* I have relatives in an affluent West Los Angeles neighborhood. Twenty-five years ago, Halloween was a significant neighborhood event, with regular trick-or-treating, Halloween parties, and the like. According to my relatives, this year, they had exactly one trick-or-treater the entire night. Prime neighborhoods in the area are graying as people hang on to their houses until they die (California’s Proposition 13, which caps increases on property taxes until the house is sold, is a big factor), and few households can afford both children and a house in these neighborhoods.
* The Roma are typical of a small tribe of low-trust people who have grafted onto a larger, high-trust society for sustenance. This has occurred throughout world history. Unfortunately for them, because of their natural sociopathy/low-trust tendencies make it impossible for them to run their own nation. When such people do get ahold of their own nation, the nation quickly falls into internal squabbling/strife/civil war as the various low-trust members stab each other in the back and ally with foreigners over their own countrymen.
* If you want to take this full-circle to the California example, you can. You have two very different models of immigration, exemplified well by the Bay Area versus LA. In the Bay Area, the tech industry draws (relatively) high-education/high-skilled people mostly from East or South Asia. There are issues with this type of immigration, in particular that they’re effectively indentured servants of the companies sponsoring their visas and they keep wages down for native workers doing the same work. But well educated and skilled people with an incentive to keep a steady job and not rock the boat make for relatively placid immigrants.
Los Angeles is the alternative. There, yes, you have a continual stream of Latin-American illegal immigration feeding the local labor economy. Problematic in a few respects, but hardly the worst category of immigrants you can find locally. That distinction belongs very much to immigrants from low-trust societies in the Middle East, the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, and (to a lesser extent) some parts of South and East Asia. The “Silk Road people,” as I call them. You find these folks very well represented in dodgy and often questionably-legal small businesses, if not running outright scams or involved in organized and white-collar crime. Many of them have figured out how to rig the game to a tee – a perverse version of the immigrant success story – insinuating themselves in apparently legitimate activities like charitable organizations and politics, and making use of ethnic affinity links to find victims as well as co-conspirators (e.g., shady professionals in various fields, like lawyers, doctors, or real estate brokers who are in positions to facilitate various fraudulent schemes).
* We lived in Southern California as a family in the mid-1980s and returned again in the 1990s. By the late 1990s, I thought we were living in Mexico. By 1996, we were refugees en route to Oklahoma. California wasn’t safe for adults or children. I felt my choice was either to buy a gun or leave; we left.
Our take was the the social contract in California was breaking down — wide-spread crime as the “have nots” looted the “have” communities at night, violent gangs with shootouts and carjackings, and extremely low-performing PC schools proselytizing multiculturalism, feminism, and other relativist anarchy. My perception was that the schools were psychologically damaging the kids, not educating them. Our recourse was private schools.
Almost every gringo we knew at the time was plotting an exit strategy. Those who did leave fueled real estate bubbles in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and Colorado as people realized they could sell their four-bedroom ranchers in LA for “mcmansions” outside the state and still put a couple of hundred grand in the bank.
California — a safe environment for raising children? You’ve got to be kidding! We still have family there. We avoid visiting on their turf. We encourage them to fly and “Great Flyover” and visit us on the East Coast.
Posted inCalifornia|Comments Off on “California’s Birthrate Falls to Its Lowest Level on Record”
These skits are racist enough to be funny, but not too racist so that you feel uncomfortable, because the star is Ari Shaffir, who’s Jewish, and as an oppressed person of color, the Jew cannot be racist.
According to Wikipedia: “Shaffir was born in New York City, and was raised as an Orthodox Jew.[1] His father and grandmother were holocaust survivors.[2][3] Soon after his birth, his family moved to North Carolina, followed by Maryland.[4][5] He attended high school in Rockville, Maryland, followed by time at Yeshiva University in New York City,[6] where he accepted to study abroad in seminary in Israel for around three-and-a-half years. He added: “There was no test, there was nothing to memorize, so I just poured myself into it … one day I realized I didn’t really believe any of that stuff, so I stopped it.”
