More PC Language

Posted October 24, 2014 by commonwealth contrarian
Categories: Uncategorized

Here’s some entries under D:

D

Dandy – an Edwardian for-runner to the yuppie and the hipster, now believed to be extinct.

Darwinism – a selectively used battery ram employed by secular liberals to attack religious conservatives. Ironically, Darwin’s idea that humans are influenced by evolution is usually ignored by said liberals.

Degrees – as Clive James points out “all Americans have a right to a university degree, even if their degree is in hamburger technology.”

Developing Countries – a liberal euphemism for poor countries with intractable economic and political problems.

Dictators – authoritarian types who sometimes do good things, but for some reason we (the masses) are never allowed to mention these good things. As political rogue Silvio Berlusconi found out when talking about the good things Mussolini did (like shutting down organised crime in Italy) democracy can do no wrong, and everything any dictator has ever done anywhere is bad, and you’re a very, very naughty boy if you say otherwise.

Diesel Engine – a powerful, efficient and frugal type of internal combustion engine which is actively discouraged by dogmatic western governments that are under the influence of misguided liberal environmentalists.

Disperity – a term coined by the American novelist Tom Wolfe to describe the tendency of humans to divide into small cliques when faced with a bewildering amount of human diversity – the predominant form of social organization on large university campuses and in big cities.

Diversity – something celebrated by wealthy white people in gated communities and privately regretted by everyone else.

Liberal Language

Posted October 12, 2014 by commonwealth contrarian
Categories: Uncategorized

I’ve recently published a short dictionary on modern liberal terms entitled: The Subversives’ Dictionary: An irreverent guide to liberal jargon for non-believers, which is available as an eBook on Amazon Here’s some of the entries under A:

Abortion and Guns – so-called “wedge issues” which Americans like to argue about so they don’t have to think about more important issues like immigration, state’s rights and runaway public debt.

Abstainer – according to the great Edwardian dictionary writer Ambrose Bierce, an abstainer is a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure. A strong man takes Aristotle’s time-tested advice and enjoys his pleasure in moderation.

Agreeableness – the reason women can never really be the intellectual equal of men. When your sex is programmed for empathy rather than truth-seeking, you’re more likely to try to stop free inquiry than contribute to it.

Alcohol – a vital social lubricant used to transform quiet introverts into loud and opinionated extroverts. It’s doubtful if Western man could successfully reproduce without this confidence-boosting mating tool.

American Conservatives – exiled religious radicals and idealistic libertarians who rebelled against the British monarchy and now claim to be upholders of tradition and conservatism.

Ancestors – deceased persons who are respected in the East and dissed in the West. While sanctimonious Westerners apologise for the supposed sins of their ancestors, Easterners, such as the Japanese, refuse to kowtow to political correctness as they think it’s disrespectful to criticize the actions of their forbears.

Apologies – something mild-mannered mavericks mistakenly resort to when being bullied by their conformist adversaries. Unfortunately, the easily offended are rarely satisfied and craven apologies only result in yet more strident demands for self-abasement.

Aristotle – extremely smart guy that just about everyone today ignores (probably because they hate the idea that a dose of moderation and realism might actually do society some good). Sadly, his more politically suspect successor Plato gets more attention, no doubt because arrogant progressives like his idea of rule by “philosopher kings.” Replace philosopher rings with “democratically elected representatives” and you can blame Plato for inventing modern politics.

Aryan – a blonde, blue-eyed white person who works tirelessly for non-profit organizations and is intent on helping whales, homeless drug addicts and non-white, third world refugees. Why Adolf Hitler was so keen on glorifying Aryans remains a mystery.

Big Business and the Liberal-Left

Posted October 1, 2014 by commonwealth contrarian
Categories: Uncategorized

Given that President Obama is a left-leaning politician who was elected into office during a financial meltdown, he’s been pretty muted in his criticisms of the financial sector.

Indeed, if an FDR voter from the 1930s were to travel in time and listen to a speech on the economy by Obama, they would probably assume he was a Republican rather than a Democrat, which is something acknowledged by Democrat activists.

The fact is that while Obama may well be a progressive on social issues, he’s pretty much on the right when it comes to managing the economy. And that’s a combination the Democrats’ big business backers are quite happy with.

