The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Freedom of Speech Is No Longer a Human Right
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Marine Le Pen, French National Front Leader, Speaks at Her Hate-Speech Trial
By ADAM NOSSITER OCT. 20, 2015

LYON, France — With pugnacity and self-assurance, the French far-right leader Marine Le Pen defended herself in a courtroom on Tuesday against charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims, provoking cheers of “France for the French” from supporters in the courthouse halls afterward.

Drawing on French anxiety over the migrant surge in the east, an electoral campaign in which Ms. Le Pen’s National Front is seen as having momentum, and her own charisma, she turned what was meant as an accusatory stage into a full-throated platform for her views.

The context was unusual, but the hard line taken by the populist leader was not: France’s Muslim immigrants are an alien force threatening French values.

Human rights lawyers — France’s court proceedings allow their intervention — tried to challenge her, but Ms. Le Pen, a skillful lawyer herself, batted them away. …

But it took the lifting of her parliamentary immunity by the European Parliament in 2013 for the case to move forward, spurred on by the human rights groups. …

When the case finally came to trial on Tuesday — a final judgment is expected on Dec. 15, and Ms. Le Pen could face a fine of over $50,000 and up to a year in prison — it did so at an ideal moment for the political leader.

Okay, but isn’t the idea that the frontrunner in the first round of Presidential voting in 2017 is on trial and facing a year’s imprisonment for a speech somewhat eye-opening to Americans? Does nobody notice the irony in “human rights” lawyers and groups trying to stifle freedom of speech in the land of Voltaire and Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternity?

Or has the term “human rights” simply become, like “civil rights,” a who?-whom? term to depict whose side you are on, with no relation anymore to general principles?

 
Hide 120 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Become”, “anymore” – I’m eyerolling at this. Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon. Not an emoji though, that’s tacky.

    There were never any general principles in politics. The aspies who sincerely believe in them are not made for politics and never get anywhere in it.

    Steve, I have a feeling that you think that there used to be general principles in politics because you beleived in them yourself in your youth. And as you became more skeptical and cynical, you subconsciously assumed that the world was getting that way too. No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict. It’s just that when you were young you didn’t yet notice this.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Glossy

    Insightful @Glossy. I'm Steve's age, and you've captured my own journey. The aspie observation is perfect.

    We're doomed. . . but we've always been.

    , @Anonym
    @Glossy

    Ain't that the truth. Except that most white guys who influence politics think of themselves as a tribe of one, or a tribe of their family.

    I disagree with the contention that aspies who sincerely believe in politics necessarily can't learn it and do well in it. It's just that once you are introduced to it and see how it works on the inside, you need to be a student of the game. Sometimes very competitive people can be aspie. It's not inconceivable that they can learn how things really work after first having an outsider's principle based understanding of politics.

    , @Rob McX
    @Glossy


    No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict
     
    Tribalism can be a principle in itself, more or less, i.e. the belief in homogeneous nation states and the rejection of diversity. Without this underlying principle, no society can remain stable. The best that a multiracial country can do is have a dominant race, or at least a race whose culture is accepted by the rest of the population, as in America when it was 90 per cent white. In countries with near-equal proportions of competing ethnic groups, the most you can hope for is a state of controlled hostility.

    The sort of tribalism you see in highly-inbred, low-trust societies is a different matter.

    , @ion
    @Glossy


    Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon.
     
    Apparently, there are already several accepted variations:

    @@

    8-|

    >>

    9_9

    Source: http://pc.net/emoticons/smiley/rolling_eyes
    , @Anonymous
    @Glossy

    Funnily enough, you're being the aspie here, sticking to your absolutist general principle 'THERE ARE NO GENERAL PRINCIPLES'. Of course much of politics involves skillfully abusing the general principles of one's society, more exactly knowing when to and how to get away with it, but to deny that the existence and importance of general principle (JUSTICE, EQUALITY, FREEDOM, etc., etc.) to political discourse and rhetoric and the course of history is absolutely demented.

    , @another fred
    @Glossy

    When the country was young, less crowded and less ethnically diverse more freedom could be tolerated (blacks and Indians need not apply).


    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
    - John Adams .
     
    Books have been written about how "moral and religious" earlier Americans were or were not, and I will not seek to add to that discussion, but the simple fact was that much more leeway could be, and was, allowed. That change is a real change. If Americans were allowed that degree of liberty today there would be blood in the streets.
    , @AndrewR
    @Glossy

    I concur with anonymous. Politicians usually do have principles but unless they're flexible then they generally won't do well in politics. The ones that lack principles completely, like Nixon, tend to hoist themselves by their own petards.

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @Glossy

    You are wrong in your effort to be your own kind of cynical absolutist. Yes, we all know politics is dirty and local and yada yada yada.

    However:

    Neither Trump nor Carson are on trial or threatened with imprisonment for making their own kinds of arguments that have been interpreted as "hateful" here...

    In France, Le Pen is.

    The United States is not like France -- YET.

    If you just give up, well then indeed you won't have any principles.

    Replies: @NOTA

  2. The NYT says that the NF had a history of collaboration with the Nazis. What history of collaboration? It was the Socialist Mitterand who was the collaborator.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/former-collaborator-loyal-to-a-murky-past-1323088.html

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @22pp22

    and who cares if they did? Anybody alive back then is dead. Not only that but who cares what anybody believes if his policy toward France is the correct one? I would have thought the French too smart to fall for that. I guess human stupidity is universal.

  3. Je suis hypocrite.

  4. German constitutional law has made some reasonable distinctions here (don’t know about U.S. constitutional law).
    First, it is inevitable that one person’s rights are confined by other persons’ other rights. So it is reasonable to accept that free speech can be subject to restrictions.
    Secondly, these restrictions have to be restricted, too. The most important qualifications are (1) that a basic right A can only be restricted in favor of another basic right B and (2) that, even in this case, the restriction mustn’t damage the “essence” of the basic right.
    Unfortunately, German constitutional law has not yet defined precisely what the “essence” of free speech comprehends. Which makes hate speech trials in Germany unpredictable (yet a lot of convictions are quashed by the highest courts).

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    @Stogumber

    In the US we have categories of protected free speech. libel isn't protected, slander isn't protected, going up to someone and goading them into hitting you isn't protected(they are free to hit you). hate speech on the other hand is very much protected precisely for the reason that defining it is pretty subjective.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Stogumber

    Stogumber wrote:


    First, it is inevitable that one person’s rights are confined by other persons’ other rights. So it is reasonable to accept that free speech can be subject to restrictions.
     
    Well... depends on what you mean by rights, now doesn't it?

    The modern "welfare rights" of contemporary liberalism -- the right to be provided with various goodies at the expense of your fellow citizens -- certainly do necessarily involve conflicts among "rights." But the "natural rights" of Locke and the American founders, precisely because they are not rights to goodies but merely the right to be physically left alone, are less likely to involve inherent conflicts.

    It's the old "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" principle that kids were supposed to learn back when the country was semi-civilized. Say what you wish, but when you start swinging at the other guy's face, you are in real trouble.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    Replies: @Travis

    , @pyrrhus
    @Stogumber

    As far as I can tell, the USA is the last country with freedom of speech, because of an explicit constitutional guarantee....but of course it is being eroded by the same forces that have doomed Europe.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    , @Bob
    @Stogumber


    First, it is inevitable that one person’s rights are confined by other persons’ other rights.
     
    In the US, ever since 1964, no black man can be free as long as one white man is allowed to refuse involuntary servitude. If you don't think that is true, just try it. Curiously, it doesn't work in reverse ... well, maybe if I was a sodomite.
  5. Actually, France, as a member state of the EU, is legally obliged to abide by the Articles of Constitution of the EU.
    These Articles specifically protect the right to free speech.

    • Replies: @JLoHo
    @Anonymous

    AHAhaAHahAhaAHAahahAHAHahaAHAHAahaahAHAHAAH!!!

    , @Thomas Fuller
    @Anonymous

    They also protect the right to receive information, yet the EU pays millions of euros to the BBC, which threatens imprisonment for any householder in the UK who refuses to buy a "TV licence", without which (I am not kidding) it is illegal to watch live TV (i.e. as it is being broadcast). The licence costs £145.50 a year. Payment is enforced by an army of ill-educated goons.

    The money received by the BBC from Brussels is relatively inconsequential compared with their annual rake-in of about £4 billion, but helps to explain the blatant pro-EU bias in BBC programming – which will be especially evident as the In/Out referendum approaches.

    The BBC is also, of course, one of the champions of demonizing any views which do not precisely match their own: their funding model is, after all, socialism writ large.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Tracy
    @Anonymous


    Actually, France, as a member state of the EU, is legally obliged to abide by the Articles of Constitution of the EU. These Articles specifically protect the right to free speech.
     
    I think you mean "theoretically" instead of "actually." Free speech is pretty dead there in reality. And in Germany. And so forth. At least when it comes to saying anything about Jewish power or Jewish History. Things are really freed-up when it comes to dissing Christianity.

    --Speaking of which, some folks here might be interested in reading Israel Shamir's "Pussy Riot: Secret History". It's unreal to read that History and to contrast it with how Pussy Riot is treated in our media (e.g., getting a cameo in "House of Cards").

    Replies: @MarkinLA

  6. Human rights, like race, are social constructs, and therefore they have no “taxonomic”/insert correct word/ significance.

    Only a zealot wedded to outmoded 19th century ideas could still believe in human rights.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @anon

    As I have been saying for the past few months, the Age of Ideas--the Enlightenment--is drawing to a close. Tom Wolfe has it exactly right; we are headed back to blood. The Marxists are just hoping they're the last ones in the cannibal pot.

    , @Chris Mallory
    @anon

    Then call me a Zealot. There are basic human rights and freedom of speech is one of them. Restrictions upon those rights are the social constructs. The rights exist, the restrictions only come about due to government.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anon

  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The wider point is, Steve, is that the French political class, over the past half century, have created an imminent racial and demographic catastrophe in their nation.
    – They know this. And they are shit scared of the day of reckoning, when it will *inevitably* come. So they are forced to flail out by duplicitously and hypocritically taking fundamentally ‘illiberal’ measures.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Anonymous

    Once the powers that be have committed to some course of action, they will inevitably look for ways to suppress criticism of that course of action if it goes sour. Hate speech laws provide a way to suppress certain criticism, and they're being used that way.

  8. No one cares because we can’t do anything about it.

  9. @Anonymous
    Actually, France, as a member state of the EU, is legally obliged to abide by the Articles of Constitution of the EU.
    These Articles specifically protect the right to free speech.

    Replies: @JLoHo, @Thomas Fuller, @Tracy

    AHAhaAHahAhaAHAahahAHAHahaAHAHAahaahAHAHAAH!!!

  10. We see the following reasoning all the time now:

    Enemies of the New Order lack credibility.

    How so?

    They are all criminals.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @G Pinfold

    "Enemies of the New Order lack credibility."

    I believe you left out the word "World" after "New" and before "Order," as in "New World Order." Incidentally, I was amused to find that "new world order" was a phrase that appeared to take Adolph Hitler's fancy during his very early days of political organizing immediately after the end of WWI, according to John Toland's magisterial biography "Adolf Hitler." Interesting how certain phrases seem to appeal to politicians of all stripes but of a certain way of thinking.

  11. Does nobody notice the irony in “human rights” lawyers and groups trying to stifle freedom of speech in the land of Voltaire and Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternity?

    Or has the term “human rights” simply become, like “civil rights,” a who?-whom? term to depict whose side you are on, with no relation anymore to general principles?

    One of the many obstacles western conservatives face in politics is our worldview. Whether or not we are Christian, most of us still hold to some objective ordering of values and ethics.

    The Leftists long ago abandoned any such restraint. Yet they are cunning, and therefore eager to fling the charge of ‘Hypocrite!’ against their political enemies, because they know it still carries a sting. But they themselves don’t feel the reverse. Just witness the wagons circling around Hillary in the past few days, as her acolytes and sycophants positively relish her ability to grind down her interlocutors with the sheer weight and power of her sneering, cackling, right-in-their-faces hypocrisy and lies.

    It’s getting harder and harder to keep watching . . . .

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    As the excellent Porter puts it, the Right is loyal to its principles, the Left is loyal to its own power.

    Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics.

    Replies: @SFG, @NOTA, @Hubbub

  12. Contempt for freedom of speech by the establishment is one of the two keys to the Nazi seizure of power.

    Once the Depression was on, lots of nationalist and socialist parties and movements were organizing everywhere. In Germany, the Communists and various nationalist movements were threatening the established parties. One of the measures taken to damp down power of the nationalists was a ban on discriminatory and anti-semitic propaganda.

    Of course the Nazis — being true believers and shameless and drunken crooks willing to brawl with cops in the streets — were undeterred. The respectable FN and UKIP type movements were suppressed and appeared to voters to be milquetoast losers. The brawling Nazis were strengthened by the laws that suppressed their natural competition.

    Eventually the Nazis took power on the basis of their well-honed SA street fighting. Suppressing the vote by open threats in front of the polls in unfavorable areas got them up to 33% in ’32 after which they took control of the police and openly beat down competitors’ supporters and got up to 40%.

    None of that could have happened without the boost from knocking down legitimate nationalists.