It’s time for liberal Jews to stop. We know you are angry that you lost. We know you don’t like Trump, but claiming that America has become anti-Semitic, or that it’s not a friendly country for Jews, is a slap in the face to the country that, besides Israel, has been the best home for Jewish people in thousands of years. Americans have again and again expressed support for Israel, particularly Conservative Christian Americans. America remains largely free of the violent antisemitism sweeping Europe. What’s the problem?
As a postscript, it’s interesting to point out that while Trump reaches out to Israel and works with Jews on a daily basis, the DNC might put anti-Israel Rep. Keith Ellison in charge.
But hey, Bannon said Jewish girls were whiny, so I guess getting stabbed in the back by the DNC is less important… right?
Posted inAlt Right|Comments Off on The Alt Right & The Jews – A Dialogue With Joshua Seidel
When most people, Jew or gentile, hear the term “anti-Semitism”, they immediately assume it is a bad thing, an ignorant prejudice, and a type of mental virus that leads to gas chambers.
I am not so sure. From my perspective, only anti-Semitism that leads to physical violence is always a bad thing for Jews (the reality of life is that physical violence against competing groups is sometimes a good thing for your group). On the other hand, a moderate amount of “anti-Semitism” is often a good thing in that it keeps group identity strong.
I believe in freedom of association. Gentiles should be able to gather at a restaurant or country club or hotel without the presence of Jews if that is their wish, just as Jews should have their own institutions free from goyim if that is their wish.
If you have a strong in-group identity, be it Jewish or Christian or Muslim, you are likely to have negative views of out-groups. It is a weird and unhealthy proud Jew or proud Christian or proud Muslim who does not have some negative views of out-groups.
An Arab or Muslim who is just fine with the Jewish state of Israel is cucked. A Christian with no negative feelings about Jews is cucked. A Jew with no negative feelings about Christians and Muslims is cucked.
If you are honest to your religion, you are going to find other religions at best weird and at worst evil.
Anti-Semitism increases Jewish solidarity and esprit de corps. Jews bond with each other and help each other more when there is anti-Semitism as opposed to when there is little anti-Semitism. Under anti-Semitic conditions, Jews feel more urgency to create their own institutions. Today most Jews in America marry non-Jews, while in a more anti-Semitic America, this was rare. Intermarriage destroys Judaism. Ergo, a more anti-Semitic America was better for American Judaism than today’s philo-Semitism.
When Napoleon swept through Europe, most Jews embraced him, but many Orthodox rabbis did not, because they thought the barriers he was breaking down between Jew and gentile would do the Jews more harm than good.
When Jews have had a choice, they have overwhelmingly chosen to leave Orthodox Judaism and to assimilate. In America and Western Europe, Jews have usually liked and admired their fellow gentiles. Only in Eastern Europe did most Jews detest the goyim (and were in turn hated by the goyim) and only in Eastern Europe did Orthodox Judaism reign among Jews.
Orthodox Judaism means separatism. All proud in-groups must separate from out-groups if they are to develop their in-group way of life.
Home Owner Associations that don’t want to admit Jews or blacks or Muslims should be allowed to do what they like. Businesses should be allowed to hire who they like. Different groups have different gifts and the more homogeneous your company or neighborhood, the more likely that people there will get along. I guess you can call that “anti-Semitism,” but to me it is commonsense.
Diversity and proximity sometimes lead to conflict and tragedy.
When the WASP stopped practicing anti-Semitism, the WASP cucked himself. The WASP used to rule this country and the world but he voluntarily gave up that privilege. Nature is not kind to such self-abnegating groups.
A sign of what might be called “progress” jogged some memories of battles fought. In reporting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s nomination of a new chief to a state regulatory agency, the New York Times identified the appointee as being a litigator in “the white-shoe law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,” et al. The reporter seemingly did not know that the designation “white-shoe law firm” was invented to describe firms at the pinnacle of the WASP establishment, no Jews allowed, named apparently for the shoes these WASPs favored in the summer at their restricted country clubs.
