The Lost Ideal

A Conservative is someone who stands athwart history yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, and to have much patience with those who so urge it. -William F Buckley, Jr.

[outdoor-anarchy]

[redbloodedamerica]

The modern liberal is only liberal with other people’s money. The word liberal means of and pertaining to freedom. And I believe in freedom, it isn’t freedom for the government to take 40% of my income out of my pocket and spend it on things we through our political mechanism have decided on, but I as an individual, you as an individual have no control over.

Milton Friedman (via redbloodedamerica)

[the-evil-conservative-deactivat]

Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples’ money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people’s freedom and security.

William F. Buckley Jr. (via the-evil-conservative)

[conservativeroyalist-deactivate]

Clique.

[famousquotables]

I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence. ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.

(via famousquotables)

[rightlyspeaking-blog]

What They Teach Kids

A few weeks ago a friend of mine told me about a school seminar they attended which was essentially a lesson in society, namely American society. In the seminar they were taught the United States is not the freest country in the world. Indeed, by whatever standard they had God only knows, the United States is only seventh, with European countries like the Netherlands placed ahead. Unlike in these countries, women in the United States are second class citizens who lack the rights men have. The classical examples abound: women in the United States make some 75 to 80 cents of a dollar a man makes; there are not many women in politics or in high corporate positions; there are not that many women in the military; abortions are criticized with much fervor. My friend, along with many others, were taught that American society is no champion of rights. Of course, nothing can be farther from the truth. They were not taught American society. Rather, they were taught how the Left views American society. Everything in human history, except for a few miracles here and there, have a reason to occur. When there is a cause, there is a reason for that cause. When people dribble about the inequalities women face in the United States, they never specifically mention the causes; they only say it is because our society is run by men. But let us take opinions aside and look at the reality. Why are women in general paid lower than men? It is because women are the ones who bear children in a family. When women bear children, it almost always leads them to be on leave for at least nine months. And for lawyers, doctors, politicians, scientists, the world changes drastically in nine months. New medicine may have been produced or new electoral seats that change political power may have occurred. It takes time to try and catch up to an increased standard, and furthermore, the world does not stand still for anyone. That is why women who bear no children or passed the child bearing age usually are paid equally or even higher than their male counterparts. This too is why menial jobs where the work does not drastically change tend to have equal pay for men and women. After all, if a librarian comes back from maternal leave, there would have been no upheavals in the library. Women, then, have chosen to start a family rather than pursue corporate gains. None forced them to do so, it was there by choice. Many choose not to be in Corporate America, or the military. A survey done about a year ago showed that only two out of ten people who apply for the military are women. In a world that allows women to freely join and defend their country, why are women only 20% of applicants who want to do so? Because women do not want to join in wars. Women do not desire wars, more than men do not desire it. The only other alternative is that women are unpatriotic. But there are countless women who join other causes that are patriotic in nature that do not involve wars. So un-patriotism is not a rampant condition amongst women. The difference with women is not in society, it is with nature. Men and women have different natures, and therefore different ways of expressions. But not many would say that because the mantra of the day is equality. And nothing can be equal if they are different. That is why many today brainwash children into thinking that women are second class citizens in the United States, one of the reasons is so that they remain quiet when unborn children are permitted to die in the name of women's rights. Many today have been brainwashed to believe that is what freedom looks like.

[jahfuhrer-deactivated20141001]

Nobody is equal to anybody. Even the same man is not equal to himself on different days.

Thomas Sowell (via clockocean)

[donttreadonvirginia]

If you believe in equal rights, then what do ‘women’s rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.

Thomas Sowell (via donttreadonvirginia)

[wilkito-deactivated20141225]

Thomas Sowell on voting on the basis of ethnicity and gender.

[fuckyeahthomassowell-blog]

It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.

Thomas Sowell (via fuckyeahthomassowell)

[redbloodedamerica]

[redbloodedamerica]

[freemarketsfreepeople]

It is amazing how many people still fall for the argument that, if life is unfair, the answer is to turn more money and power over to politicians. Since life has always been unfair, for thousands of years and in countries around the world, where does that lead us?