If the left gets in, it’s free trade, open borders, and more women in the workforce, if the right gets in its open borders and lower corporate taxes. Either way big business wins.

The right pulls the race card

Posted August 10, 2014 by commonwealth contrarian
Categories: Asia, Left liberalism, Racism, right liberalism, Uncategorized

Traditionally the race card is something left wing progressives like to use whenever they are losing an argument with social conservatives. But times are a changin’ and today the economic right is increasingly using the race card to shut down progressive or populist debate on free trade, immigration and globalisation.

In New Zealand there’s currently a debate going on about the sale of large farms to Chinese investors. This policy is actively promoted by the mainstream centre right but opposed by a loose coalition of environmentalists, socialists and populists. The right has responded by labeling their opponents as “xenophobic racists” opposed to the idea of large-scale Asian investment. While the sale of large blocks of land to foreigners may or may not be a good thing from an economic point of view, there are indeed serious questions about whether it’s a good idea to sell large amount of land to investors from non-western countries. As well as the issue of corruption there is also the issue of whether such land buy-ups will result in increased pressure for the importation of Chinese labour to work on such farms. After all, low-wage third world labour from the Philippines and Melanesia is already being widely used on dairy farms and vineyards, with numerous reports of sub-standard wages and work conditions.

However, the economic right is not prepared to debate these issues and instead is resorting to the race card to try and shut down the debate altogether. If opinion polls are anything to go by this policy is clearly backfiring. Calling refugee-loving liberals “racist” sounds desperate and pathetic, and will only serve to further alienate social conservatives who are already feed up with the mammon obsessed policies of the mainstream centre right.

Early and contemporary progressives – a comparison

Posted June 3, 2013 by commonwealth contrarian
Categories: Anti-fascists, Left liberalism, Political correctness, right liberalism

I’ve just been reading Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism. The theme of Goldberg’s book is that modern progressives are just like the progressives of the early 20 th Century. According to Goldberg, all progressives like using government power to achieve their ends, so all progressives are “liberal fascists.”

However, this shallow argument is based solely on means rather than ends. Just because early progressives liked using state power doesn’t mean they wanted to achieve the same things that modern progressives do, or that they were authoritarian in the same ways that modern progressives are. After all, if today’s progressives are just like those of the 1920s and 1930s, then why is modern society so different from what it was 80 years ago?

Here’s some important differences between early and modern progressives which Goldberg downplays and ignores:

Early progressives generally believed in promoting the interests of the majority/Modern progressives promote the interests of minorities

Early progressives wanted to get more native minorities into paid employment so they could support their families and contribute taxes/Modern progressives actively support affirmative action across a wide range of training courses, jobs and political positions, for both native and immigrant minorities.

Early progressives distrusted the financial sector and many were actively hostile towards it/Modern progressives are generally supportive of the financial sector

Early progressives tended to support farming and manufacturing/Modern progressives are apathetic about farming and manufacturing

Early progressives had mixed views about nationalism and protectionism/Most modern progressives actively promote free trade, open borders and global government

Early progressives supported energy independence and aggressively promoted large-scale infrastructure projects/Modern progressive are apathetic about energy independence and are heavily influenced by the thinking of environmentalists

Early progressives had little interest in introducing hate speech laws and saw censorship as something that conservatives did/Modern progressives strongly support hate speech laws and PC speech codes, and many believe right-wing intellectuals, jounalists and entertainers should be actively discriminated against.

Early progressives were interested in discussing human bio-diversity/Modern progressives are not interested in discussing human bio-diversity and criticise or censor those who are

Many early progressives supported eugenics or had an open mind about it /All modern progressives are strongly opposed to eugenics and arguably support dysgenics

Early progressives believed in IQ testing and meritocratic education/Modern progressives are opposed to IQ testing and strongly support egalitarian dogma in education

Early progressives tended to be cautious about immigration and many were immigration restrictionists/Almost all modern progressives are strongly critical of immigration restrictionists, oppose building border fences and off-shore detention camps, and are uncritical supporters of UN refugee quotas

Early progressives supported traditional nuclear families with government subsidies/Modern progressives are often hostile to the traditional nuclear family and give state handouts to single parents

Early progressives had mixed views about women in the workforce/Modern progressives believe in equal pay and subsidised child care so women can compete directly against men in the job market

Early progressives weren’t very concerned about gay rights/Modern progressives actively promote gay rights and homosexual parenting

Given the big differences between early and modern progressives in terms of political views, it’s a big stretch to say that modern progressives have similar agendas to their predecessors

I’d argue the reason people like Goldberg fixate on progressive means rather than ends, it that they actually support many of the ends of modern progressives and see the ends of early progressives as too fascist, elitist or conservative.