In the 1960s, my partners and I were attempting to establish an economic consulting firm that marketed its services to law firms and public utilities. The “white-shoe” firms were off-limits. We identified them by adding up the Roman numerals after partners’ names—I, II, III, etc.—adding to that partners with first and last names that were interchangeable, and dividing by the total number of partners. A high result meant we had no chance.
Then there were cases in which no such arithmetic was needed. A partner in one firm told me at a cocktail party, after his usual consumption of truth-producing alcohol, that he was happy to be living in a New York suburb that did not allow Jews. That firm later merged with another; both went bust. Another pointed out that the new civil rights legislation wasn’t a problem for him because it did not protect Jews, whose upward drive would threaten him and his executives. The general counsel of a public utility invited me to lunch to congratulate me on starting the firm and added what he thought was encouraging news: “If we ever hire a firm with Jews, your firm will be the first.”
We were not the only disadvantaged group. One company CEO told me that he was certain new legislation did not force him to change a company rule that permitted men, but not women, to smoke at their desks. In the early 1960s, women were finding it difficult to procure professional positions, both in law firms and in the consulting field. Our firm took advantage of that market imperfection by hiring the best and the brightest women economics graduates, with emphasis on my mentor’s and my own former students at Cornell. When I was due to testify at an administrative proceeding at a Washington regulatory agency, I brought my assistant along to help check data, refresh my recollection during recesses, find sources, and perform other chores. The hearing officer quietly suggested to me that it was inappropriate to have a woman in the hearing room; I argued that she was entitled to see the fruits of her research and prevailed. It wasn’t easy.
With time and hard work, we managed to build a successful consulting practice. Time, because gradually the law business changed, with the bright young Jewish graduates joining predominantly Jewish firms that prospered, in many instances by accepting cases that the white-shoe firms would not take—contingency fee arrangements, lawsuits against establishment corporations—and prevailing over rivals that had denied themselves access to this portion of the most talented law school output. One WASPy partner in a Pittsburgh firm told me one evening, “We made a mistake discriminating against you guys. We should have hired you instead of giving you an added incentive to beat us.”
Discrimination, especially against a group with no recourse to the law and therefore reliant only on its efforts, can be costly.
We were helped, too, by three events. A metropolitan New York utility hired as general counsel a Jewish lawyer who had an offer from a white-shoe firm rescinded a day later when the firm discovered he was Jewish. He was in the market for what we had to sell, especially in cases in which he was up against the Wall Street WASP law establishment. Second, a patrician partner in a southern law firm had no use for discrimination, interviewed several firms to handle a series of matters, and selected us on merit—for a client group led by a Philadelphia patrician who had somehow found his way into a top executive position in the utility industry. Not all WASPs wore white shoes.
Finally, a group of utilities found itself appearing before a Jewish administrative law judge. The executives in the group who knew that Jews are clannish—after all, there were none in their city and country clubs—thought it best to agree with the meritocrats in the group so they could play the Jew card in the hearing. We did well. It was easier but not storm-free sailing from then on.
I suspect that these horrible white-shoe firms were a little more honest in business than mixed-race businesses and that when they cucked themselves, their moral standards dropped as they brought in people who were not as honest as them. When I read about a scandal on Wall Street, it rarely seems to involve WASPs. Usually its Jews and Indians.
Will there ever be negative repercussions to playing the Jew card? In the rest of life, when you use an unfair advantage, it always comes back to bite you in the ass. Perhaps Jews are immune from this. Or perhaps not.
While discrimination can be costly, lack of discrimination is more likely to hurt you. Only a fool does not discriminate. Discrimination and separation are the very essence of Judaism. The goyim would do well to behave likewise.
Posted inAnti-Semitism, WASPs|Comments Off on When Anti-Semitism Strengthens Group Identity
With all the advances of blacks over the years, nothing so brought home to me the social degeneration in black ghettos like a visit to a Harlem high school some years ago.