    Of course, Germany and France learned nothing and their wishy-washy national supposed leadership thirst for another strongman to lead them. Spilled blood and a failed nation seems a small price to pay so they continue to cut down reasonable leadership. Bans on nationalist parties, bans on Nazi symbolism, and various other official suppression of ideas continue in both nations. Failure to face up to Nazis and communists honestly and defeat them intellectually often ends tragically. The Anglo nations survived both challenges because their leadership had to defeat communists and fascists in open debate.

    But the leadership class of Europe aches — almost sexually — for a new Hitler’s boots to kiss. That is the dirty secret to why they behave as they do.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @(((Owen)))


    Eventually the Nazis took power on the basis of their well-honed SA street fighting.
     
    That's just really wrong. All the major parties had street fighting paramilitaries, and the Nazi Party's SA was nothing special.

    Hitler's rise to power, while not a model of liberal democratic legitimacy, was basically democratic. More so than fellow fascist Franco, and perhaps even a little more than Mussolini. The Nazis had the electoral support of about a third of the population, and the traditional German right were persuaded by Hitler than he was a better choice than the German left.

    The respectable FN and UKIP type movements were suppressed and appeared to voters to be milquetoast losers.
     
    Nope, didn't happen. There were plenty of moderate nationalist parties in Germany. And the mainstream right there was extremely nationalist by modern standards and favored repudiation of Versailles, rearmament, re-militarization of the Rhineland, and annexation of Austria, Sudetenland, and Danzig.
  13. Or has the term “human rights” simply become, like “civil rights,” a who?-whom? term to depict whose side you are on, with no relation anymore to general principles?

    To ask that question is to answer it.

  14. @Glossy
    "Become", "anymore" - I'm eyerolling at this. Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon. Not an emoji though, that's tacky.

    There were never any general principles in politics. The aspies who sincerely believe in them are not made for politics and never get anywhere in it.

    Steve, I have a feeling that you think that there used to be general principles in politics because you beleived in them yourself in your youth. And as you became more skeptical and cynical, you subconsciously assumed that the world was getting that way too. No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict. It's just that when you were young you didn't yet notice this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym, @Rob McX, @ion, @Anonymous, @another fred, @AndrewR, @Buzz Mohawk

    Insightful . I’m Steve’s age, and you’ve captured my own journey. The aspie observation is perfect.

    We’re doomed. . . but we’ve always been.

  15. The public prosecutor has asked for Marine Le Pen’s acquittal. Of course, the tribunal is not obliged to abide by the prosecutor’s request, so, theoretically at last, MLP could go to jail for one year.

    MLP is using the trial as an opportunity to express her un-PC views. Usually, the public at large sympathizes when someone is prosecuted for speaking the truth, as journalist Eric Zemmour knows quite well. Few politicians can say, like MLP, “I’m not afraid to go to jail for speaking the truth, and I can prove it.”

    Since what MLP is tried for, is what most French people said at least once in private (or in not so private places, such as barrooms). Most people tend to sympathize with the accused when such a trial takes place, and she knows it.

    The threat of a trial is more than enough to deter most people from saying un-PC things.

    I’ve noticed that the people who cling to PC thinking usually are timid types. They’re terrified of being ostracized if they are un-PC, and to protect themselves they preventatively ostracize the un-PC. As a colleague of mine once said about Zemmour: “I know that what he said is true, but nevertheless I think that he shouldn’t have said it.”

    Which is another way of saying: “I agree with Zemmour, but I’m afraid of being rejected if I say it aloud. Whereas if I abide by PC ideas, no one will reject me outright.”

    Is there any country other than France in the world where a female frontrunner for the next presidential elections could go to jail, at least in theory? I can think of one… But if, in that other country, the female frontrunner ever goes to jail, it won’t be for having spoken the truth… 😉

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @Horzabky


    “I agree with Zemmour, but I’m afraid of being rejected if I say it aloud. Whereas if I abide by PC ideas, no one will reject me outright.”
     
    Think of the mental gymnastics involved by PC people in the above as the newspeak rights by proxy, which ends up being a devolution of rights. Here is a rough analog from another discipline.

    The name John Nash evokes his eponymous Equilibrium: In game theory, the NE is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy.

    In the current SJW world, we face a type of Dysfunction Equilibrium. DE players don't want to cooperate, and are assumed to have everything to lose by not abiding by the presumed received strategy.

    How is that possibly efficient, effective or any other E word? Visualize yourself as a marble sitting on a saddle, where any perturbation will send you hyperbolicly accelerating into the social abyss.

    What used to be "Your right to hit someone ends at their nose" is now "Some stranger's right to hit someone no longer ends at your nose".

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  16. @Anonymous
    Actually, France, as a member state of the EU, is legally obliged to abide by the Articles of Constitution of the EU.
    These Articles specifically protect the right to free speech.

    Replies: @JLoHo, @Thomas Fuller, @Tracy

    They also protect the right to receive information, yet the EU pays millions of euros to the BBC, which threatens imprisonment for any householder in the UK who refuses to buy a “TV licence”, without which (I am not kidding) it is illegal to watch live TV (i.e. as it is being broadcast). The licence costs £145.50 a year. Payment is enforced by an army of ill-educated goons.

    The money received by the BBC from Brussels is relatively inconsequential compared with their annual rake-in of about £4 billion, but helps to explain the blatant pro-EU bias in BBC programming – which will be especially evident as the In/Out referendum approaches.

    The BBC is also, of course, one of the champions of demonizing any views which do not precisely match their own: their funding model is, after all, socialism writ large.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Thomas Fuller

    Of course, George Orwell based the 'Ministry of Truth' on the BBC, whom he had worked for.

  17. @Stogumber
    German constitutional law has made some reasonable distinctions here (don't know about U.S. constitutional law).
    First, it is inevitable that one person's rights are confined by other persons' other rights. So it is reasonable to accept that free speech can be subject to restrictions.
    Secondly, these restrictions have to be restricted, too. The most important qualifications are (1) that a basic right A can only be restricted in favor of another basic right B and (2) that, even in this case, the restriction mustn't damage the "essence" of the basic right.
    Unfortunately, German constitutional law has not yet defined precisely what the "essence" of free speech comprehends. Which makes hate speech trials in Germany unpredictable (yet a lot of convictions are quashed by the highest courts).

    Replies: @AnAnon, @PhysicistDave, @pyrrhus, @Bob

    In the US we have categories of protected free speech. libel isn’t protected, slander isn’t protected, going up to someone and goading them into hitting you isn’t protected(they are free to hit you). hate speech on the other hand is very much protected precisely for the reason that defining it is pretty subjective.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @AnAnon

    IANAA but I believe that you will be punished for attacking a goader but less severely than if you had not been goaded.

  18. @Horzabky
    The public prosecutor has asked for Marine Le Pen's acquittal. Of course, the tribunal is not obliged to abide by the prosecutor's request, so, theoretically at last, MLP could go to jail for one year.

    MLP is using the trial as an opportunity to express her un-PC views. Usually, the public at large sympathizes when someone is prosecuted for speaking the truth, as journalist Eric Zemmour knows quite well. Few politicians can say, like MLP, "I'm not afraid to go to jail for speaking the truth, and I can prove it."

    Since what MLP is tried for, is what most French people said at least once in private (or in not so private places, such as barrooms). Most people tend to sympathize with the accused when such a trial takes place, and she knows it.

    The threat of a trial is more than enough to deter most people from saying un-PC things.

    I've noticed that the people who cling to PC thinking usually are timid types. They're terrified of being ostracized if they are un-PC, and to protect themselves they preventatively ostracize the un-PC. As a colleague of mine once said about Zemmour: "I know that what he said is true, but nevertheless I think that he shouldn't have said it."

    Which is another way of saying: "I agree with Zemmour, but I'm afraid of being rejected if I say it aloud. Whereas if I abide by PC ideas, no one will reject me outright."

    Is there any country other than France in the world where a female frontrunner for the next presidential elections could go to jail, at least in theory? I can think of one... But if, in that other country, the female frontrunner ever goes to jail, it won't be for having spoken the truth... ;)

    Replies: @Ivy

    “I agree with Zemmour, but I’m afraid of being rejected if I say it aloud. Whereas if I abide by PC ideas, no one will reject me outright.”

    Think of the mental gymnastics involved by PC people in the above as the newspeak rights by proxy, which ends up being a devolution of rights. Here is a rough analog from another discipline.

    The name John Nash evokes his eponymous Equilibrium: In game theory, the NE is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy.

    In the current SJW world, we face a type of Dysfunction Equilibrium. DE players don’t want to cooperate, and are assumed to have everything to lose by not abiding by the presumed received strategy.

    How is that possibly efficient, effective or any other E word? Visualize yourself as a marble sitting on a saddle, where any perturbation will send you hyperbolicly accelerating into the social abyss.

    What used to be “Your right to hit someone ends at their nose” is now “Some stranger’s right to hit someone no longer ends at your nose”.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Ivy

    Ivy wrote:


    Visualize yourself as a marble sitting on a saddle, where any perturbation will send you hyperbolicly accelerating into the social abyss.
     
    But, that is exactly what is so cool about PC! You have a tough day at work, your spouse or kids are annoying you, then you just go to a random site online and state some simple scientific truths -- the genetic potential for any trait that varies within a population must vary between populations, predicting the long-term global climate is scientifically challenging, etc. -- and it is like shooting fish in a barrel. You get to take out your frustrations in micro-aggressions against the PC weenies.

    I find it is quite relaxing.

    Dave

    Replies: @Yak-15

  19. @G Pinfold
    We see the following reasoning all the time now:

    Enemies of the New Order lack credibility.

    How so?

    They are all criminals.

    Replies: @tbraton

    “Enemies of the New Order lack credibility.”

    I believe you left out the word “World” after “New” and before “Order,” as in “New World Order.” Incidentally, I was amused to find that “new world order” was a phrase that appeared to take Adolph Hitler’s fancy during his very early days of political organizing immediately after the end of WWI, according to John Toland’s magisterial biography “Adolf Hitler.” Interesting how certain phrases seem to appeal to politicians of all stripes but of a certain way of thinking.

  20. The frontrunner in the first round of Presidential voting in 2017 is on trial and facing a year’s imprisonment for a speech

    If you asked most Americans and Euros to “guess the country” how many would say Putin’s Russia?

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  21. It’s not particularly ironic if you know anything at all about the French revolution.

  22. @Glossy
    "Become", "anymore" - I'm eyerolling at this. Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon. Not an emoji though, that's tacky.

    There were never any general principles in politics. The aspies who sincerely believe in them are not made for politics and never get anywhere in it.

    Steve, I have a feeling that you think that there used to be general principles in politics because you beleived in them yourself in your youth. And as you became more skeptical and cynical, you subconsciously assumed that the world was getting that way too. No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict. It's just that when you were young you didn't yet notice this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym, @Rob McX, @ion, @Anonymous, @another fred, @AndrewR, @Buzz Mohawk

    Ain’t that the truth. Except that most white guys who influence politics think of themselves as a tribe of one, or a tribe of their family.

    I disagree with the contention that aspies who sincerely believe in politics necessarily can’t learn it and do well in it. It’s just that once you are introduced to it and see how it works on the inside, you need to be a student of the game. Sometimes very competitive people can be aspie. It’s not inconceivable that they can learn how things really work after first having an outsider’s principle based understanding of politics.

  23. Free speech is a civil liberty, not a human right. But it’s a who-whom construct either way.

  24. @Stogumber
    German constitutional law has made some reasonable distinctions here (don't know about U.S. constitutional law).
    First, it is inevitable that one person's rights are confined by other persons' other rights. So it is reasonable to accept that free speech can be subject to restrictions.
    Secondly, these restrictions have to be restricted, too. The most important qualifications are (1) that a basic right A can only be restricted in favor of another basic right B and (2) that, even in this case, the restriction mustn't damage the "essence" of the basic right.
    Unfortunately, German constitutional law has not yet defined precisely what the "essence" of free speech comprehends. Which makes hate speech trials in Germany unpredictable (yet a lot of convictions are quashed by the highest courts).

    Replies: @AnAnon, @PhysicistDave, @pyrrhus, @Bob

    Stogumber wrote:

    First, it is inevitable that one person’s rights are confined by other persons’ other rights. So it is reasonable to accept that free speech can be subject to restrictions.

    Well… depends on what you mean by rights, now doesn’t it?

    The modern “welfare rights” of contemporary liberalism — the right to be provided with various goodies at the expense of your fellow citizens — certainly do necessarily involve conflicts among “rights.” But the “natural rights” of Locke and the American founders, precisely because they are not rights to goodies but merely the right to be physically left alone, are less likely to involve inherent conflicts.

    It’s the old “Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words can never hurt me” principle that kids were supposed to learn back when the country was semi-civilized. Say what you wish, but when you start swinging at the other guy’s face, you are in real trouble.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • Agree: Daniel Williams
    • Replies: @Travis
    @PhysicistDave

    correct...my right to speak my mind does not infringe on others right to criticize my speech. True rights do not impose obligations on others. My right to bear arms does not impose an obligation on my neighbors to subsidies my gun purchases. My right to join a church or political group does not impose an obligation on others to fund my organizations budget.

    The leftists , like the Islamists, seek to outlaw fee speech and create thought crimes because their ideology cannot be logically defended. Thus they desire to criminalize those who use logic to attack their ideology.

    Le Pen and others are being prosecuted for their ideology, not for "hate speech". One is permitted to actively promote the Islamists invasion of Europe and "hatred' toward Christians. Hate speech against Germans is allowed , the promotion of genocide against Germany by forcing the nation to accept millions of invading muslims and pay for their housing, food, education would be considered a hate crime if done in reverse.