Thomas Sowell (via freemarketsfreepeople)

[freemarketsfreepeople]

[rightlyspeaking-blog]

Diminish Evil, Not Good

About a week ago I was a part of a discussion on whether the one state solution is a viable solution for stopping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For those not familiar, the one state solution, known as binationalism, is the proposition to abandon thoughts of creating a solely Palestinian or solely Israeli state. In exchange, an Israeli-Palestinian state would be established. The main proponent of this said that it is the only way to bring peace to the area, and to fully enact it we must eradicate people's notions that the state can protect its citizens. The state, according to him, is a made up institution that can no longer bring peace anymore than a band aid can stop a severed hand from bleeding. Jews, according to him, must rid themselves of the superstition that a history of suffering that seems to repeat itself can be stopped by an Israeli state. By getting rid of this patriotic notion, Zionists would no longer push for an Israeli state, and Palestinians would no longer push for a Palestinian state, and everyone in the area can co-exist and live together. Let us take the fallacies and incoherence of the argument one by one, for this thought is as clear as mud. Firstly, on one hand he argues that we must get rid of the idea of statehood protection, yet on the other he argues that a one state solution is the only way to bring peace to the area. Whether or not this solution is viable is one thing, but to say that states cannot bring peace and protection and at the same time say that the one state solution is the best answer is utter nonsense. A state is a state, Jewish or otherwise, and the mere fact that he concedes peace can only be brought by a one state solution is dismal thinking. Secondly, when the heart of the argument is taken into light, it does not hold together as well, especially when put against evidence from history. When one looks at people without states to call their own, these people have been subjected to persecution. And of course, the most salient of these examples are none other than the Jews themselves. When no Jewish state existed, and the Jews were scattered all across Europe, time and time again they were blamed for plagues, hunted down and thrown in gulags, or put in box cars and gassed to death. The opinion that states cannot protect citizens is a fallacy through and through. A state's job is exactly to do that: provide law and order. Civilization depends on there being some sort of state, for anarchy can only result in chaos. How many Greeks were killed when the city states ebbed away? How many countless Romans were slaughtered when the Republic went to ruin? Whenever there was no state, there was no peace, there was no order. The Israel state is necessary for the survival of the Jewish race, of the Jewish culture. For it is not the Israelis who deny Palestine's right to exist, but Palestinians and the majority of the Muslim world who deny Israel's right to be its own sovereign nation. That is why Hamas, an organization that heads the Palestinian territories and who were voted in by a majority of Palestinians, stated to Israel: we love death more than you love life. The problem is not that both sides don't want each other to exist, but that only one side acknowledges the other's existence. There will be no Israeli army that can protect its citizens from Arab invaders as it had protected them for two wars now. The one state solution is birthed from the notion that both sides equally do not want each other in the territory. But Israel has been open to negotiations and immigration ever since its conception, and has in fact been a beacon of peace and goodness in the area: they warn civilians of an incoming attack in areas where insurgents reside, risking the lives of their Israeli soldiers in the process; they send out leaflets for civilians if bombs are to be dropped where there are suspected insurgents; they aid Palestinian civilians when in combat with insurgents. Now these may be petty acts, but in the context of war, these are kindnesses that one rarely sees in the face of humanity. And perhaps the most staggering of truths is that in Israel Muslims are treated better than in any other country in that part of the world. In fact a few years ago, it was an Arab judge who persecuted Israel's former president on rape charges, and none batted an eyelash about it. So the facts are clear, Israel has been pushing goodness, not vile horrors. Israel has been a beacon of peace and virtue (as virtuous as human beings can be), not war. And that is why they are in threat of destruction: to evil men, goodness must be wiped out. Instead of destroying the Israeli state, perhaps a better way would be to stop the uprisings that are happening in the area because of ideological brainwashing by Arab fanatics. Perhaps instead of diminishing good, one must diminish evil.

[rightlyspeaking-blog]

[genopp-deactivated20160406]