When I looked out the window at the park across the street, I mentioned that, as a child, I used to walk my dog in that park. Looks of horror came over the students’ faces, at the thought of a kid going into the hell hole that park had become in their time.
When I have mentioned sleeping out on a fire escape in Harlem during hot summer nights, before most people could afford air-conditioning, young people have looked at me like I was a man from Mars. But blacks and whites alike had been sleeping out on fire escapes in New York since the 19th century. They did not have to contend with gunshots flying around during the night.
Posted inThomas Sowell|Comments Off on Tom Sowell’s Farewell Column
Faceborg’s Mark Cuckersperg, smarting like a bruised betabuttboy from leftoid legacy media criticism that his platform aids in the dissemination of “fake news” (i.e., real news that doesn’t recapitulate the anti-White narrative), announced that the Winklevoss’s company would team up with a selection of “fact-checking” outfits to curate news feeds on Facedork and identify those deemed “fake” for immediate relocation to the gulag of criminal thoughts.
The reaction from the reactoshitsphere was pointed: but who will check the fact-checkers?
It’s a valid question. A working familiarity with fact-check websites reveals a decided leftoid slant. The owners of those sites will never admit to this bias, of course, but the facts (heh) bear it out. Media-darling “fact-checkers” are almost all leftoids.
Soccermombook listed Snopes as one of the four or five “fact-checkers” with whom they would collaborate to censor alt-right speech. Snopes is a popular “debunking” website favored by shitlibs, but there’s something everyone should know about the Snopes proprietors.
First, a wholesome photo of Snopes co-founders, David and Barbara Mikkelson (with obligatory libcat child substitute).
Our Snopes story took a darkly humorous turn, when news from America’s foremost paper of record recently surfaced that David Mikkelson divorced his first wife and is accused of embezzling $100K from his company to spend on prostitutes and on his second wife, a chubby ho who is (still!) an escort and a former porn star, (“star” being used loosely here… literally loosely).
The second wife, Elyssa Young:
Now a DailyMail.com investigation reveals that Snopes.com’s founders, former husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson, are embroiled in a lengthy and bitter legal dispute in the wake of their divorce.
He has since remarried, to a former escort and porn actress who is one of the site’s staff members.
They are accusing each other of financial impropriety, with Barbara claiming her ex-husband is guilty of ’embezzlement’ and suggesting he is attempting a ‘boondoggle’ to change tax arrangements, while David claims she took millions from their joint accounts and bought property in Las Vegas.
***
David Mikkelson told the Dailymail.com that Snopes does not have a ‘standardized procedure’ for fact-checking ‘since the nature of this material can vary widely.’ He said the process ‘involves multiple stages of editorial oversight, so no output is the result of a single person’s discretion.’
He also said the company has no set requirements for fact-checkers because the variety of the work ‘would be difficult to encompass in any single blanket set of standards.’
You’ve been FACT CHECKED, bitches!
It’ll be fun reading Snopebook try to “fact-check” and censor inconvenient FBI crime stats by race and well-tested group IQ differences. Assuming, that is, Snopes isn’t quietly jettisoned as a potential Facesperg client, losing out on millions of middle-aged fatty escort-purchasing dollars.
Just when I think 2016 can’t deliver any more Trump-branded goodness, the next day brings a fresh batch of WINNING.
PS The Mikkelsons (second iteration) have a wedding website, where you can fact check the size of Elyssa’s upper arms.
PPS There are 147 reviews on Elyssa’s heavily-airbrushed escort service website, all of them positive. (Imagine that!) You have to wonder at the level of emasculation needed to happily wife up an actual whore (and single mom) who continues flaunting the carousel of cock she rode, and still rides, on her escort blog.
PPPS The Mikkelson-Young wedding party is a glimpse into the lives of socially atomized prototypical shitlibs:
Bridesmen and groomswomen. The gay is strong in this wedding. The best man was the bride’s stepfather. Sad and solitary David Mikkelson needs a friend-check. And a family check. The only people he knows willing to be his “groomswomen” are his employees. He has to pay for witnesses to his wedding.