  25. @Ivy
    @Horzabky


    “I agree with Zemmour, but I’m afraid of being rejected if I say it aloud. Whereas if I abide by PC ideas, no one will reject me outright.”
     
    Think of the mental gymnastics involved by PC people in the above as the newspeak rights by proxy, which ends up being a devolution of rights. Here is a rough analog from another discipline.

    The name John Nash evokes his eponymous Equilibrium: In game theory, the NE is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy.

    In the current SJW world, we face a type of Dysfunction Equilibrium. DE players don't want to cooperate, and are assumed to have everything to lose by not abiding by the presumed received strategy.

    How is that possibly efficient, effective or any other E word? Visualize yourself as a marble sitting on a saddle, where any perturbation will send you hyperbolicly accelerating into the social abyss.

    What used to be "Your right to hit someone ends at their nose" is now "Some stranger's right to hit someone no longer ends at your nose".

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Ivy wrote:

    Visualize yourself as a marble sitting on a saddle, where any perturbation will send you hyperbolicly accelerating into the social abyss.

    But, that is exactly what is so cool about PC! You have a tough day at work, your spouse or kids are annoying you, then you just go to a random site online and state some simple scientific truths — the genetic potential for any trait that varies within a population must vary between populations, predicting the long-term global climate is scientifically challenging, etc. — and it is like shooting fish in a barrel. You get to take out your frustrations in micro-aggressions against the PC weenies.

    I find it is quite relaxing.

    Dave

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    @PhysicistDave

    Interesting idea. For me to see the PC opinion trumped is mind-blowing and enraging. Why? Because so much public policy is decided based upon the premises of PC and modern progressive dogma.

    These policies cost me money and subject opinions like mine to scorn and real world consequences for questioning the narrative. I wish I could share your delight.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  26. @anon
    Human rights, like race, are social constructs, and therefore they have no "taxonomic"/insert correct word/ significance.

    Only a zealot wedded to outmoded 19th century ideas could still believe in human rights.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Chris Mallory

    As I have been saying for the past few months, the Age of Ideas–the Enlightenment–is drawing to a close. Tom Wolfe has it exactly right; we are headed back to blood. The Marxists are just hoping they’re the last ones in the cannibal pot.

  27. There’s no such thing as human rights. Man is a social animal: your rights are imbedded in the society you are part of; “civil rights” is a pretty good name for them. My civil rights come from custom and habit, from the Common Law and from statute law. There’s no doubt about the duty to enforce them; it falls on me, my compatriots, and the courts.

    “Human Rights” is just a silly political advertising slogan from the 18th century – whose duty is it to enforce them? Ah, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, mediated through the UN. Good luck with that.

    • Agree: Harold
  28. @The Last Real Calvinist

    Does nobody notice the irony in “human rights” lawyers and groups trying to stifle freedom of speech in the land of Voltaire and Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternity?

    Or has the term “human rights” simply become, like “civil rights,” a who?-whom? term to depict whose side you are on, with no relation anymore to general principles?
     

    One of the many obstacles western conservatives face in politics is our worldview. Whether or not we are Christian, most of us still hold to some objective ordering of values and ethics.

    The Leftists long ago abandoned any such restraint. Yet they are cunning, and therefore eager to fling the charge of 'Hypocrite!' against their political enemies, because they know it still carries a sting. But they themselves don't feel the reverse. Just witness the wagons circling around Hillary in the past few days, as her acolytes and sycophants positively relish her ability to grind down her interlocutors with the sheer weight and power of her sneering, cackling, right-in-their-faces hypocrisy and lies.

    It's getting harder and harder to keep watching . . . .

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    As the excellent Porter puts it, the Right is loyal to its principles, the Left is loyal to its own power.

    Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Sorry, I disagree.

    The Right as most people define it--the Republican party, Fox News, etc.is *also* loyal to its own power. What *you* consider the Right--paleocons, etc. has principles and is loyal to them. But that's why it keeps getting marginalized. (Look at your doppelgangers on the left: how far do you expect Bernie Sanders to get?) Getting power in the real world is always a deal with the devil. Politics is the art of compromise.

    I do think you're right about identity politics--as whites in America are more and more embattled, whites are going to feel better and better about striking out for white interests.You already see it on Twitter--Take Us Down, etc.

    Of course, by then the country will have gone severely downhill.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    , @NOTA
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    So, would I look to the record of the two Bush administrations to see examples of the right being loyal to their principles?

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @(((Owen)))

    , @Hubbub
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    "Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics."

    Then the Right will no longer be the Right, right?

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  29. @Thomas Fuller
    @Anonymous

    They also protect the right to receive information, yet the EU pays millions of euros to the BBC, which threatens imprisonment for any householder in the UK who refuses to buy a "TV licence", without which (I am not kidding) it is illegal to watch live TV (i.e. as it is being broadcast). The licence costs £145.50 a year. Payment is enforced by an army of ill-educated goons.

    The money received by the BBC from Brussels is relatively inconsequential compared with their annual rake-in of about £4 billion, but helps to explain the blatant pro-EU bias in BBC programming – which will be especially evident as the In/Out referendum approaches.

    The BBC is also, of course, one of the champions of demonizing any views which do not precisely match their own: their funding model is, after all, socialism writ large.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Of course, George Orwell based the ‘Ministry of Truth’ on the BBC, whom he had worked for.

  30. France has always had a somewhat dubious record when it comes to freedom of speech. Zola had to flee to London after the publication of J’Accuse.

    But Britain is going the same way. A few years ago a Stephen Birrell was jailed in Scotland for tweeting insultingly about the Roman Catholic pope.

    In Canada freedom of speech is dead and burried. Some guy in Ontario is facing several months in prison for calling a woman ugly on twitter. Ezra Levant is also facing prison for saying a member of the Human Rights Commission was stupid.

  31. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    As the excellent Porter puts it, the Right is loyal to its principles, the Left is loyal to its own power.

    Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics.

    Replies: @SFG, @NOTA, @Hubbub

    Sorry, I disagree.

    The Right as most people define it–the Republican party, Fox News, etc.is *also* loyal to its own power. What *you* consider the Right–paleocons, etc. has principles and is loyal to them. But that’s why it keeps getting marginalized. (Look at your doppelgangers on the left: how far do you expect Bernie Sanders to get?) Getting power in the real world is always a deal with the devil. Politics is the art of compromise.

    I do think you’re right about identity politics–as whites in America are more and more embattled, whites are going to feel better and better about striking out for white interests.You already see it on Twitter–Take Us Down, etc.

    Of course, by then the country will have gone severely downhill.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @SFG

    Read your comment again. You are actually agreeing with me.

    The part you're missing is that people can adopt principles, but principles don't make people. Jews for example hold many diverse views, but they are still here because enough of them agree on one thing: that they have a right to exist as a genetically distinct people.

    Replies: @SFG

  32. @Glossy
    "Become", "anymore" - I'm eyerolling at this. Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon. Not an emoji though, that's tacky.

    There were never any general principles in politics. The aspies who sincerely believe in them are not made for politics and never get anywhere in it.

    Steve, I have a feeling that you think that there used to be general principles in politics because you beleived in them yourself in your youth. And as you became more skeptical and cynical, you subconsciously assumed that the world was getting that way too. No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict. It's just that when you were young you didn't yet notice this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym, @Rob McX, @ion, @Anonymous, @another fred, @AndrewR, @Buzz Mohawk

    No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict

    Tribalism can be a principle in itself, more or less, i.e. the belief in homogeneous nation states and the rejection of diversity. Without this underlying principle, no society can remain stable. The best that a multiracial country can do is have a dominant race, or at least a race whose culture is accepted by the rest of the population, as in America when it was 90 per cent white. In countries with near-equal proportions of competing ethnic groups, the most you can hope for is a state of controlled hostility.

    The sort of tribalism you see in highly-inbred, low-trust societies is a different matter.

  33. You can to say everything you want, provided it is within modern Orthodoxy. What is the new??

    Western leftoidism is not a noise of a human story, but a continuity of the same millenial stupidity.

  34. This happened in England in 2005, when the British National Party leader Nick Griffin was arrested on charges of inciting religious hatred under a law just concocted by the Home Secretary David Blunkett. Rod Liddle investigated the case and found it stinking of political interference from above, despite official police denials.

    An officer who visited another BNP member, Paul Cromie, as part of the same investigation said to him: ‘At the end of the day this whole thing should be … well, it is very political. It’s not coming from senior police. It’s coming from much higher than that.’ Cromie recorded this and gave a copy of the tape to Liddle.

    The purpose was to damage the BNP during the upcoming election campaign, and to gain more of the Muslim vote for Labour.

  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    France has some history of the verdicts of particular trials ultimately being meaningless in the face of public opinion. Jacques Verges, the half-Oriential superstar lawyer known for defending unrepentant terrorists and Nazi commandos and Khmer Rouge big-wigs, made his reputation by losing his trials but winning the public; he would “win” in that the presiding judge would respond to pressure, public or “from on high”, with a curtailed or meaningless sentence. Le Pen, I think, will win this trial most especially if she loses it technically and is thereby jailed. Remember another blonde female politician, Yulia Timoshenko, was universally despised until pictures surfaced of her passing time in her prison cell. Then she became an object of pity and was rendered less odious to many people (for better or for ill. I am pretty sure she deserved the garrote rather than a comfortable prison cell). Yes, there is a good chance Le Pen wins most by losing, unless serving time prevents her from running in 2017.

  36. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Lenin was a very sharp man and his ‘who-whom’ dictum pretty much sums things up succinctly. One can’t get much clearer than that. Human rights is a great concept but it’s been used as a cudgel to beat opponents over the head with, just a tool to use against political enemies. People in general may have accepted the idea that they have constitutional rights, human rights, free speech, etc, but the leadership class mostly doesn’t; they’re in it for the power trip and the money. It’s like one of those mega-churches where the congregation believes in the religious precepts but those running it regard it as a business.

  37. “Free speech” is an idea that has no relevance in a diverse society. All it is is a cowardly mask for privileged white “men” to hide behind when called out for their loathsome hate.

  38. @anon
    Human rights, like race, are social constructs, and therefore they have no "taxonomic"/insert correct word/ significance.

    Only a zealot wedded to outmoded 19th century ideas could still believe in human rights.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Chris Mallory

    Then call me a Zealot. There are basic human rights and freedom of speech is one of them. Restrictions upon those rights are the social constructs. The rights exist, the restrictions only come about due to government.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Chris Mallory

    A right is meaningless without the ability to enforce it.

    , @anon
    @Chris Mallory

    agree

  39. The Time’s decision to have Nossiter writing from France is very unfortunate, and may be important. His depiction of both Marine’s new FN and her father’s is dishonest and tendentious (though her father’s party did draw in a lot of Algerie Francais extremists.) It seems Nossiter is reverting to the view that anyone who opposes mass immigration must be portrayed a Nazi, which is so 1990’s.

  40. I wonder how many French opponents of these hate speech laws pointed out that if adopted, sooner or later they would be used to jail the leader of a popular opposition party.

  41. @PhysicistDave
    @Stogumber

    Stogumber wrote:


    First, it is inevitable that one person’s rights are confined by other persons’ other rights. So it is reasonable to accept that free speech can be subject to restrictions.
     
    Well... depends on what you mean by rights, now doesn't it?

    The modern "welfare rights" of contemporary liberalism -- the right to be provided with various goodies at the expense of your fellow citizens -- certainly do necessarily involve conflicts among "rights." But the "natural rights" of Locke and the American founders, precisely because they are not rights to goodies but merely the right to be physically left alone, are less likely to involve inherent conflicts.

    It's the old "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" principle that kids were supposed to learn back when the country was semi-civilized. Say what you wish, but when you start swinging at the other guy's face, you are in real trouble.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    Replies: @Travis

    correct…my right to speak my mind does not infringe on others right to criticize my speech. True rights do not impose obligations on others. My right to bear arms does not impose an obligation on my neighbors to subsidies my gun purchases. My right to join a church or political group does not impose an obligation on others to fund my organizations budget.

    The leftists , like the Islamists, seek to outlaw fee speech and create thought crimes because their ideology cannot be logically defended. Thus they desire to criminalize those who use logic to attack their ideology.

    Le Pen and others are being prosecuted for their ideology, not for “hate speech”. One is permitted to actively promote the Islamists invasion of Europe and “hatred’ toward Christians. Hate speech against Germans is allowed , the promotion of genocide against Germany by forcing the nation to accept millions of invading muslims and pay for their housing, food, education would be considered a hate crime if done in reverse.

    • Agree: Harold
  42. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    As the excellent Porter puts it, the Right is loyal to its principles, the Left is loyal to its own power.

    Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics.

    Replies: @SFG, @NOTA, @Hubbub

    So, would I look to the record of the two Bush administrations to see examples of the right being loyal to their principles?

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @NOTA

    You would not look to the two Bush administrations as an example of the Right.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    , @(((Owen)))
    @NOTA


    So, would I look to the record of the two Bush administrations to see examples of the right being loyal to their principles?
     
    The Bush administrations were Right in the European sense of promoting military and large estate power at the expense of the middle class, but they were not Right in the American sense of more private property for the middle classes.

    There haven't been many American Right Republican presidencies lately. Nixon was the most liberal president we've had in the past century. The Bushes worshipped central control to promote welfare for the rich and driving down American freedom and wages. Invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world, as our host summarizes toady's Republican platform.

