So, Germans Are Making Nazi Sounds Again…

So sayeth the Telegraph (h/t Vox Day).

One recording purports to show a uniformed security guard speaking of getting “swastikas in my eyes”.

“In two years, there will be a revolution here and there will be no more of all this s***. We’ll clean it all out,” the guard, who has not been named, appears to say.

“We have plenty of summer camps, and I swear to you they can be used again. On the gate: work makes you free,” he says.

That’s one side of the extreme, of course. It’s not like the artists and cultural leaders have reined in their proper horror about Ol’ Shouty Pants?


And it’s a movie, too:

Do you know what it sounds like when taboos get broken? Because this is what it sound like when taboos get broken.


The Train is Fine. The Point is Missed.

This starts as a joke on the Onion News Network, back in 2011 when that was a thing:

It’s funny, but it’s not brilliantly funny. The joke is that the autistic guy does not get that the story is about the dead guy and not about the train. That’s sorta funny. Mean, but funny. It’s probably funnier because its a forbidden kind of humor.

So a guy named Sam Hawken posted it to his blog, back then. Big deal, the internet moves on. And then someone in 2015 revives it and people start using it on Twitter, mostly as a rhetorical device to suggest that someone is narrowly obsessing about inconsequential matters. This, Sam decides, is utterly unacceptable, and he goes to great lengths to argue that the video itself was a fine way to laugh with autism, but referencing it is a cruel way to laugh at autism. Which is nonsense on stilts, but whatever.

What I find myself thinking on is how this makes a nice analogy for how the Left have been dealing with Paris. Sure, ISIS made a big mess, but they’d rather suck all the oxygen out of the room talking about how not all Muslims are Terrorists and how it’s insane and un-American to question whether ISIS might be bright enough to slip a few troublemakers in with the next round of Syrian refugees.

Which statements, I don’t even care if they’re true. I know enough Muslims to know they’re not all terrorists. Saying that is meaningless. I don’t think every Syrian refugee is an ISIS sleeper. They don’t have to be, and in any case, arguing about how many refugees we take in is NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

Can we talk about getting rid of ISIS? Of handing them a military defeat? Of preventing them from gunning down innocents in a theater?

Or would we rather talk about matters tangential to this?

I mean, sure, a bunch of people in Paris (and Syria, and Iraq, etc., thanks, Internet Guilt Brigade) are dead, but is the train fine?

The train is fine.

If Government is Banditry, Anarchy is Impossible

Within Kevin Williamson’s takedown of the mindlessness of bureacracy (And please, read the whole thing), lies this interesting nugget:

Over the years, economic success and administrative demands eventually transform bands of roving bandits into bands of stationary bandits. One popular theory of the state — one that is pretty well-supported by the historical evidence in the European context — is that this is where governments come from: protection rackets that survive for a long enough period of time that they take on a patina of legitimacy. At some point, Romulus-and-Remus stories are invented to explain that the local Mafiosi have not only historical roots but divine sanction.

This is a useful tonic against species of anarcho-libertarians. That sounds counter-intuitive, but it’s true. If anarchy is the natural state in man, anarchy fell to government via banditry. If the Roman Republic, for example, began as ancient mafiosi, then even if we were to achieve blessed anarchy again, there wouold be nothing stopping bandits from setting up new proto-states via violence.

But free humans would band together to resist such bandits. Indeed. And if bandits are a common problem (and why would they not be?) then regular banding together against them would lead to regular organization of force, and rules concerning same, and holy schneikes you have law and a state. For all we know, that’s how the Roman Republic really began.

If liberty requires virtue, anarchy requires sainthood.

George Will Takes Bernie Sanders to School

It’s a glorious read, especially the part where he points out that the state is a prime driver of it (h/t Protein Wisdom):

First, the entitlement state exists primarily to transfer wealth regressively, from the working-age population to the retired elderly who, after a lifetime of accumulation, are the wealthiest age cohort. Second, big, regulatory government inherently exacerbates inequality because it inevitably serves the strong — those sufficiently educated, affluent, articulate and confident to influence the administrative state’s myriad redistributive actions.

Third, seven years of ZIRP — zero-interest-rate policy— have not restored the economic dynamism essential for social mobility but have had the intended effect of driving liquidity into equities in search of high yields, thereby enriching the 10 percent of Americans who own approximately 80 percent of the directly owned stocks.

The state exists to serve itself. Did you watch the Benghazi hearings and not understand that?


The face of responsibility.

But the best part is his attack, via Philosopher Harry Frankfurt, of the whole idea of economic equality as a moral ideal (if you have not read Harry Frankfurt’s tome On Bullshit, then hie ye to Amazon). One might make a case for economic sufficiency, but sufficiency – whether someone has enough – is irrelevant to how much someone else has. Economics is not now, and will not ever be, a zero-sum game, except when it is given to the political class, who will turn any society into Venezuela if given half the chance.

Oh, but easy for me to say, stuffed with all my privileges and comfort! Yes, it is easy indeed. I am privileged and comfortable and so, so white….


But income inequality is not going to change so long as its existence is used to give more power to the state, the oligarchs that run the state, and the clerisy that worships it. Hate me for saying it as much as you want.

Please Stop Using The Indians in Immigration Arguments

This tweet by Mickey Kaus reminds me of an irritating chesnut that pro-immigration types love to trot out whenever they encounter disagreement. It usually takes the form of

“Well, it’s a shame that the Indians didn’t think of border control!”

Or something equally smug. It’s stupid for two reasons:

  1. The Indians did think of that. Which is to say, they contested white overlordship of North America with everything they had. There’s hardly a state in the Union that was not wrested from the natives violently. Some more than others, but still. The idea that the Indians meekly welcomed the palefaces to America is just plain wrong. They fought. They fought hard. They just had too many material disadvantages to overcome.
  2. Why on earth would we want to emulate their results? So, in an argument about whether our immigration policy is letting in too many foreigners, you deliberately bring up the people from whom foreigners took the continent, as an argument for letting more foreigners in. Precisely whom is this supposed to persuade?

The answer, of course, is no one. It’s not an argument; it’s an exercise in social signalling. By saying it, you get to be one of the good, socially aware people, thus trumping any need to actually be right on a policy question. Because if you’re one of the good people, your opponent must be one of the bad people, so whatever he says is bad.