* She accused him of embezzling money for himself and his hoes. Here’s how he justified that:
Quote
David and his attorneys countered that the India visit was a legitimate business trip, and that he only expensed a fraction – 22.5 per cent – of the total cost of the excursion.
He said he was considering setting up a fact-checking website in India, and wanted to get a sense of the culture. He also said he went to Buenos Aires to attend an international fact-checking conference.
PLEASE TO BE INVESTIGATING THE REPORTS OF FRAUDULENT POOP IN THE STREETS
Quote
David kept their joint baseball card collection, a savings account with $1.59 million balance, and other savings worth more than $300,000. They also agreed to split the company checking account’s $240,000 balance at the end of 2015 after his salary had been paid and a $50,000 float left.
Daily Mail sneaks in some low blows of its own:
Quote
That has not ended the difficulty however; court documents show that a decision on David’s salary for 2016 became bogged down in legal argument when Barbara refered it to an arbiter, and the appointment of the arbiter became itself a matter of dispute.
Snopes.com will be asked by Facebook to be an arbiter on the veracity of news.
Attorneys for the former husband and wife also conducted a lengthy exchange on what was actually true about the actions of the former couple.
Finally, the new Snopes’ main fact checker is a dominatrix who runs a smutty web site dedicated to smut. She describes her work at Snopes:
Quote
Describing her day-off activities on another blog, she wrote that she ‘played scrabble, smoked pot, and posted to Snopes.’ She added, ‘That’s what I did on my day “on,” too.’
Yes, yes of course and you knew this was coming:
Quote
In others posts, LaCapria claimed to be ‘addicted to smutty HP [Harry Potter] fanfic.’
* His new wife may STILL WORKING AS AN ESCORT, her website is still up, so is her Twitter.
Her rates are ridiculous, does this look like a $500 an hour hooker to you?
* That whole Snopes thing started on usenet, where people with academic connections could status signal against folklore.urban. It was a way they could show their superiority to normies, dittoheads and AOL account holders. Then it moved to the web and became an institution. It was always SWPL-liberal but it was at least useful in combating that forwarded crap your relatives would email you.
Now the whole thing is like a bad 1980s televangelist scandal.
* A wedding where your wife’s sons are the Bridesmen (and have different last names), your Groomswomen are your employees, and where the terms “Bridesmam” and “Groomswoman” exist at all… it’s like some bad parody of nerds except it’s all very real
Goons and nerds like the idea they own truth and get to define what it is, since they have precious little else to feel valuable about in their lives. Hence why they like compiling lists of information (like Snopes).
Being the weak willed creatures they are, they couldn’t help but get co-opted by political operatives acting in bad faith to use up what little credibility they had to further their own ends. Good luck being cited anymore, Snopes.
* Most men don’t expect to marry a virgin these days but imagine if your wife had 147 reviews on an escort review website, in Elyssa’s case they’re almost universally positive but that would only invoke more suspicion, if she’s so good at pleasing men then how would you know if she really loves you or not?
* The whore that is addicted to Harry Potter erotica which features explicit sex scenes between adults and children debunked PizzaGate? Brava.
* The best response to the “fake news” theory is that mass reporting is made up of multiple levels and that the bottom level, the phony articles passed around on Facebook, is relatively benign compared to the corruption at the higher levels. In fact, the idea that “fake news elected Donald Trump” is itself a kind of fake news, a partisan talking point used to delegitimize election results and make excuses for the no-message, no-energy Hillary campaign.
The major media sources have all acquitted themselves terribly over this campaign, from deliberately pumping up Trump early on because they thought Hillary could beat him to collaborating with campaigns to printing egregiously slanted “analysis” and attempting coordinated hits. Of course the media does not report on its own revolving door problem, it no longer even bothers observing that George Stephanopolis was a key figure in the Clinton administration, or that most reporters identify as liberal, or that media culture is itself stridently liberal and works closely with liberal groups while keeping conservative groups at arm’s length.
