Christopher Cantwell, whom i find myself disagreeing with slightly more (see here and here) than usual lately, has been banned from Facebook for making what is nothing but a common sense statement, as well as a libertarian statement.
This being, that if people in Cologne had the right to bear arms in order to protect and defend themselves, many rape victims would likely not have been rape victims.
This notion of the right to self defense, using firearms if necessary, against violent criminals is wholly alien to the left-liberal nation state, to the point that advocating it will get you banned from a social network platform. Obviously, the expectation is that you are not only a victim, but that you should accept and resign to such a fate, even as the state itself is happily importing your assaulters and rapists. To suggest otherwise is a “violation of terms.”
As part of the debate about gun control he has with fellow Loyola faculty member (?) Christopher Brown, Walter Block posted an article listing some questions and argument in favor of gun freedom that i thought were good enough to link to here, even outside of the context of the overall debate they are having.
Thanks to Target Liberty.
Stefan Molyneux dissects Thomas Sowell’s hit piece on Donald Trump, and reams him but good for his easy and weak criticisms, and his hypocrisy.
I should add a disclaimer that i do not think Donald Trump would be a good president; i disagree with most of his political views and there is plenty to justifiably criticize. All the more reason to be disappointed with Thomas Sowell for lowering himself to the kind of vapid criticism you may expect from establishment-serving media and politicians.
No matter how horrible Trump would be as a president, i personally think everybody would be a horrible president (certainly Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders wouldn’t be any better, nor any of the other Republican candidates). What makes me have a small weak spot for Trump is that A: he is at least entertaining; B: he is much more honest instead of trying to butter up to everyone; and C: he is considered the enemy by virtually the entire media and political establishment. That is a plus in my book.
When the likes of Thomas Sowell, whom i have a lot of respect for generally, jumps on the “bash Trump” bandwagon, in an article in that worthless neocon toilet paper National Review of all things, and also resorts to such meaningless criticisms, i can only say kudos to Stefan Molyneux for calling him out on his bullshit.
Cultural Marxism expresses itself as dividing society into two camps: the oppressing class, and the oppressed class. The oppressing class, according to cultural Marxists, consists always of Western, white, rich or privileged, heterosexual, able-bodied men. Being Christian will not help you. If you recognize yourself as fitting the above description, forget about ever being considered a victim of one or the other social ill. You are most likely considered a sexist, homophobe, racist and privileged person, at the very least at a subconscious level.
Rand Paul, who has gone out of his way to cozy up to establishment Republicans and spout various statist nonsense, before he found out it got him nowhere electorally, is now trying to coral the herd back into the barn.
Speaking hypocritically, Rand blasts other candidates for not being true heirs of liberty, and claims he is the ‘rightful heir’ to the liberty vote. Rand Paul, in other words, expects voters to have the memory of a gold fish. Plenty can be looked up about things Rand has said, and the ways in which he deviated from the liberty position. Now his mealy mouth is spouting what superficially seems like the right things to say.
The article notes that Matt Welch and Jacob Sullum have pointed out that Ted Cruz is a flip flopper. But the problem is that this is stated in an article about Rand Paul, himself not any more reliable about the positions he takes. So what makes Cruz worse than Rand? We’re talking about a guy who was/is about as cozy to Mitch McConnell as a man can be, and endorsed him over a much more libertarian candidate.
Reason’s Brian Doherty wrote an article responding to one written by Will Wilkinson, from the allegedly libertarian think tank the Niskanen Center.
Basically, Wilkinson claims that the best way to achieve liberty is to not be extremist in your principles, to be moderate instead and to submit to the political system, to compromise, to the state as a face of life, and basically any other thing that all non-libertarians also accept.
Brian Doherty responds with a nicely nuanced article, where he indicates that proof of the effectiveness of moderation of principle is just as lacking as proof of the effectiveness of extremism in principle.
But in responding to such “reasonable” and “practical” types as Wilkinson, always trying to be subversive to libertarian momentum and trying to take a necessary edge of the sharp moral conviction of libertarians, i never feel really satisfied by nicely nuanced responses. It’s like saying “shame on you” to co-opting infiltrators or saboteurs. It’s not quite putting across the message.
Hollywood can be repugnantly politically correct. It is most certainly overwhelmingly progressive (and statist). Nobody with any credibility could still claim otherwise. Name a typical progressive cause and you can count on many Hollywood stars to climb on their soapboxes and express either support for said cause or vehement criticism for anything that impedes it.
It is actually quite rare, especially from high level Hollywood people, to bust right through the politically correct culture not merely with acts or behavior that indicates liberal hypocrisy (such as liberal Alec Baldwin calling his own daughter a “piggy”), but with words, and in so doing show that they are not as brainwashed as most others in their field. And in a time, when people can be at least to a degree “blacklisted” for not being properly progressive (blacklisted by the kinds of people that have wailed about the 50s era McCarthyism, ironically enough), it is especially courageous if someone drops an un-PC bombs when they’re up for industry-wide acclaim.
Enter Charlotte Rampling, who had the temerity to suggest that if no black actors are currently nominated for an Academy Award, it may just be because they weren’t good enough. And furthermore, to suggest that there is a diversity deficit is racist to white people. To claim that there is such a thing as racism to white people, is itself unheard of among staunch progressives, who think racism was born from only white people, and is practiced only by white people. Continue Reading