    The most pro-freedom, pro-middle class and pro-free market president we've had since Coolidge has been Clinton with Carter and Reagan tied for second. Obama has been better for the middle class, free markets, and private property than either Bush.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @MarkinLA, @Hibernian

  43. @Anonymous
    The wider point is, Steve, is that the French political class, over the past half century, have created an imminent racial and demographic catastrophe in their nation.
    - They know this. And they are shit scared of the day of reckoning, when it will *inevitably* come. So they are forced to flail out by duplicitously and hypocritically taking fundamentally 'illiberal' measures.

    Replies: @NOTA

    Once the powers that be have committed to some course of action, they will inevitably look for ways to suppress criticism of that course of action if it goes sour. Hate speech laws provide a way to suppress certain criticism, and they’re being used that way.

  44. That’s just typical French hypocrisy for you. The same people who sign the declaration of the rights of man slaughter 200.000 royalist peasants in the Vendeé. The same politicians who institute the separation of Church and state are freemasons and more loyal to the Grand Orient de France than to the state. The same philosophers who cry for freedom defends the gulags and Soviet show-trials because “every anti-communist is a dog”.

    I never understood the sympathy for France. For most of the world outside the Anglosphere, they are the synonyms of liberalism, radicalism and left-wing politics, not “Jews’.

  45. Marine Le Pen’s opponents are losing election contests, so they are taking their fight to courts.

    Marine Le Pen should counter sue and fight back. This type of right of speech is completely relativistic. I suspect the victor has less to do with morality and better behavior and more to do with a guile and legal and political debate skill.

  46. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    As the excellent Porter puts it, the Right is loyal to its principles, the Left is loyal to its own power.

    Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics.

    Replies: @SFG, @NOTA, @Hubbub

    “Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics.”

    Then the Right will no longer be the Right, right?

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Hubbub

    It will no longer be Burkean conservatism, no. Because white people are the only ones who believe in that crap anyway. So if whites want a place where they can apply Burkean principles, they will have to be decisively un-Burkean to bring it about.

  47. @SFG
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Sorry, I disagree.

    The Right as most people define it--the Republican party, Fox News, etc.is *also* loyal to its own power. What *you* consider the Right--paleocons, etc. has principles and is loyal to them. But that's why it keeps getting marginalized. (Look at your doppelgangers on the left: how far do you expect Bernie Sanders to get?) Getting power in the real world is always a deal with the devil. Politics is the art of compromise.

    I do think you're right about identity politics--as whites in America are more and more embattled, whites are going to feel better and better about striking out for white interests.You already see it on Twitter--Take Us Down, etc.

    Of course, by then the country will have gone severely downhill.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Read your comment again. You are actually agreeing with me.

    The part you’re missing is that people can adopt principles, but principles don’t make people. Jews for example hold many diverse views, but they are still here because enough of them agree on one thing: that they have a right to exist as a genetically distinct people.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Yeah, my disagreement is mostly a semantic argument over the definition of 'Right'. I just bring it up because I used to read lots of left-wing blogs during the Bush years, and they would say almost exactly the same thing with the parties switched--the right is unethical but effective, the left is ethical but ineffective.

    I'm not sure 'genetically distinct' is the key factor--converts are accepted, albeit with difficulty, and the matrilineal descent blurs it somewhat, but 'distinct' certainly. Again, something of a nitpick.

  48. I am surprised the paper didn’t mention “McCarthyism”.

  49. @NOTA
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    So, would I look to the record of the two Bush administrations to see examples of the right being loyal to their principles?

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @(((Owen)))

    You would not look to the two Bush administrations as an example of the Right.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    You should not look to any Republicans as an example of the Right. The GOP has always been the party of the wealthy and corporations. There have been times when those interests aligned with the average American and times when they aligned with the Right but the party has never been about them.

  50. @Stogumber
    German constitutional law has made some reasonable distinctions here (don't know about U.S. constitutional law).
    First, it is inevitable that one person's rights are confined by other persons' other rights. So it is reasonable to accept that free speech can be subject to restrictions.
    Secondly, these restrictions have to be restricted, too. The most important qualifications are (1) that a basic right A can only be restricted in favor of another basic right B and (2) that, even in this case, the restriction mustn't damage the "essence" of the basic right.
    Unfortunately, German constitutional law has not yet defined precisely what the "essence" of free speech comprehends. Which makes hate speech trials in Germany unpredictable (yet a lot of convictions are quashed by the highest courts).

    Replies: @AnAnon, @PhysicistDave, @pyrrhus, @Bob

    As far as I can tell, the USA is the last country with freedom of speech, because of an explicit constitutional guarantee….but of course it is being eroded by the same forces that have doomed Europe.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @pyrrhus

    There's surprisingly little difference between free speech in Europe and free speech in the US. The First Amendment rights are absolute in theory but restricted in practice. If you express the wrong opinion, you won't go to prison, but you can end up being deprived of your livelihood and the job you love doing, as James Watson and countless other less eminent thought criminals discovered to their cost.

    Replies: @Melendwyr

  51. Of course, Germany and France learned nothing and their wishy-washy national supposed leadership thirst for another strongman to lead them. […] But the leadership class of Europe aches — almost sexually — for a new Hitler’s boots to kiss. That is the dirty secret to why they behave as they do.

    Oh, I don’t know about “boot kissing”. The Mongols and Huns and Goths and Vikings and Wehrmacht didn’t spend their time kissing boots. They spent their time conquering.

    Nobody gets lebensraum by “kissing boots”. And everyone is seeking lebensraum these days. In the next 50 years we either find a warrior who will preserve our lebensraum or we go extinct.

  52. @Glossy
    "Become", "anymore" - I'm eyerolling at this. Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon. Not an emoji though, that's tacky.

    There were never any general principles in politics. The aspies who sincerely believe in them are not made for politics and never get anywhere in it.

    Steve, I have a feeling that you think that there used to be general principles in politics because you beleived in them yourself in your youth. And as you became more skeptical and cynical, you subconsciously assumed that the world was getting that way too. No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict. It's just that when you were young you didn't yet notice this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym, @Rob McX, @ion, @Anonymous, @another fred, @AndrewR, @Buzz Mohawk

    Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon.

    Apparently, there are already several accepted variations:

    @@

    8-|

    >>

    9_9

    Source: http://pc.net/emoticons/smiley/rolling_eyes

  53. @NOTA
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    So, would I look to the record of the two Bush administrations to see examples of the right being loyal to their principles?

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @(((Owen)))

    So, would I look to the record of the two Bush administrations to see examples of the right being loyal to their principles?

    The Bush administrations were Right in the European sense of promoting military and large estate power at the expense of the middle class, but they were not Right in the American sense of more private property for the middle classes.

    There haven’t been many American Right Republican presidencies lately. Nixon was the most liberal president we’ve had in the past century. The Bushes worshipped central control to promote welfare for the rich and driving down American freedom and wages. Invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world, as our host summarizes toady’s Republican platform.

    The most pro-freedom, pro-middle class and pro-free market president we’ve had since Coolidge has been Clinton with Carter and Reagan tied for second. Obama has been better for the middle class, free markets, and private property than either Bush.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @(((Owen)))

    "Obama has been better for the middle class, free markets, and private property than either Bush."

    LOL - sure he has. Both Bush presidents sucked, but Obama has been dramatically worse by almost any standard.

    , @MarkinLA
    @(((Owen)))

    What good are free-markets when they are the smokescreen for job outsourcing and the financialization of the economy by the bandits on Wall Street?

    , @Hibernian
    @(((Owen)))

    Carter partially deregulated transportation. He didn't get the chance to make a Supreme Court appointment. He appointed many liberal District Court judges who see themselves as one man Supreme Courts. Long term, his effect is to diminish liberty.

  54. My vague impression is that the European Court of Justice is the body designed to nudge European countries away from their more idiosyncratic notions of human rights.

    Someone can correct me on this but my impresssion was that the European Court is a ratchet – if a country has a law prohibiting something, it *may* be struck down by the European Court but it never rules that a country *should* have a law prohibiting stuff.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Tomas

    "Someone can correct me on this but my impresssion was that the European Court is a ratchet – if a country has a law prohibiting something, it *may* be struck down by the European Court but it never rules that a country *should* have a law prohibiting stuff."

    Leftists are very good at ensuring laws they favor have a ratchet effect while laws they oppose, if they manage to pass, do not. An illegal immigrant can sue and file multiple appeals to have his deportation order overturned, but Americans can't sue to demand the immigration laws be enforced.

    With regards to immigration, the operative policy appears to be that the most open borders policy is the one that wins. Several states give in-state tuition to illegals in violation of the 1996 immigration law, and the federal courts ruled they could do that. When states try to enforce immigration law, the courts rule it's the federal government's business. But when cities and states have sanctuary policies, the federal government either can't or won't force them to obey the federal law. The end result is that the most left-wing policy wins every time.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

  55. Restriction of the right of free speech is yet another product of mass immigration that our elite conveniently omitted to tell us beforehand.

  56. Mark Steyn has been down this road due to an article he wrote regarding Muslims that was published in MacLeans in Canada. He got hauled into court and had to defend himself against hate speech charges. He prevailed.

    Now he is being sued by notorious climatologist Michael Mann for publishing a piece in National Review mocking Mann’s scientific research and making a very loose comparison between Mann and his fellow Penn State colleague Jerry Sandusky.

    National Review, which is also being sued, parted ways with Steyn in the defense of the case. Steyn wants to fight it out in court, while NR apparently just wanted to settle.

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    @FozzieT

    I think NR wanted to slog it out in the usual federal court trench warfare and an endless exchange of briefs, while Steyn wanted to mix it up in the courtroom. I think Steyn's tactics worked well in Commonwealth courts, which seem more free-wheeling and play to his strengths of agility and quick wit, but probably won't work as well in the US court system.

    Styen is cutting up Mann in a recent book he published, "A Disgrace to the Profession." You don't want to be on the wrong side of Steyn.

  57. @22pp22
    The NYT says that the NF had a history of collaboration with the Nazis. What history of collaboration? It was the Socialist Mitterand who was the collaborator.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/former-collaborator-loyal-to-a-murky-past-1323088.html

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    and who cares if they did? Anybody alive back then is dead. Not only that but who cares what anybody believes if his policy toward France is the correct one? I would have thought the French too smart to fall for that. I guess human stupidity is universal.

  58. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @NOTA

    You would not look to the two Bush administrations as an example of the Right.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    You should not look to any Republicans as an example of the Right. The GOP has always been the party of the wealthy and corporations. There have been times when those interests aligned with the average American and times when they aligned with the Right but the party has never been about them.

  59. There is and never were human rights. Rights are those things political entities carve out for themselves and defend with a gun if necessary. However, there are rights codified in law. Western societies have decided that free speech is one of them. However, it is being eroded by singling out groups that can under no circumstance be criticized making a mockery of the whole thing.

    It is one thing to say you can’t walk up to some Paki in London and get in his face about what a turd he is but when Britain prosecutes people for saying out loud there are too many Pakis in Britain, you are on the downhill slide. When you can’t say out loud you don’t believe 6 million Jews died in WW2 without being prosecuted, you are on the downhill slide.

  60. European law is not as absolute when it comes to free speech as American law with its 1st Amendment. The 1st amendment is very absolute – “Congress shall make NO law” . The whole field was put totally off limits from day 1 (libel and slander existed at common law and so need no legislation).

    There is no exact equivalent in Europe. Although by world standards, France today has a high degree of freedom of speech, its parliament is free to nibble at the edges by outlawing hate speech, Nazi propaganda, etc. Europeans are shocked that there is no law in America that prohibits you from marching around with a swastika. The European equivalent of the 1st Amendment (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights ) is full of exceptions:

    “The exercise of these freedoms [of expression], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

    The United States was blessed with exceptionally clear thinking Founding Fathers instead of a bunch of mealy mouthed Eurocrats.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @Jack D

    1st Amendment law really doesn't come from the 1st Amendment, but from the post-WW1 left-wing push to decriminalize their seditious rallies and arguments.

    The left made a big deal about "market place of ideas", etc., not because they believed in it, but only to allow themselves to propaganadize socialism, pacifism (when it suited them), anti-Americanism, and communism. Before the 1920s, speech was much more legally curtailed. It was perfectly legitimate to punish a man for a speech that simply hinted about changing the government or the people in power.

    Now that they are in power, the left are making the same argument to restrict free speech that the old guard in the 1920s made: speech that is dangerous to the status quo must be curtailed.

    who? whom? indeed.

    Never trust a leftist to be sincere.

    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jack D

    It's plain as day homosexual unions enjoy none, zero, zip equal protection under the Constitution, but here we are. When the government decides hate speech isn't free speech, that's what the government judges will hold that the Constitution says.

    The Constitution is the conservatives' ghost shirt. It was a document thought up by a particular people at a particular point in history. It has no authority beyond the people who profess its tenets. The people who agree with you on them are disappearing.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Lot

  61. I saw Bill Bennett on the other night with Hannity saying the Senate Republicans shouldn’t use the nuclear option because of the tradition, respect for the Senate etc. All conservatives used to hold to these principles, but now a lot of people would say Bennett is being a cuckservative. Who?-whom? works great against opponents who don’t ask who?-whom? But conservatives tend to have low time preference, so as soon as they break the rules, they will realize the left could do the same, so better not let the left have power ever again.

