Into the Sewer: the American right wing, 2011

ok this is pretty awesome but how bout a change of subject

there's a few difft profiles of a dude named David Yerushalmi, a lawyer who's the source for a lot of the language of the anti-shariah bills being proposed at the state level.

here's his website, for "society of americans for national existence" which is weirdly members only, and a blog

http://www.saneworks.us/indexnew.php

what is this thread about now?

I figured right wing Christian fundamentalists destroying a painting that has long been a symbol of EVIL SECULAR ART FUNDING was more appropriate for Into the Sewer: the American right wing, 2011 than people arguing about graffiti.

"...which define sharia as that objectively knowable shariah..."

Um

That is some Bircher-level paranoid nonsense, goole.

adam, you did see I tried to tie it all together , right? ;)

The book-length analysis of shariah as the enemy threat doctrine, which I wrote about here last week, is subtitled, An Exercise in Competitive Analysis: Report of Team ‘B’ II. This Team B II Report is modeled after the 1976 document known as the ‘Team B Report,” which was the original “exercise in competitive analysis” by intelligence community outsiders who challenged the then-prevailing official CIA-driven U.S. government intelligence estimates of the intentions and offensive capabilities of the Soviet Union and the policy known as “deìtente,” which such estimates ostensibly justified.

wow what a great act to follow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

the sharia thing is pretty amazing!

deìtente Dude really needs a copy editor.

Now, you’re confused, you say. How is it possible that leftist-progressives oppose a law to protect fundamental constitutional liberties? The answer of course is that leftist-progressives only support constitutional liberties when they put national existence at risk and oppose them when they work to protect national existence.

I figured right wing Christian fundamentalists destroying a painting that has long been a symbol of EVIL SECULAR ART FUNDING was more appropriate for Into the Sewer: the American right wing, 2011 than people arguing about graffiti.

But it happened in France?

Have you not heard of sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs? Are these diseases "racist" or "white supremacists" because they affect people of African descent and Ashkenazi Jewish descent, respectively? Indeed, the point of the essay was that this does not speak to a "supremacy" by one group over another, merely a distinction or difference. Where in the essay does it speak in any way about one race being "superior" as in better or as in deserving certain "rights" over another?

Hmm, interesting to see that those guys have never been able to see past their ideology, goole.

anyway, this dude twigged me because he goes into one of my favorite tics of right-wing thinking of all stripes -- basic discomfort with democracy itself. like, i have my prejudices and everything but it would never occur to me to start grousing about the right of old southern white people to have the franchise, say...

but here he goes:

[4] The Founding Fathers purposefully limited the political franchise to a subset of the overall adult population. In several articles we asked the question why that was. It certainly was not, in their estimation, a mistake or an oversight. These men were brilliant political theorists who came together to author our founding documents and to create a social and political culture which developed into the greatest nation of modern times. This forces the question what it is the Founders sought to institutionalize by allowing such a limitation to the most important aspect of representative government. The modern narrative is that these men were flawed in the extreme and the great founding political error limiting the franchise in the way it did can be explained by the fact that the Founders were racists, bigots, and misogynists. But this narrative does not even bother to ask whether America could have come to exist or survive if modern notions of "democracy" as a kind of constant plebiscite among peoples with no common culture or worldview had existed at the time. Might it be worth asking if these men understood there to be an importance -- either in fact or in political theory -- to this discriminating limitation? But alas, to even ask this question is to suggest, at least by implication, that there might have been good reasons for such limitations. That, in today's politicized environment, is enough to indict even the best men.

^^^

"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I ever met" - A. Lincoln

have you been on youtube lately? we are a republic omg, not a democracy!!

youtube/ rw blogosphere/ politico comments

yes apparently i hate myself

That line always makes me laugh.

"We're a Christian country not a monarchy!"

here's the same kind of complaint from a very different kind of right winger:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/the-education-of-a-libertarian/

I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.”

But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.

...

To return to finance, the last economic depression in the United States that did not result in massive government intervention was the collapse of 1920–21. It was sharp but short, and entailed the sort of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” that could lead to a real boom. The decade that followed — the roaring 1920s — was so strong that historians have forgotten the depression that started it. The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

shame about what happened at the end of the 20s i guess

Oh my god

So he's basically still a girl-hating dork teenager

I love how these guys really like the boom and bust cycles. They're like alcoholics who get absolutely legless on Friday and Saturday and teatotal the rest of the week.

I stand against...the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual.

Sort of confused here. Is this some kind of anti-atheism statement? Is he a Kurzweilian?

Sort of think "the inevitability of the death of every individual" is less an ideology than a fact of life.

yeah i don't really get that statement either.

i think the idea is that, for libertarians, every kind of "mass" ideology, gov't, religion, whatev involves someone getting killed at some point, and the justification is, well, they were gonna die anyway.

which kind of puts anyone who isn't a 'classical liberal' in the same boat as mao and, like, rennaissance popes. which i guess is the point.