 

GM has high hopes for new La Raza

Posted June 2, 2013 by commonwealth contrarian
Categories: Immigration, Politically incorrect humour, The shallot, United States

Detroit – General Motors unveiled a new mid-sized SUV/ people career this week which is specially targeting at America’s growing Hispanic population

Set against a South-western desert back drop, the new Chevrolet La Raza appeared at this week’s motor show in militant red with garish chrome wheels, adjustable hydraulic suspension, red, green and white interior trim and black tinted windows.

CEO Mark Wornbearing hopes to win over at least 20 percent of Hispanic new car buyers with the La Raza, which has a number of features specifically designed for Hispanic motorists:

“The La Raza has been meticulously designed from the ground up with the Hispanic market in mind. It has more than adequate seating for a large extended family and with good ground clearance and permanent 4WD its ideal for driving on badly maintained Californian roads and those late-night trips to desert border crossings. Tinted windows also come as standard, so there no need for nosey gringos to know what (or whom) you’re carrying in the spacious luggage area.”

Mr Wornbearing says in marketing terms, it’s a big improvement on the Chevy Redneck, which failed to generate much sales in the mid-west:

“The Redneck wasn’t a bad vehicle, but it was targeted at a shrinking demographic – there just aren’t that many middle-income whites with lots of kids these days. And obviously the name didn’t go down well in the coastal blue states.”

Motoring critic David Highgear had reservations about the vehicles “loud and in your face” styling, but was very impressed with its safety features:

“The new anti-skid breaking system is a real step ahead for GM and the car will automatically slow if you try to run a red light or get too close to the vehicle in front. Around town it practically drives itself – which is really important when you’re talking about a demographic that includes a lot of drivers without valid licences.”

Is immigration based on IQ a good idea?

Posted May 26, 2013 by commonwealth contrarian
Categories: Immigration, IQ, Mainstream media

As John Derbyshire points out at Vdare, the media hysteria over Jason Richwine’s infamous immigration paper has meant his main idea – that immigration should be based on IQ – has been left unexamined by the mainstream media.

Derbyshire points out a number of problems with IQ-based immigration, but I’ll point out a couple of other problems.

One is regression to the mean.

Canada and New Zealand have been using skill-based immigration for over a century to cherry pick workers from the British Islands and Europe. Indeed, The New Zealand Company (a private company that established settlements in Australia and New Zealand in the 19th Century) was carefully selecting immigrants based on skills, temperament, and character as early as the 1840s.

Despite this policy, and the fact that skills are stronglycorrelated with IQ, the mean IQ of whites in Canada and New Zealand is no higher than in most other majority whites, and both countries (for better or worse) have their fair share of colonial “chavs” (referred to down under as “bogans”). Hence it seems that even if most white immigrants are quite bright and enterprising, their descendants will soon return to the white mean.

Like skill-based immigration, IQ-based selection is also limited by the inevitable trend for selective immigration to be accompanied by immigration based on family ties, and just because a particular individual has a high IQ or a valuable skill, it doesn’t mean their relatives will. In fact since valuable skills are by definition, relatively rare, it’s more likely the relatives of smart or highly skilled workers will have fewer skills or lower IQs.

Following this logic, even smart immigrants from countries with a low average IQ – like most of Africa and the Middle East – could well have lots of descendants with IQs that are significantly below the white average.

Another problem with IQ-based immigration is that high IQ immigrants can undermine social cohesion if they aren’t  able to secure high status, white collar employment. Most Islamic terrorists in western countries are high IQ immigrants with degrees, and smart, frustrated immigrants have played a big part in many assassinations, communist revolutions and left-wing social movements.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.