    • Replies: @Honesthughgrant
    @Orthodox

    I looked up "Cuckservative" in the dictionary and saw Bill Bennett's picture. Seriously, is that guy still pretending to a conservative or a Republican?

    He's like Baxter O'Reilly - a careerist liberal pretending to be something he's not.

  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Glossy
    "Become", "anymore" - I'm eyerolling at this. Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon. Not an emoji though, that's tacky.

    There were never any general principles in politics. The aspies who sincerely believe in them are not made for politics and never get anywhere in it.

    Steve, I have a feeling that you think that there used to be general principles in politics because you beleived in them yourself in your youth. And as you became more skeptical and cynical, you subconsciously assumed that the world was getting that way too. No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict. It's just that when you were young you didn't yet notice this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym, @Rob McX, @ion, @Anonymous, @another fred, @AndrewR, @Buzz Mohawk

    Funnily enough, you’re being the aspie here, sticking to your absolutist general principle ‘THERE ARE NO GENERAL PRINCIPLES’. Of course much of politics involves skillfully abusing the general principles of one’s society, more exactly knowing when to and how to get away with it, but to deny that the existence and importance of general principle (JUSTICE, EQUALITY, FREEDOM, etc., etc.) to political discourse and rhetoric and the course of history is absolutely demented.

  63. Eric Hoffer said:

    “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

    ….

    The civil rights movent has comfortably settled into phase III, and the so-called human rights movement is not far behind.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Black Death

    Craig R Whitney suggested this about the NRA in his recent book about gun politics. With two big wins in Heller and M[a]cDonald, they've pretty much won, at least for the near future. But they still need money. So they move into racket territory.

    I propose they turn to immigration, which is on-topic inasmuch as it pertains to guns and gun rights. And, boy, does it ever.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  64. @Jack D
    European law is not as absolute when it comes to free speech as American law with its 1st Amendment. The 1st amendment is very absolute - "Congress shall make NO law" . The whole field was put totally off limits from day 1 (libel and slander existed at common law and so need no legislation).

    There is no exact equivalent in Europe. Although by world standards, France today has a high degree of freedom of speech, its parliament is free to nibble at the edges by outlawing hate speech, Nazi propaganda, etc. Europeans are shocked that there is no law in America that prohibits you from marching around with a swastika. The European equivalent of the 1st Amendment (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights ) is full of exceptions:

    "The exercise of these freedoms [of expression], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

    The United States was blessed with exceptionally clear thinking Founding Fathers instead of a bunch of mealy mouthed Eurocrats.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @The Anti-Gnostic

    1st Amendment law really doesn’t come from the 1st Amendment, but from the post-WW1 left-wing push to decriminalize their seditious rallies and arguments.

    The left made a big deal about “market place of ideas”, etc., not because they believed in it, but only to allow themselves to propaganadize socialism, pacifism (when it suited them), anti-Americanism, and communism. Before the 1920s, speech was much more legally curtailed. It was perfectly legitimate to punish a man for a speech that simply hinted about changing the government or the people in power.

    Now that they are in power, the left are making the same argument to restrict free speech that the old guard in the 1920s made: speech that is dangerous to the status quo must be curtailed.

    who? whom? indeed.

    Never trust a leftist to be sincere.

  65. @PhysicistDave
    @Ivy

    Ivy wrote:


    Visualize yourself as a marble sitting on a saddle, where any perturbation will send you hyperbolicly accelerating into the social abyss.
     
    But, that is exactly what is so cool about PC! You have a tough day at work, your spouse or kids are annoying you, then you just go to a random site online and state some simple scientific truths -- the genetic potential for any trait that varies within a population must vary between populations, predicting the long-term global climate is scientifically challenging, etc. -- and it is like shooting fish in a barrel. You get to take out your frustrations in micro-aggressions against the PC weenies.

    I find it is quite relaxing.

    Dave

    Replies: @Yak-15

    Interesting idea. For me to see the PC opinion trumped is mind-blowing and enraging. Why? Because so much public policy is decided based upon the premises of PC and modern progressive dogma.

    These policies cost me money and subject opinions like mine to scorn and real world consequences for questioning the narrative. I wish I could share your delight.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Yak-15

    Yak-15 wrote to me:


    For me to see the PC opinion trumped is mind-blowing and enraging. Why? Because so much public policy is decided based upon the premises of PC and modern progressive dogma.
    These policies cost me money
     
    Have you ever read Tom Wolfe's Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers? At the end of the essay, you realize that PC, 1960s style, only pretended to be helping the downtrodden blacks: it's real purpose was to create cushy jobs for worthless, over-schooled middle-class whites.

    Same as today. Yeah, PC costs you money, but the money is going to middle-class white guys. After all, liberalism/progressivism was created by middle-class white guys (and a few white gals).

    As Lenin said, кто кого.

    Dave

    Replies: @MarkinLA

  66. @pyrrhus
    @Stogumber

    As far as I can tell, the USA is the last country with freedom of speech, because of an explicit constitutional guarantee....but of course it is being eroded by the same forces that have doomed Europe.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    There’s surprisingly little difference between free speech in Europe and free speech in the US. The First Amendment rights are absolute in theory but restricted in practice. If you express the wrong opinion, you won’t go to prison, but you can end up being deprived of your livelihood and the job you love doing, as James Watson and countless other less eminent thought criminals discovered to their cost.

    • Replies: @Melendwyr
    @Rob McX

    When has that ever NOT been the case? The public has always been free to reject you for your expressed beliefs.

    Replies: @Rob McX

  67. @Orthodox
    I saw Bill Bennett on the other night with Hannity saying the Senate Republicans shouldn't use the nuclear option because of the tradition, respect for the Senate etc. All conservatives used to hold to these principles, but now a lot of people would say Bennett is being a cuckservative. Who?-whom? works great against opponents who don't ask who?-whom? But conservatives tend to have low time preference, so as soon as they break the rules, they will realize the left could do the same, so better not let the left have power ever again.

    Replies: @Honesthughgrant

    I looked up “Cuckservative” in the dictionary and saw Bill Bennett’s picture. Seriously, is that guy still pretending to a conservative or a Republican?

    He’s like Baxter O’Reilly – a careerist liberal pretending to be something he’s not.

  68. Obviously. That is the essence of the revolutionary spirit since the time of the Protestant apostasy – to seize upon something with which the middle (and some of the “right”) agrees, to subject it to private interpretation, and then to shame the “right” for sticking to the Tradition and to principle when they should instead be recognizing the left’s “right” to have a different view.

    The older view, championed by the Catholic Church and the monarchies, was that a right is a claim based on justice, and there is no just claim to say, think, do, believe, etc., just “whatever you want,” without regard to fundamental principles of justice. The State has a duty to protect the commonwealth and promote the common good, and this means that it accords no rights to evil and injustice – indeed, it even has a duty to protect the commonwealth against those who would advocate, say, for sodomy, murder, hysterocracy and theft (major policy goals of the Democrats and the Left in general). This doesn’t mean that the State cannot recognize that more harm than good is done by attempting to ferret out all imperfection from society, and thus may prefer to tolerate some misuse of liberty for the sake of better preserving the common good; but it does mean that the State makes a disastrous mistake in according objectively evil belief and action the dignity of a “right.” That cedes too much ground, and also establishes the principle that “rights” really are not based in first principles of rectitude, but are actually the admission of a compromise of principles, with each side hedging their bets by trying to limit the power their enemies might attain when they are at the helm of the ship of state. Yes, abstract “rights” of this quality are the admission that men have despaired of knowing or fighting for the Truth, and are now dedicated merely to preventing their enemies’ opinions from upsetting the apple cart too badly. No surprise, then, if we all continue to travel down this road where “rights” are detached from what is Right, and become merely a list of demands for “toleration” from those who resent the greater power or influence of an opposing view. This is the essence of the Dictatorship of Relativism.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @CuiPertinebit

    "Durr sodomy and murder are the same"

    It's a shame your parents weren't more regular practitioners of sodomy.

  69. without precision/specification of language, (bad) semantic manipulation become a common place.

    ”free speech”

    define ”free” and ”speech” in this context.

  70. @Glossy
    "Become", "anymore" - I'm eyerolling at this. Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon. Not an emoji though, that's tacky.

    There were never any general principles in politics. The aspies who sincerely believe in them are not made for politics and never get anywhere in it.

    Steve, I have a feeling that you think that there used to be general principles in politics because you beleived in them yourself in your youth. And as you became more skeptical and cynical, you subconsciously assumed that the world was getting that way too. No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict. It's just that when you were young you didn't yet notice this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym, @Rob McX, @ion, @Anonymous, @another fred, @AndrewR, @Buzz Mohawk

    When the country was young, less crowded and less ethnically diverse more freedom could be tolerated (blacks and Indians need not apply).

    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
    – John Adams .

    Books have been written about how “moral and religious” earlier Americans were or were not, and I will not seek to add to that discussion, but the simple fact was that much more leeway could be, and was, allowed. That change is a real change. If Americans were allowed that degree of liberty today there would be blood in the streets.

  71. I am not a fan of Ann Coulter, but a few years ago she cancelled a speaking engagement at the University of Ottawa do to fears that her opinions might be deemed illegal hate speech and she could be charged with a crime. In another instance, a Canadian Human Rights Investigator, a government employee, was widely quoted as saying….” freedom of speech is an American concept.” When further questioned she responded that she gave no value to what was an American, not Canadian concept. And, a few years ago, at Toronto’s York University, student anti abortion groups were forbidden to form on campus or to even discuss their stance, since abortion was a legal and settled issue in Canada, at least to the liberal students. So, France isn’t the only “civilized” Western country that has a different concept of free speech.

  72. This past spring, a group of BLM-type thugs violently disrupted a University of Michigan regents meeting, overturning tables and scuffling with police. Their demands included increased representation of blacks at UM (as if they weren’t already overrepresented relative to their academic achievement).

    The purportedly “conservative” Detroit News (which admittedly is not as moonbat leftarded as its sister paper l, the Free Press) called them “civil rights protestors.” I am 100% serious.

    Six months later and they still jave the caption up:

    http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/16/protesters-demand-increased-minority-enrollment-um/25893707/

  73. @Jack D
    European law is not as absolute when it comes to free speech as American law with its 1st Amendment. The 1st amendment is very absolute - "Congress shall make NO law" . The whole field was put totally off limits from day 1 (libel and slander existed at common law and so need no legislation).

    There is no exact equivalent in Europe. Although by world standards, France today has a high degree of freedom of speech, its parliament is free to nibble at the edges by outlawing hate speech, Nazi propaganda, etc. Europeans are shocked that there is no law in America that prohibits you from marching around with a swastika. The European equivalent of the 1st Amendment (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights ) is full of exceptions:

    "The exercise of these freedoms [of expression], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

    The United States was blessed with exceptionally clear thinking Founding Fathers instead of a bunch of mealy mouthed Eurocrats.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @The Anti-Gnostic

    It’s plain as day homosexual unions enjoy none, zero, zip equal protection under the Constitution, but here we are. When the government decides hate speech isn’t free speech, that’s what the government judges will hold that the Constitution says.

    The Constitution is the conservatives’ ghost shirt. It was a document thought up by a particular people at a particular point in history. It has no authority beyond the people who profess its tenets. The people who agree with you on them are disappearing.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @The Anti-Gnostic


    It’s plain as day homosexual unions enjoy none, zero, zip equal protection under the Constitution…
     
    Well, there is "freedom of assembly". But that's about it.
    , @Lot
    @The Anti-Gnostic


    It’s plain as day homosexual unions enjoy none, zero, zip equal protection under the Constitution, but here we are.
     
    Wrong.

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
     

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  74. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jack D

    It's plain as day homosexual unions enjoy none, zero, zip equal protection under the Constitution, but here we are. When the government decides hate speech isn't free speech, that's what the government judges will hold that the Constitution says.

    The Constitution is the conservatives' ghost shirt. It was a document thought up by a particular people at a particular point in history. It has no authority beyond the people who profess its tenets. The people who agree with you on them are disappearing.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Lot

    It’s plain as day homosexual unions enjoy none, zero, zip equal protection under the Constitution…

    Well, there is “freedom of assembly”. But that’s about it.

  75. @Black Death
    Eric Hoffer said:

    “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

    ....

    The civil rights movent has comfortably settled into phase III, and the so-called human rights movement is not far behind.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Craig R Whitney suggested this about the NRA in his recent book about gun politics. With two big wins in Heller and M[a]cDonald, they’ve pretty much won, at least for the near future. But they still need money. So they move into racket territory.

    I propose they turn to immigration, which is on-topic inasmuch as it pertains to guns and gun rights. And, boy, does it ever.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Reg Cæsar

    Yes, the SPLC doesn't have anything to do with Southern Poverty anymore (assuming it ever did). The SPLC is always looking for a new frenzy, like transgenderism: the SPLC got into that a little too early back in the 2000s, promoting Donald McCloskey's war to silence J. Michael Bailey.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  76. @Glossy
    "Become", "anymore" - I'm eyerolling at this. Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon. Not an emoji though, that's tacky.

    There were never any general principles in politics. The aspies who sincerely believe in them are not made for politics and never get anywhere in it.

    Steve, I have a feeling that you think that there used to be general principles in politics because you beleived in them yourself in your youth. And as you became more skeptical and cynical, you subconsciously assumed that the world was getting that way too. No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict. It's just that when you were young you didn't yet notice this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym, @Rob McX, @ion, @Anonymous, @another fred, @AndrewR, @Buzz Mohawk

    I concur with anonymous. Politicians usually do have principles but unless they’re flexible then they generally won’t do well in politics. The ones that lack principles completely, like Nixon, tend to hoist themselves by their own petards.