I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good

I thought this was table for a moment.

the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertariansthe vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians

Doesn't often bear multiple C&Ping but that did

"I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good"

Highest good = ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU! ME, ME, ME, ME, FCUK YOU!

the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual.

I'm pretty sure this is not an ideology

he's speaking of the metaphorical "death"; dude is trying to abolish orgasms

i was gonna say something about how libertarians have this weird read of history where there isn't any kind of oppression except from states and that's always getting worse (or has been at least since, well, when? the 19th century? the 18th?)

but i poked around and here's something from a cato bigwig at least pushing back on that idea:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/06/up-from-slavery

Has there ever been a golden age of liberty? No, and there never will be. There will always be people who want to live their lives in peace, and there will always be people who want to exploit them or impose their own ideas on others. If we look at the long term—from a past that includes despotism, feudalism, absolutism, fascism, and communism—we’re clearly better off. When we look at our own country's history—contrasting 2010 with 1776 or 1910 or 1950 or whatever—the story is less clear. We suffer under a lot of regulations and restrictions that our ancestors didn’t face. But in 1776 black Americans were held in chattel slavery, and married women had no legal existence except as agents of their husbands. In 1910 and even 1950, blacks still suffered under the legal bonds of Jim Crow—and we all faced confiscatory tax rates throughout the postwar period.

(not really very sewer-y, sorry!)

Now, you’re confused, you say. How is it possible that leftist-progressives oppose a law to protect fundamental constitutional liberties? The answer of course is that leftist-progressives only support constitutional liberties when they put national existence at risk and oppose them when they work to protect national existence.

― ban drake (the rapper) (max), Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:43 AM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ha i'm finally reading Nixonland and this sounds like it was lifted directly from that book

goole, he still misreads Adam Smith in assuming that all regulation is always bad. Smith doesn't argue against common sense regulations as much as he argues against state monopolies that primarily benefit the Crown and its dependents.

ha, though i like the way the kicker at the end implies taxes are as bad as, or worse, than slavery, jim crow, and the denial of womens rights xp

The answer of course is that leftist-progressives only support constitutional liberties when they put national existence at risk and oppose them when they work to protect national existence.

The great shift here, stems from the hyperbolic, sweeping 'only'. W/o it, l-ps are msiguided and dangerous and conservatives are sound. W/ it, l-ps seek the destruction of the nation and conservatives can not only be proud but they are a necessity.

i should really read adam smith one of these days.

which "he" do you mean, michael?

xps david yerushalmi writes like a bullying asshole so i dunno if there's much good to be had picking him apart...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljwqj6obHt1qcokc4o1_500.gif

^^ freedomworks softball team

and we all faced confiscatory tax rates throughout the postwar period.

Assuming you were really wealthy, maybe. Interesting to note that this was one of the periods of the greatest wealth creation in the history of humanity.

I wonder is stealing bases is allowed in Objectivist softball.

*if

It's mandatory, actually

which "he" do you mean, michael?

David Boaz.

See if you can find Adam Smith's Mistake by Kenneth Lux, goole.

k, i should start with the primary stuff tho! i'm really very poorly read, it's crazy

We suffer under a lot of regulations and restrictions that our ancestors didn’t face.

This victimizing stuff is so narcissistic and petty, thinking you are unique in the history of mankind because you suffer the great injustice of having to pay taxes. The injustice of having a number on a piece of paper not be a higher number.

Pretty sure anyone from the past would gladly trade not having to put their children to work in a factory, not getting the plague, not dying before your 30th birthday, not being able to travel anywhere without it taking month/years of your life, not living in a cave, etc. for an abstract numerical inconvenience.

Let's all say this together: MY INCOME IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING

On the Home Page

NRO hosts a symposium of old hands and godfathers of the conservative movement remembering Bill Rusher.

William F. Buckley Jr. toasts Bill Rusher, with whom he has been recently reunited.

Ed Whelan unpacks the legal implications of Vaughn Walker’s recent disclosure.

Fred Thompson tells the true story of the Gucci loafers at the Iowa State Fair, and derives a lesson about political journalists.

Dennis Prager urges Christians to exhibit solidarity with those persecuted in the Middle East.

Mona Charen observes that the government isn’t smart enough to effectively promote public health.

Thomas Sowell exposes the hypocrisy of those who claim they are against “bullying.”

Jay Nordlinger improvises on protesters in Syria, Obama in Latin America, Vittorio Arrigoni (killed) in Palestine, and Bill Rusher’s love for dessert and freedom.

At one point should this tryannical imposition by the collective on the individual end? Do we have the collective right to proscribe murder? To insist on military service? To demand innoculation, primary education, etc...?

Quit bullying us into not bullying!