FORBES: Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”
It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I’d be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I’m precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”
This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.
In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “its secret.”
It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond.
When I presented a set of subsequent clarifying questions to David, he provided responses to some and not to others. Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It’s pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?”
That is actually a fascinating response to come from a fact checking organization that prides itself on its claimed neutrality. Think about it this way – what if there was a fact checking organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from the ranks of Breitbart and Infowars? Most liberals would likely dismiss such an organization as partisan and biased. Similarly, an organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from Occupy Democrats and Huffington Post might be dismissed by conservatives as partisan and biased. In fact, when I asked several colleagues for their thoughts on this issue this morning, the unanimous response back was that people with strong self-declared political leanings on either side should not be a part of a fact checking organization and all had incorrectly assumed that Snopes would have felt the same way and had a blanket policy against placing partisan individuals as fact checkers.
In fact, this is one of the reasons that fact checking organizations must be transparent and open. If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?
Put another way, some Republicans believe firmly that climate change is a falsehood and that humans are not responsible in any way for climatic change. Those in the scientific community might object to an anti-climate change Republican serving as a fact checker for climate change stories at Snopes and flagging every article about a new scientific study on climate change as fake news. Yet, we have no way of knowing the biases of the fact checkers at Snopes – we simply have to trust that the site’s views on what constitutes neutrality are the same as ours.
When I asked for comment on the specific detailed criteria Snopes uses to screen its applicants and decide who to hire as a fact checker, surprisingly David demurred, saying only that the site looks for applicants across all fields and skills. He specifically did not provide any detail of any kind regarding the screening process and how Snopes evaluates potential hires. David also did not respond to further emails asking whether, as part of the screening process, Snopes has applicants fact check a set of articles to evaluate their reasoning and research skills and to gain insight into their thinking process.
This was highly unexpected, as I had assumed that a fact checking site as reputable as Snopes would have a detailed written formal evaluation process for new fact checkers that would include having them perform a set of fact checks and include a lengthy set of interview questions designed to assess their ability to identify potential or perceived conflicts of interest and work through potential biases.
Even more strangely, despite asking in two separate emails how Snopes assesses its fact checkers and whether it performs intra- and inter-rater reliability assessments, David responded only that fact checkers work together collaboratively and did not respond to further requests for more detail and did not answer whether Snopes uses any sort of assessment scoring or ongoing testing process to assess its fact checkers.
Posted inJournalism|Comments Off on Fact-Checking Snopes
* Mr. Gelernter’s error: A lot of situations are “communicative” and in these situations both parties must have a say. He may be free to smoke but he mustn’t blow his smoke into another man’s face – or the other man has a right to defend himself.
But in a way this is a classical error – the error of promoting the “rights” of the immigrating (Jewish/transgender) individual to be unconditionally accepted/included in every kind of association; at the cost of other people’s freedom of association (which includes the freedom to not associate).
* Conservatives are supposed to understand barbarism is the natural state of human affairs, civilization is rare and fragile. Liberty is therefore sustainable only in limited amounts, to the extent it does not lead to the dissolution of order. Democracy was a radical departure from conservatism,the founders of the US naively thought they could manage it by reserving the vote to adult males of property who would understand, not libertarianism but conservatism. who would understand the importance of order, authority, hierarchy,tradition, the known over the experimental, the weakness of human nature.
* What makes this funny for me is that I left a comment on National Review (before they went into censorship mode by using Facebook comments) and I said National Review will one day declare that Transgenderism is a conservative value. As expected all the cucks denounced me as being a crazed troll, the only thing I was wrong about was how much sooner their endorsement has arrived.
* It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.
American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.
No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.
Robert Lewis Dabney on Conservatism, 1897
Posted inConservatives|Comments Off on Josh Gelernter In National Review: ‘A Conservative Defense of Transgender Rights’
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