  77. @AnAnon
    @Stogumber

    In the US we have categories of protected free speech. libel isn't protected, slander isn't protected, going up to someone and goading them into hitting you isn't protected(they are free to hit you). hate speech on the other hand is very much protected precisely for the reason that defining it is pretty subjective.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    IANAA but I believe that you will be punished for attacking a goader but less severely than if you had not been goaded.

  78. “Free speech” is an idea that has no relevance in a diverse society. All it is is a cowardly mask for privileged white “men” to hide behind when called out for their loathsome hate.

    C’mon, do lefties really say free speech has to go because diversity? I doubt they like laying it all out like that. And even when they do attack freedom of speech, they say they’re upholding it but attacking “hate speech.”

    “Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics.”

    Then the Right will no longer be the Right, right?

    Drop universalism and keep the rest. One set of principles for within the tribe, another for dealing with outsiders. Sort of like how chivalry doesn’t apply to Mongol invaders.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Svigor


    C’mon, do lefties really say free speech has to go because diversity?
     
    The academic left, yes.

    In fact I think the majority of the academic far-left favors strong speech restrictions and would favor modifying the text of the First Amendment to allow this.

    Here is the classic example:

    Words that Wound, Richard Delgado, 1982

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000918
  79. @Chris Mallory
    @anon

    Then call me a Zealot. There are basic human rights and freedom of speech is one of them. Restrictions upon those rights are the social constructs. The rights exist, the restrictions only come about due to government.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anon

    A right is meaningless without the ability to enforce it.

  80. @CuiPertinebit
    Obviously. That is the essence of the revolutionary spirit since the time of the Protestant apostasy - to seize upon something with which the middle (and some of the "right") agrees, to subject it to private interpretation, and then to shame the "right" for sticking to the Tradition and to principle when they should instead be recognizing the left's "right" to have a different view.

    The older view, championed by the Catholic Church and the monarchies, was that a right is a claim based on justice, and there is no just claim to say, think, do, believe, etc., just "whatever you want," without regard to fundamental principles of justice. The State has a duty to protect the commonwealth and promote the common good, and this means that it accords no rights to evil and injustice - indeed, it even has a duty to protect the commonwealth against those who would advocate, say, for sodomy, murder, hysterocracy and theft (major policy goals of the Democrats and the Left in general). This doesn't mean that the State cannot recognize that more harm than good is done by attempting to ferret out all imperfection from society, and thus may prefer to tolerate some misuse of liberty for the sake of better preserving the common good; but it does mean that the State makes a disastrous mistake in according objectively evil belief and action the dignity of a "right." That cedes too much ground, and also establishes the principle that "rights" really are not based in first principles of rectitude, but are actually the admission of a compromise of principles, with each side hedging their bets by trying to limit the power their enemies might attain when they are at the helm of the ship of state. Yes, abstract "rights" of this quality are the admission that men have despaired of knowing or fighting for the Truth, and are now dedicated merely to preventing their enemies' opinions from upsetting the apple cart too badly. No surprise, then, if we all continue to travel down this road where "rights" are detached from what is Right, and become merely a list of demands for "toleration" from those who resent the greater power or influence of an opposing view. This is the essence of the Dictatorship of Relativism.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    “Durr sodomy and murder are the same”

    It’s a shame your parents weren’t more regular practitioners of sodomy.

  81. NZ is still a democracy, but for how long?

    My wife, who is kiwi-born and bred, says what she thinks and finds that most US/UK tourists agree with her, but compulsively glance over their shoulders while expressing dangerous views and look around nervously for fear of being overheard.

    That is not the behaviour of a free people.

  82. @Glossy
    "Become", "anymore" - I'm eyerolling at this. Someone should come up with an eyeroll emoticon. Not an emoji though, that's tacky.

    There were never any general principles in politics. The aspies who sincerely believe in them are not made for politics and never get anywhere in it.

    Steve, I have a feeling that you think that there used to be general principles in politics because you beleived in them yourself in your youth. And as you became more skeptical and cynical, you subconsciously assumed that the world was getting that way too. No, the world of politics was always devoid of any principle save for tribalism, which is really more of an instict. It's just that when you were young you didn't yet notice this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym, @Rob McX, @ion, @Anonymous, @another fred, @AndrewR, @Buzz Mohawk

    You are wrong in your effort to be your own kind of cynical absolutist. Yes, we all know politics is dirty and local and yada yada yada.

    However:

    Neither Trump nor Carson are on trial or threatened with imprisonment for making their own kinds of arguments that have been interpreted as “hateful” here…

    In France, Le Pen is.

    The United States is not like France — YET.

    If you just give up, well then indeed you won’t have any principles.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Buzz Mohawk

    This is a really big difference. Firing people for expressing the wrong views in public is a bad thing, and we shpuld push back on it where we can, but it's *very* different from locking people in jail for expressing the wrong views. Some people are independently wealthy, and others have employers who don't care what views they express in public or who support their controversial views, so those views can at least get a hearing. By contrast, nobody inside the country is immune to the laws.

    Replies: @Melendwyr

  83. People are missing the point. This is another heresy trial. Le Pen is a heretic against PC/Diversity/anti-White religion. The heresy is being punished. By another Inqusition. Cultural patterns are deep and don’t change. Instead of worshipping Jesus the French now worship racial redeemers. Any suggestion that there is no racial redemption but instead disaster is punished by religious zealots.

    That is what is happening.

    OT: the key to Angela Merkel is that she panics. Because she saw the Honecker regime collapse suddenly. She panicked over Fukushima, abolishing nuclear power to the detriment of industry and German competitiveness, and panicked over Muslim mass migration. Drawing exactly the wrong lessons. Honecker’s regime collapsed because his patron, the Soviet Union, ran out of money to pay his soldiers and police and that of neighboring communist nations. Because the Saudis engaged in a price war with the Soviet Union. Simple as that. But Merkel is not exactly bright, rather a non entity who thinks that the status quo is a safe bet instead of very risky.

    The whole fights over the House Speakership, Donald Trump, etc. show that standing pat, the old certainties, etc. in the face of mass Third World migration are now just as risky as being Le Pen. Maybe even more.

    Ultimately people WILL fight, if they have to, and particularly young White men who are locked out of EVERYTHING along with older White men purged for incompetent but “correct” non-Whites.

    The British Army had nothing but contempt for the Japanese who were viewed as soft, incompetent, small, physically unimposing when invading Malaya. How exactly did that turn out? Non-White triumphalists believe that Whites will always be passive, will not respond to any provocation, and have no means or ability to fight back. While much of that is true, not all of it is true.

  84. @Rob McX
    @pyrrhus

    There's surprisingly little difference between free speech in Europe and free speech in the US. The First Amendment rights are absolute in theory but restricted in practice. If you express the wrong opinion, you won't go to prison, but you can end up being deprived of your livelihood and the job you love doing, as James Watson and countless other less eminent thought criminals discovered to their cost.

    Replies: @Melendwyr

    When has that ever NOT been the case? The public has always been free to reject you for your expressed beliefs.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Melendwyr

    But nowadays, the rejection is not by popular consent.

  85. @Hubbub
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    "Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics."

    Then the Right will no longer be the Right, right?

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    It will no longer be Burkean conservatism, no. Because white people are the only ones who believe in that crap anyway. So if whites want a place where they can apply Burkean principles, they will have to be decisively un-Burkean to bring it about.

  86. @Melendwyr
    @Rob McX

    When has that ever NOT been the case? The public has always been free to reject you for your expressed beliefs.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    But nowadays, the rejection is not by popular consent.

  87. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @SFG

    Read your comment again. You are actually agreeing with me.

    The part you're missing is that people can adopt principles, but principles don't make people. Jews for example hold many diverse views, but they are still here because enough of them agree on one thing: that they have a right to exist as a genetically distinct people.

    Replies: @SFG

    Yeah, my disagreement is mostly a semantic argument over the definition of ‘Right’. I just bring it up because I used to read lots of left-wing blogs during the Bush years, and they would say almost exactly the same thing with the parties switched–the right is unethical but effective, the left is ethical but ineffective.

    I’m not sure ‘genetically distinct’ is the key factor–converts are accepted, albeit with difficulty, and the matrilineal descent blurs it somewhat, but ‘distinct’ certainly. Again, something of a nitpick.

  88. @Chris Mallory
    @anon

    Then call me a Zealot. There are basic human rights and freedom of speech is one of them. Restrictions upon those rights are the social constructs. The rights exist, the restrictions only come about due to government.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anon

    agree

  89. @Stogumber
    German constitutional law has made some reasonable distinctions here (don't know about U.S. constitutional law).
    First, it is inevitable that one person's rights are confined by other persons' other rights. So it is reasonable to accept that free speech can be subject to restrictions.
    Secondly, these restrictions have to be restricted, too. The most important qualifications are (1) that a basic right A can only be restricted in favor of another basic right B and (2) that, even in this case, the restriction mustn't damage the "essence" of the basic right.
    Unfortunately, German constitutional law has not yet defined precisely what the "essence" of free speech comprehends. Which makes hate speech trials in Germany unpredictable (yet a lot of convictions are quashed by the highest courts).

    Replies: @AnAnon, @PhysicistDave, @pyrrhus, @Bob

    First, it is inevitable that one person’s rights are confined by other persons’ other rights.

    In the US, ever since 1964, no black man can be free as long as one white man is allowed to refuse involuntary servitude. If you don’t think that is true, just try it. Curiously, it doesn’t work in reverse … well, maybe if I was a sodomite.

  90. @Reg Cæsar
    @Black Death

    Craig R Whitney suggested this about the NRA in his recent book about gun politics. With two big wins in Heller and M[a]cDonald, they've pretty much won, at least for the near future. But they still need money. So they move into racket territory.

    I propose they turn to immigration, which is on-topic inasmuch as it pertains to guns and gun rights. And, boy, does it ever.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Yes, the SPLC doesn’t have anything to do with Southern Poverty anymore (assuming it ever did). The SPLC is always looking for a new frenzy, like transgenderism: the SPLC got into that a little too early back in the 2000s, promoting Donald McCloskey’s war to silence J. Michael Bailey.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer

    Did you know there are other "poverty law centers" in the United States? They probably do concentrate on poverty law, whatever that is. But you never hear about them. And they're almost impossible to Google, as SPLC will be 99.99% of your hits.

    Replies: @Harold

  91. @(((Owen)))
    @NOTA


    So, would I look to the record of the two Bush administrations to see examples of the right being loyal to their principles?
     
    The Bush administrations were Right in the European sense of promoting military and large estate power at the expense of the middle class, but they were not Right in the American sense of more private property for the middle classes.

    There haven't been many American Right Republican presidencies lately. Nixon was the most liberal president we've had in the past century. The Bushes worshipped central control to promote welfare for the rich and driving down American freedom and wages. Invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world, as our host summarizes toady's Republican platform.

    The most pro-freedom, pro-middle class and pro-free market president we've had since Coolidge has been Clinton with Carter and Reagan tied for second. Obama has been better for the middle class, free markets, and private property than either Bush.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @MarkinLA, @Hibernian

    “Obama has been better for the middle class, free markets, and private property than either Bush.”

    LOL – sure he has. Both Bush presidents sucked, but Obama has been dramatically worse by almost any standard.

  92. My intention is yet to save as much from legal history as possible. Insofar I think that there’s a valuable concept of human rights – rights all humans grant each other – vs. civil rights – rights which the citizens of a particular state grant each other.

    Secondly, I think that the silent reservatio mentalis is the most poisonous part in all moral or legal debates. The Fathers of the American Constitution may have protected free speech under a silent qualification that “common law” wasn’t damaged. But all such qualifications need to become part of the debate itself, so that we don’t let them become overwhelming. For example, the French have an irritating idea that “free speech” may be restricted not only for the sake of other basic rights (of persons), but for the sake of the “ordre public” – an idea which is just now intruding into European legal debates but which would make freedom of speech much more vulnerable in Germany than it is at the moment.

  93. @Tomas
    My vague impression is that the European Court of Justice is the body designed to nudge European countries away from their more idiosyncratic notions of human rights.

    Someone can correct me on this but my impresssion was that the European Court is a ratchet - if a country has a law prohibiting something, it *may* be struck down by the European Court but it never rules that a country *should* have a law prohibiting stuff.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    “Someone can correct me on this but my impresssion was that the European Court is a ratchet – if a country has a law prohibiting something, it *may* be struck down by the European Court but it never rules that a country *should* have a law prohibiting stuff.”

    Leftists are very good at ensuring laws they favor have a ratchet effect while laws they oppose, if they manage to pass, do not. An illegal immigrant can sue and file multiple appeals to have his deportation order overturned, but Americans can’t sue to demand the immigration laws be enforced.

    With regards to immigration, the operative policy appears to be that the most open borders policy is the one that wins. Several states give in-state tuition to illegals in violation of the 1996 immigration law, and the federal courts ruled they could do that. When states try to enforce immigration law, the courts rule it’s the federal government’s business. But when cities and states have sanctuary policies, the federal government either can’t or won’t force them to obey the federal law. The end result is that the most left-wing policy wins every time.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @Wilkey

    This is our ridiculous idea of "standing" in American courts. A gay who can't get married is "wronged" and has standing. People who spent millions to get a proposition on the ballot that wins but won't be defended by the state where it is did not suffer a loss?????? and have no standing even if the State Supreme Court give them the right to defend it and one would think standing.

