanizing society to join together, to drop their partisan differences, to move beyond ideology and get with the program. And liberalism today is, strictly speaking, pretty pacifistic. They’re not the ones who want to go to war all that much. But they’re still deeply enamored with this concept of the moral equivalent of war, that we should unite around common purposes.

Goldberg also does a brilliant job of slamming his more intransigent critics, who not only haven’t read the book – and probably aren’t capable of understanding it even if they tried to – but are seriously attempting to ignore the entire text on the basis of the cover image.

“I’m perfectly glad to concede that people who do judge books by their covers or think it’s more important to read a title rather than read a book will be confused and jump to conclusions. But these are people that I don’t generally respect…. And if you can’t get past the cover and the title, then you’re not a serious book reader and you’re not really a serious person.”

Losing the pro-life vote

This exchange of comments at Rod Dreher’s blog nicely illustrates one aspect of the dark future facing Republicans:

It is staggering that anyone who calls himself pro-life could even remotely consider voting for Obama.
Posted by: RC

True, since the GOP has been so staggeringly successful at getting abortion banned.
Posted by: Derek Copold

When you achieve near-complete political power, as the Republican Party did with its sweep of the White House, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court and you so completely fail to deliver on any of your promises, why on Earth should pro-lifers continue to throw their votes away on you? Given a choice between one party that wants to fund doctors killing children and another party that isn’t interested in preventing doctors from killing children, why should pro-lifers bother taking a party’s position on child-killing into consideration, or for the more single-minded, even bother voting at all?

UPDATE – This exchange was equally illuminating, in this case, of the feminist approach to logic:

I could no more vote for someone who believes that the unborn human has no rights at all and is the completely disposable property of her mother

In that logic, your position in turn imples that the woman is, then, property of the fetus. She can do nothing, yet the fetus is permitted to treat her as disposable, to kill her under some circumstances (e.g. ectopic pregnancy).

Logic is hard!

Propagation equation

This isn’t exactly news to anyone who has been paying attention since the dawn of human history.

When Prince & Associates, an American wealth-research firm, asked a sample group of thirtysomething women if they would marry for money, a resounding 75 per cent said yes.

I think my most blatant experience of this basic reality was when I met an extraordinarily attractive model, and after we were introduced, the very first thing she did was check the lapel label of my suit.

Now, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with knowing what you prefer in a prospective mate. I’m not exactly secretive about my preference for slender blondes with nicely defined cheekbones who live in the gym. The first problem lies with those who are dishonest with both themselves and others about what they are seeking, the subsequent one is thinking that merely finding someone who meets those preferences is going to be enough to satisfy you over time in a relationship.

There’s a saying that no woman is so hot that there isn’t a man somewhere who is thoroughly sick of her. And there’s no man so wealthy that there isn’t a woman somewhere who can’t stand to be around him – although in the latter case, the divorce settlement may have somewhat ameliorated the loathing.

I did find it amusing that the woman in the article who was interested in applying for the millionaires dating club appeared to be genuinely surprised to discover that these monetary targets of opportunity were inclined her various interests as secondary. But the basic truth is pretty simple and all the fairy tale fantasies in the world won’t ever change the fundamental reality or importance of the propagation equation. Women trade looks and sex for status and security. This is not a bad thing, in fact, this is how the race – species if you prefer – survives.

Give women status and security, they stop breeding. Give men hot women without making them take responsibility for those women, they stop breeding. This is not rocket science, and it is also why any society that bases itself on a principle of sexual equality will fail within in less than five generations.