    The illegal alien has standing the taxpayer none.

  94. @(((Owen)))
    Contempt for freedom of speech by the establishment is one of the two keys to the Nazi seizure of power.

    Once the Depression was on, lots of nationalist and socialist parties and movements were organizing everywhere. In Germany, the Communists and various nationalist movements were threatening the established parties. One of the measures taken to damp down power of the nationalists was a ban on discriminatory and anti-semitic propaganda.

    Of course the Nazis -- being true believers and shameless and drunken crooks willing to brawl with cops in the streets -- were undeterred. The respectable FN and UKIP type movements were suppressed and appeared to voters to be milquetoast losers. The brawling Nazis were strengthened by the laws that suppressed their natural competition.

    Eventually the Nazis took power on the basis of their well-honed SA street fighting. Suppressing the vote by open threats in front of the polls in unfavorable areas got them up to 33% in '32 after which they took control of the police and openly beat down competitors' supporters and got up to 40%.

    None of that could have happened without the boost from knocking down legitimate nationalists.

    Of course, Germany and France learned nothing and their wishy-washy national supposed leadership thirst for another strongman to lead them. Spilled blood and a failed nation seems a small price to pay so they continue to cut down reasonable leadership. Bans on nationalist parties, bans on Nazi symbolism, and various other official suppression of ideas continue in both nations. Failure to face up to Nazis and communists honestly and defeat them intellectually often ends tragically. The Anglo nations survived both challenges because their leadership had to defeat communists and fascists in open debate.

    But the leadership class of Europe aches -- almost sexually -- for a new Hitler's boots to kiss. That is the dirty secret to why they behave as they do.

    Replies: @Lot

    Eventually the Nazis took power on the basis of their well-honed SA street fighting.

    That’s just really wrong. All the major parties had street fighting paramilitaries, and the Nazi Party’s SA was nothing special.

    Hitler’s rise to power, while not a model of liberal democratic legitimacy, was basically democratic. More so than fellow fascist Franco, and perhaps even a little more than Mussolini. The Nazis had the electoral support of about a third of the population, and the traditional German right were persuaded by Hitler than he was a better choice than the German left.

    The respectable FN and UKIP type movements were suppressed and appeared to voters to be milquetoast losers.

    Nope, didn’t happen. There were plenty of moderate nationalist parties in Germany. And the mainstream right there was extremely nationalist by modern standards and favored repudiation of Versailles, rearmament, re-militarization of the Rhineland, and annexation of Austria, Sudetenland, and Danzig.

  95. @Svigor

    “Free speech” is an idea that has no relevance in a diverse society. All it is is a cowardly mask for privileged white “men” to hide behind when called out for their loathsome hate.
     
    C'mon, do lefties really say free speech has to go because diversity? I doubt they like laying it all out like that. And even when they do attack freedom of speech, they say they're upholding it but attacking "hate speech."

    “Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics.”

    Then the Right will no longer be the Right, right?
     
    Drop universalism and keep the rest. One set of principles for within the tribe, another for dealing with outsiders. Sort of like how chivalry doesn't apply to Mongol invaders.

    Replies: @Lot

    C’mon, do lefties really say free speech has to go because diversity?

    The academic left, yes.

    In fact I think the majority of the academic far-left favors strong speech restrictions and would favor modifying the text of the First Amendment to allow this.

    Here is the classic example:

    Words that Wound, Richard Delgado, 1982

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000918

  96. @(((Owen)))
    @NOTA


    So, would I look to the record of the two Bush administrations to see examples of the right being loyal to their principles?
     
    The Bush administrations were Right in the European sense of promoting military and large estate power at the expense of the middle class, but they were not Right in the American sense of more private property for the middle classes.

    There haven't been many American Right Republican presidencies lately. Nixon was the most liberal president we've had in the past century. The Bushes worshipped central control to promote welfare for the rich and driving down American freedom and wages. Invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world, as our host summarizes toady's Republican platform.

    The most pro-freedom, pro-middle class and pro-free market president we've had since Coolidge has been Clinton with Carter and Reagan tied for second. Obama has been better for the middle class, free markets, and private property than either Bush.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @MarkinLA, @Hibernian

    What good are free-markets when they are the smokescreen for job outsourcing and the financialization of the economy by the bandits on Wall Street?

  97. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jack D

    It's plain as day homosexual unions enjoy none, zero, zip equal protection under the Constitution, but here we are. When the government decides hate speech isn't free speech, that's what the government judges will hold that the Constitution says.

    The Constitution is the conservatives' ghost shirt. It was a document thought up by a particular people at a particular point in history. It has no authority beyond the people who profess its tenets. The people who agree with you on them are disappearing.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Lot

    It’s plain as day homosexual unions enjoy none, zero, zip equal protection under the Constitution, but here we are.

    Wrong.

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Lot

    LOL at this "GAME, SET AND MATCH, HATER!!!"

    The men who drafted the 14th Amendment were from States that outlawed sodomy and polygamy. So clearly, the 14th Amendment was never drafted with the intent of legitimizing homosexual marriage or whatever other unions people can think up.

    The Constitution is cover for whatever the government wants to enact. It really is, ultimately, just a piece of paper.

  98. @Wilkey
    @Tomas

    "Someone can correct me on this but my impresssion was that the European Court is a ratchet – if a country has a law prohibiting something, it *may* be struck down by the European Court but it never rules that a country *should* have a law prohibiting stuff."

    Leftists are very good at ensuring laws they favor have a ratchet effect while laws they oppose, if they manage to pass, do not. An illegal immigrant can sue and file multiple appeals to have his deportation order overturned, but Americans can't sue to demand the immigration laws be enforced.

    With regards to immigration, the operative policy appears to be that the most open borders policy is the one that wins. Several states give in-state tuition to illegals in violation of the 1996 immigration law, and the federal courts ruled they could do that. When states try to enforce immigration law, the courts rule it's the federal government's business. But when cities and states have sanctuary policies, the federal government either can't or won't force them to obey the federal law. The end result is that the most left-wing policy wins every time.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    This is our ridiculous idea of “standing” in American courts. A gay who can’t get married is “wronged” and has standing. People who spent millions to get a proposition on the ballot that wins but won’t be defended by the state where it is did not suffer a loss?????? and have no standing even if the State Supreme Court give them the right to defend it and one would think standing.

    The illegal alien has standing the taxpayer none.

  99. @FozzieT
    Mark Steyn has been down this road due to an article he wrote regarding Muslims that was published in MacLeans in Canada. He got hauled into court and had to defend himself against hate speech charges. He prevailed.

    Now he is being sued by notorious climatologist Michael Mann for publishing a piece in National Review mocking Mann's scientific research and making a very loose comparison between Mann and his fellow Penn State colleague Jerry Sandusky.

    National Review, which is also being sued, parted ways with Steyn in the defense of the case. Steyn wants to fight it out in court, while NR apparently just wanted to settle.

    Replies: @Boomstick

    I think NR wanted to slog it out in the usual federal court trench warfare and an endless exchange of briefs, while Steyn wanted to mix it up in the courtroom. I think Steyn’s tactics worked well in Commonwealth courts, which seem more free-wheeling and play to his strengths of agility and quick wit, but probably won’t work as well in the US court system.

    Styen is cutting up Mann in a recent book he published, “A Disgrace to the Profession.” You don’t want to be on the wrong side of Steyn.

  100. @Anonymous
    Actually, France, as a member state of the EU, is legally obliged to abide by the Articles of Constitution of the EU.
    These Articles specifically protect the right to free speech.

    Replies: @JLoHo, @Thomas Fuller, @Tracy

    Actually, France, as a member state of the EU, is legally obliged to abide by the Articles of Constitution of the EU. These Articles specifically protect the right to free speech.

    I think you mean “theoretically” instead of “actually.” Free speech is pretty dead there in reality. And in Germany. And so forth. At least when it comes to saying anything about Jewish power or Jewish History. Things are really freed-up when it comes to dissing Christianity.

    –Speaking of which, some folks here might be interested in reading Israel Shamir’s “Pussy Riot: Secret History“. It’s unreal to read that History and to contrast it with how Pussy Riot is treated in our media (e.g., getting a cameo in “House of Cards”).

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @Tracy

    They were arrested for vandalism in the church. At least Femen has the decency to take their tops off when they protest.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8K8WRRzbQs


    http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/the-best-of-femen-nsfw#.gelDxVMe7

  101. @Tracy
    @Anonymous


    Actually, France, as a member state of the EU, is legally obliged to abide by the Articles of Constitution of the EU. These Articles specifically protect the right to free speech.
     
    I think you mean "theoretically" instead of "actually." Free speech is pretty dead there in reality. And in Germany. And so forth. At least when it comes to saying anything about Jewish power or Jewish History. Things are really freed-up when it comes to dissing Christianity.

    --Speaking of which, some folks here might be interested in reading Israel Shamir's "Pussy Riot: Secret History". It's unreal to read that History and to contrast it with how Pussy Riot is treated in our media (e.g., getting a cameo in "House of Cards").

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    They were arrested for vandalism in the church. At least Femen has the decency to take their tops off when they protest.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/the-best-of-femen-nsfw#.gelDxVMe7

  102. @Yak-15
    @PhysicistDave

    Interesting idea. For me to see the PC opinion trumped is mind-blowing and enraging. Why? Because so much public policy is decided based upon the premises of PC and modern progressive dogma.

    These policies cost me money and subject opinions like mine to scorn and real world consequences for questioning the narrative. I wish I could share your delight.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Yak-15 wrote to me:

    For me to see the PC opinion trumped is mind-blowing and enraging. Why? Because so much public policy is decided based upon the premises of PC and modern progressive dogma.
    These policies cost me money

    Have you ever read Tom Wolfe’s Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers? At the end of the essay, you realize that PC, 1960s style, only pretended to be helping the downtrodden blacks: it’s real purpose was to create cushy jobs for worthless, over-schooled middle-class whites.

    Same as today. Yeah, PC costs you money, but the money is going to middle-class white guys. After all, liberalism/progressivism was created by middle-class white guys (and a few white gals).

    As Lenin said, кто кого.

    Dave

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @PhysicistDave

    You haven't been to a government office if you think PC is only about dumb white guys. Affirmative Action is part of PC. The reason why minorities weren't hired is because they are just as good as the whites but "racism" kept them from being hired.

  103. Back when I was doing some minor-league local politicking I heard a quip: “Dictators suppress free speech because they fear too many people will care. Democracies allow free speech because they know no one gives a damn”. I guess the underlying idea is that governments can–supposedly– only guess at the means by which the governed may be controlled.

  104. “Does nobody notice the irony in “human rights” lawyers and groups trying to stifle freedom of speech in the land of Voltaire and Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternity?”

    Those in the non-ultra liberal camp, as well as conservatives and those political ideological fence sitters duly acknowledge this egregious hypocrisy. However, Soothsailor, you ought to know better. In today’s modern age of identity politics, the left and the right with equal ferocity rarely call out that hypocrisy.

    “When the country was young, less crowded and less ethnically diverse more freedom could be tolerated (blacks and Indians need not apply).”

    The error you are making is that our nation was extraordinarily ethnically diverse.

    “The sort of tribalism you see in highly-inbred, low-trust societies is a different matter.”

    You’re going to have to define “highly-inbred, low-trust societies”. This reference is vague.

    “The best that a multiracial country can do is have a dominant race, or at least a race whose culture is accepted by the rest of the population, as in America when it was 90 per cent white.”

    American culture is generally accepted by the rest of the population.

  105. Anti-Gnostic–“As I have been saying for the past few months, the Age of Ideas–the Enlightenment–is drawing to a close. Tom Wolfe has it exactly right; we are headed back to blood.”

    This Age of Ideas has been continually expanding at a rapid pace. The issue is that certain ideas are now deemed antiquated, which is a common theme in the history of human kind.

    Regarding this “back to blood” notion, every society has their doomsmiths. I’ll wait until the movie comes out.

    “As the excellent Porter puts it, the Right is loyal to its principles, the Left is loyal to its own power.”

    That’s observably false. The Right and Left are loyal to its principles only when they are in power.

    “Inevitably, the Right if it is to remain the Right must adopt identity politics.”

    The Right already has its Coalition of the Fringes.

    Tracy–“I think you mean “theoretically” instead of “actually.” Free speech is pretty dead there in reality.”

    Like racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and rape, the definition and concept of “free speech”–which has never been “free” and always had restrictions–are co-opted by the right and the left within the past 50 years to mean different things. “Hate speech” is a ridiculous notion.

    Praytell, how is free speech in France “pretty dead there in reality”? What is your argument?

  106. @Steve Sailer
    @Reg Cæsar

    Yes, the SPLC doesn't have anything to do with Southern Poverty anymore (assuming it ever did). The SPLC is always looking for a new frenzy, like transgenderism: the SPLC got into that a little too early back in the 2000s, promoting Donald McCloskey's war to silence J. Michael Bailey.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Did you know there are other “poverty law centers” in the United States? They probably do concentrate on poverty law, whatever that is. But you never hear about them. And they’re almost impossible to Google, as SPLC will be 99.99% of your hits.

    • Replies: @Harold
    @Reg Cæsar

    I always thought it was a weird name.


    The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law provides national leadership in advancing laws and policies that secure justice to improve the lives and opportunities of people living in poverty.

     


    The Gillis Long Poverty Law Center has been a great success and is a tremendous resource for Loyola. Over the past 15 years, the center has made major accomplishments in the area of poverty law

     


    The purpose of the Kentucky Poverty Law Center is to (1) identify and address the specific elements of poverty in Kentucky, and (2) develop methods for addressing poverty that can be replicated across the country. Our mission is to work with existing programs and to conduct our own advocacy, education, and research to craft an innovative approach to understanding the cycle of poverty, so that we can dismantle it.

     


    The mission of the Ohio Poverty Law Center is to protect and expand the economic and social rights that low-income Ohioans need to live healthy, secure, successful lives.

     


    Virginia Poverty Law Center (VPLC) is committed to leading and coordinating efforts to seek justice in civil legal matters for lower-income Virginians.
     
    I’m still not sure what poverty law is.

    Wikipedia:


    Poverty law is the body of law which concerns the rights of low-income individuals and families to access government benefits.
     
    Oh! gibsmedat law.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  107. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Glossy

    You are wrong in your effort to be your own kind of cynical absolutist. Yes, we all know politics is dirty and local and yada yada yada.

    However:

    Neither Trump nor Carson are on trial or threatened with imprisonment for making their own kinds of arguments that have been interpreted as "hateful" here...

    In France, Le Pen is.

    The United States is not like France -- YET.

    If you just give up, well then indeed you won't have any principles.

    Replies: @NOTA

    This is a really big difference. Firing people for expressing the wrong views in public is a bad thing, and we shpuld push back on it where we can, but it’s *very* different from locking people in jail for expressing the wrong views. Some people are independently wealthy, and others have employers who don’t care what views they express in public or who support their controversial views, so those views can at least get a hearing. By contrast, nobody inside the country is immune to the laws.

    • Replies: @Melendwyr
    @NOTA

    Except the people that the enforcers of the laws decide to exempt.

  108. @PhysicistDave
    @Yak-15

    Yak-15 wrote to me:


    For me to see the PC opinion trumped is mind-blowing and enraging. Why? Because so much public policy is decided based upon the premises of PC and modern progressive dogma.
    These policies cost me money
     
    Have you ever read Tom Wolfe's Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers? At the end of the essay, you realize that PC, 1960s style, only pretended to be helping the downtrodden blacks: it's real purpose was to create cushy jobs for worthless, over-schooled middle-class whites.

    Same as today. Yeah, PC costs you money, but the money is going to middle-class white guys. After all, liberalism/progressivism was created by middle-class white guys (and a few white gals).

    As Lenin said, кто кого.

    Dave

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    You haven’t been to a government office if you think PC is only about dumb white guys. Affirmative Action is part of PC. The reason why minorities weren’t hired is because they are just as good as the whites but “racism” kept them from being hired.

  109. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    I assume you mean equal protection? Homos have always had equal protection; they could marry like anyone else.

    Trouble is they didn’t like marriage, and wanted it changed.

    This is our ridiculous idea of “standing” in American courts. A gay who can’t get married is “wronged” and has standing.

    That’s never been the problem. The problem has always been that marriage doesn’t suit him, and must be rewritten so that it does.

  110. NPR’s Eleanor Beardsley did a short report on the trial earlier this week. Unlike it’s typical subcontextual cheerleading found in its coverage of Narrative stories like the Ahmed al Clockmaker, there was no sense that Beardsley or the host were troubled by the prosecution at all. Atypically objective reporting. The story never made it to the NPR website either, which is curious. Usually every story ends up on there at least as a transcript.

  111. @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer

    Did you know there are other "poverty law centers" in the United States? They probably do concentrate on poverty law, whatever that is. But you never hear about them. And they're almost impossible to Google, as SPLC will be 99.99% of your hits.

    Replies: @Harold

    I always thought it was a weird name.

    The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law provides national leadership in advancing laws and policies that secure justice to improve the lives and opportunities of people living in poverty.

    The Gillis Long Poverty Law Center has been a great success and is a tremendous resource for Loyola. Over the past 15 years, the center has made major accomplishments in the area of poverty law

    The purpose of the Kentucky Poverty Law Center is to (1) identify and address the specific elements of poverty in Kentucky, and (2) develop methods for addressing poverty that can be replicated across the country. Our mission is to work with existing programs and to conduct our own advocacy, education, and research to craft an innovative approach to understanding the cycle of poverty, so that we can dismantle it.

    The mission of the Ohio Poverty Law Center is to protect and expand the economic and social rights that low-income Ohioans need to live healthy, secure, successful lives.

    Virginia Poverty Law Center (VPLC) is committed to leading and coordinating efforts to seek justice in civil legal matters for lower-income Virginians.

    I’m still not sure what poverty law is.

    Wikipedia:

    Poverty law is the body of law which concerns the rights of low-income individuals and families to access government benefits.

    Oh! gibsmedat law.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Harold


    I’m still not sure what poverty law is.

     

    Protecting poor citizens from low-wage immigration would be a good place to start.
  112. @NOTA
    @Buzz Mohawk

    This is a really big difference. Firing people for expressing the wrong views in public is a bad thing, and we shpuld push back on it where we can, but it's *very* different from locking people in jail for expressing the wrong views. Some people are independently wealthy, and others have employers who don't care what views they express in public or who support their controversial views, so those views can at least get a hearing. By contrast, nobody inside the country is immune to the laws.

    Replies: @Melendwyr

    Except the people that the enforcers of the laws decide to exempt.

  113. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…OT: the key to Angela Merkel is that she panics. Because she saw the Honecker regime collapse suddenly. She panicked over Fukushima, abolishing nuclear power to the detriment of industry and German competitiveness, and panicked over Muslim mass migration. Drawing exactly the wrong lessons.”

    This seems a decent theory. Add to it that, despite being a world leader, she is an ex East German politician who probably has extremely limited first-hand experience with the problems of real-world PC multi-culturalism. Ignorance is always a good assumption.

    “…The British Army had nothing but contempt for the Japanese who were viewed as soft, incompetent, small, physically unimposing when invading Malaya. How exactly did that turn out?”

    This might be misleading. The full story might be a reflection on the weakness of multi-culturalism (or empire-style multi-ethnic colonialism, as opposed to “settler colonies).

    Malayan Campaign

    The “IRA” apparently played a role:

    “…Japanese spies, which included a British intelligence officer, Captain Patrick Stanley Vaughan Heenan, also provided intelligence and assistance.”

    The fall of France changed the strategic situation and may have made the defense untenable (as did the lack of US military support):

    “…The Japanese were allied with the Axis collaborators, the Vichy French, and had been given access to naval facilities and supplies in French Indochina where they massed their forces for the invasion.”

    In addition to serving as the invasion springboard, it was airbases in French Indochina (Vietnam) that enabled the Japanese to achieve air superiority (including sinking the only British battleship in the theatre.) It didn’t help that the IRA sympathizer was apparently giving the Japanese the British tactical plans, in particular regarding disposition of aircraft.

    A significant problem, though (to the multi-cultural point), was that although the high-level officers may have been British, the British troops were often Indian. 70,000 Indian troops defended Malaysia. The Indians did not have a strong reason to die for Malaysia or the British; many of them apparently despised the British.

    “…The Japanese were initially resisted by III Corps of the Indian Army and several British Army battalions.”

    See also things like Battle of Jitra:

    “…Two brigades of Major General David Murray-Lyon’s 11th Indian Division held the front line. On the right were the 15th Indian Infantry Brigade, composed of 1st Battalion The Leicestershire Regiment, the 1st Bn 14th Punjab Regiment and the 2nd Bn 9th Jats; on the left were the 6th Indian Infantry Brigade, composed of the 2nd Bn East Surrey Regiment, the 1st Bn 8th and 2nd Bn 16th Punjab Regiments. … A third brigade—the 28th Indian Infantry Brigade, consisting of three Gurkha battalions—was placed in divisional reserve…”

    Not only were the Indian troops much less than stellar in the defense of Malaysia, after the fall of Singapore captured Indian troops were given the opportunity to fight for the Japanese against the British. Some 45,000 joined an Indian National Army to fight on the side of the Japanese.

    Strength through Diversity!

  114. @(((Owen)))
    @NOTA


    So, would I look to the record of the two Bush administrations to see examples of the right being loyal to their principles?
     
    The Bush administrations were Right in the European sense of promoting military and large estate power at the expense of the middle class, but they were not Right in the American sense of more private property for the middle classes.

    There haven't been many American Right Republican presidencies lately. Nixon was the most liberal president we've had in the past century. The Bushes worshipped central control to promote welfare for the rich and driving down American freedom and wages. Invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world, as our host summarizes toady's Republican platform.

    The most pro-freedom, pro-middle class and pro-free market president we've had since Coolidge has been Clinton with Carter and Reagan tied for second. Obama has been better for the middle class, free markets, and private property than either Bush.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @MarkinLA, @Hibernian

    Carter partially deregulated transportation. He didn’t get the chance to make a Supreme Court appointment. He appointed many liberal District Court judges who see themselves as one man Supreme Courts. Long term, his effect is to diminish liberty.

  115. @Harold
    @Reg Cæsar

    I always thought it was a weird name.


    The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law provides national leadership in advancing laws and policies that secure justice to improve the lives and opportunities of people living in poverty.

     


    The Gillis Long Poverty Law Center has been a great success and is a tremendous resource for Loyola. Over the past 15 years, the center has made major accomplishments in the area of poverty law

     


    The purpose of the Kentucky Poverty Law Center is to (1) identify and address the specific elements of poverty in Kentucky, and (2) develop methods for addressing poverty that can be replicated across the country. Our mission is to work with existing programs and to conduct our own advocacy, education, and research to craft an innovative approach to understanding the cycle of poverty, so that we can dismantle it.

     


    The mission of the Ohio Poverty Law Center is to protect and expand the economic and social rights that low-income Ohioans need to live healthy, secure, successful lives.

     


    Virginia Poverty Law Center (VPLC) is committed to leading and coordinating efforts to seek justice in civil legal matters for lower-income Virginians.
     
    I’m still not sure what poverty law is.

    Wikipedia:


    Poverty law is the body of law which concerns the rights of low-income individuals and families to access government benefits.
     
    Oh! gibsmedat law.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I’m still not sure what poverty law is.

    Protecting poor citizens from low-wage immigration would be a good place to start.

    • Agree: Harold
  116. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “You’re going to have to define “highly-inbred, low-trust societies”. This reference is vague.”

    Probably Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria would be good places to start. You really don’t know much about this?

    If you google on highly-inbred, low-trust societies the top hit is Where Trust is High, Crime and Corruption are Low, Pew Research:

    “…As the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey highlighted, the degree of trust in societies varies considerably around the world.

    …In countries where people generally trust one another, there are fewer worries about crime or corrupt political leaders.

    …Since Harvard’s Robert Putnam advanced his “bowling alone” thesis in the mid-1990s, numerous researchers have found evidence suggesting that America’s social capital has declined over the last half century.

    …High levels of social capital and social trust have been linked to any number of positive social outcomes, including low crime rates.”

    Next is: How Inbred are Europeans?, JayMan’s Blog:

    “…What regions across Europe and the Near East are we talking about? In this post l will show you.

    …There are several historical correlates with this pattern. The earliest was the spread of manorialism… This spread follows the Hajnal line and roughly tracks areas where there were low rates of inbreeding. …

    …hypothesized that the manor system contributed to the breakdown of the clans and made cousin marriage considerably more difficult.

    …Reinforcing the pattern we see across Europe and much of the world are the results of the World’s Values Survey…

    the Islamic countries – which are the most inbred of them all – cluster on an opposite pole to the Northwestern European ones. …This correlates to the rates of civic involvement seen across these countries

    …Further reinforcing our estimation of historic levels of inbreeding across various parts of Europe and the Middle East, as seen on my map, is the fact that many of these countries (the Islamic world) are still actively inbreeding

    …Europeans – and for that matter East Asians – have, by in large, ceased inbreeding in the 20th century by the latest. However, first cousin marriage – particularly the highly incestuous father’s brother’s daughter type – is still the rule in the Muslim world, which means that they should be far more inbred than even the most inbred Europeans could hope to be…”

    Here is one of the maps they show that is helpful.

    Third up is A THEORY OF TRUST: AN EXPOSITION OF FRANCIS FUKUYAMA’S “TRUST”, Dennis R. Brewster (Paper Presented At The Annual Meeting Of The Southwestern Sociological Association):

    “…On the macro level Fukuyama divides societies into two categories. First are those societies he considers to be of low-trust. Societies such as China, Korea, Italy, and France are considered by Fukuyama to exhibit low levels of non-kinship trust. Second, he looks at what are designated as high-trust societies, such as Japan, Germany, and the United States.”

  117. @Lot
    @The Anti-Gnostic


    It’s plain as day homosexual unions enjoy none, zero, zip equal protection under the Constitution, but here we are.
     
    Wrong.

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
     

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    LOL at this “GAME, SET AND MATCH, HATER!!!”

    The men who drafted the 14th Amendment were from States that outlawed sodomy and polygamy. So clearly, the 14th Amendment was never drafted with the intent of legitimizing homosexual marriage or whatever other unions people can think up.

    The Constitution is cover for whatever the government wants to enact. It really is, ultimately, just a piece of paper.

  118. There’s a quote from Thomas Jefferson that I always liked, that explains the reason for having freedom of speech and press: “Truth can stand on its own, it’s error that needs the support of government.”

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS