More fun with the Libertoids

Posted by Lurker on April 12, 2006, 08:33 AM | #

O/T

Just went to have a look at firedoglake.com (I can’t tear my eyes away - like a road accident!)

See this post

The white middle-class liberals (Im sure that accounts for 90% of the posters there) celebrating the destruction of their whole world. Amazing.

I cant comment as Im barred from there.

Posted by john on April 12, 2006, 08:53 AM | #

Reading a little of what’s posted there makes one yearn for days gone by when our ancestors just grunted, which is adequate for most situations, hand signals can cover the rest. What is Sam’s Data anyway?

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 12, 2006, 09:11 AM | #

Oh, my! They haven’t a clue!

Never have I seen such rank economic illiteracy.

They want both Open Borders and a highly regulated labour market to stop big business treating workers like slaves! Nobody has explained to them yet that this is a flagrant contradiction that violates the iron laws of economics.

“We want higher wages! We want more competition from foreign workers!” They are infants; utter, utter infants.

I now have even less respect for liberals than ever before.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 12, 2006, 09:25 AM | #

I’m referring to firedoglake.com by the way.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 12, 2006, 10:04 AM | #

Samizdata’s ‘bans’ are flexible. Despite himself, Mr Pearce is evidently fascinated by our perspective and cannot help inviting me back. Last time it was because he said I had racially abused another commenter who had said he was married to a non-white. He has withdrawn that charge and the merry dance goes on:

http://www.samizdata.net/mt/hippotime.cgi?entry_id=8808

Previously Dale Amon, Samizdata’s resident space cadet, had lamented the failure of his latest pet rocket, and I was able to proffer this:

Poor old libboes, even their escapist phallic symbols are on the fritz these days.

And when he demanded that Borders Books be boycotted for not selling a magazine carrying cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, I remarked:

I’m sure the underpaid assistants in Borders would leap at the chance of dying, or even just being maimed for life, to assuage Mr Dale Amon’s moral outrage.

So I hope Alex tries again, and the rest of you join in to rub the pubertarians’ noses in their humourless folly.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 12, 2006, 10:15 AM | #

PS: Oh dear, we’re DEMORALISING them:

“I have also got a bit depressed at some of the comments on the site from various racist types. I know I should not let this sort of puerile crap get me down, but it does.” (J. Pearce, threatening to leave off blogging)

“Odd. I can’t recall seeing any overt racism on this blog.” (Robert Speirs)

“Mr Speirs,
If what you’re saying is what I think you’re saying you’d best exit stage left persued by a bear. At best it would apear thast your comment was a complete non-sequiter, at worst an example of the deeply esteemed Eurostatician’s “Racial Realism” rearing it’s ugly head once again. This is a blog for libertarians, not for fascists.” (Nick M)

Now Johnathan’s sounding like an American female academic. whose guts validate her moral perceptions:

“...there have been a whole nest of racist commenters on this site, usually making rude comments about the main contributors here, prattling on and on about how genetics somehow makes our ideas irrelevant (oh really?). We have had a commenter verbally attacked for marrying a non-white. I did not imagine that, I read it and felt almost physically sick. “

““This is a blog for Libertarians, not for fascists”? And where is that stated? Ayn Rand is definitely not a libertarian. And how does looking at the facts about race make one into a fascist? How about a little sequitur yourself, NickM?” (Speirs)

“I just had a look at the Majority Rights vs Samizdata flame war you [Euan Gray] mentioned. I’m sure you have many happy years with your beautiful wife to look forward to, despite the fact you may be - how did they put it? - “acting against the interests of your race”. Good god. What a bunch of fucking dolts. And over at their blog, they were bragging about how they scored a famous victory.” (James Waterton)

Keep the ball rolling by commenting on

http://www.samizdata.net/mt/hippotime.cgi?entry_id=8812

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 12, 2006, 10:42 AM | #

PS: Oh dear, we’re DEMORALISING them

LOL!        That is just hilarious! I never realised JP was so mentally unstable that he finds himself thrown into fits of wild depression as a result of what somebody says on a blog. Surely, that’s his probelm, not our’s?

If I understand correctly, Perry blocks usernames, not computer identifications. If so, expect Alexander Zeka to be making an appearance on Samizdata very, very soon.

Btw: we did win the previous round, as testified to by the fact that our hit counter jumped up and stayed their following our battle. Obviously, we collected a whole bunch of new readers from somewhere.

Posted by Lurker on April 12, 2006, 12:03 PM | #

O/T again.

That firedog post again.

There is a guy on there called Rob who is managing to make some good points at the end of the thread. Needless to say the locals havnt got a clever rejoinder between the lot of them.  And at the moment thats literally, they havnt come back with anything. I think thats par for the course over there.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 12, 2006, 01:41 PM | #

Alex,

Many swear by Anonymizer which, when switched on, makes me and Perry entirely peripheral to the argument.

Posted by Lurker on April 12, 2006, 01:55 PM | #

Anonymizer; I may have to dust off the Lurker chequebook then.

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 12, 2006, 01:56 PM | #

Update: J. Pearce asked for an specific example of how genetics might impact on the argument for a liberal society.

I replied (repeating from memory): “Their low IQs and propensity to barbarism, aswell as disdain for your liberal society, might augur against importing huge numbers of blacks.”

It might appear as if I did what was asked of me. What I got in reply was: “Banned. Spare us the pseudo-science and just stick to your own Nazi site” Ah, the fine liberal tradition of free speech, eh? Now getting subverted both by the progeny of libertarian polices and by the libertarians themselves! Sometimes, I even wonder if it’s a flaw or a design feature.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 12, 2006, 02:52 PM | #

In Jonathan’s case, of course, it could simply be ethnic politics.  He won’t say.

Some helpful researcher should investigate the proportion of Samizdata, Firedog and other liberal bloggers/commenters who, when confronted with hard-factual race-realism, retreat immediately into:-

1. A flip, lightweight denial.

2. Ad hominem.

The first suits the psychology of a little, lost liberal boy.  The second suggests the workings of a competitive and probably hostile EGI.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 12, 2006, 02:54 PM | #

Alex,

At GNXP, you are allowed to acknowledge racial differences but never carry it to its logical conclusion.

So what you said about blacks would have also got you banned and/or your comment deleted at GNXP (even though they consider themselves “realists”).

There are several things at work here. These libertoids are intellectually stunted and therefore enjoy being in an ideological echo chamber. They have never seriously had to present their arguments to people intellectually abler than them. So their entire site is essentially to poke fun at the loony left (John Ray does a lot of that too) - and basically you cannot go wrong with that.

But arguing with people who have greater intellectual maturity than pre-pubescent boys is a bit too much to ask of them. They are weak, softened, effeminate, cosmopolitan beings.

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 12, 2006, 03:51 PM | #

Hmm, I was a little, lost liberal boy once- but I didn’t try to refute scientific fact with my desires. I suspect most of the race denial is a product of intellectual insecurity, and of these individualists fearing the censure of the Islington dinner set.

What many don’t seem to realise is that social liberalism and, concomitantly, race denial are effectivelly a part of the authoritarian gov’t machine. It’s truly remarkable to see libertarians swallowing so willingly gov’t propoganda.

Matt, I’d assist you, but alas, no matter under what alias I post, P de H seems to know who I am. It seems he does look at my computer ident. Seems I need to purchase an anonymiser.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 12, 2006, 04:31 PM | #

It’s truly remarkable to see libertarians swallowing so willingly gov’t propoganda.

Yep, that is precisely what’s happening.  But, of course, they are not alone in this and, indeed, our government itself is comprised of weak and suggestible men.

I see two dynamics at work here.  The first is our enfeeblement at the level of the general population.  The second is enfeeblement at the level of the political elite.  They are not, I think, the same.  The elite was enfeebled first by the American-propagandised fate of Jewry in WW2.  Our elite in the immediate post-war were especially vulnerable to such enfeeblement, and that was the key.  I have blogged on it here. 

The people were enfeebled in much the same way but, of course, later.  Plainly, the Samizdatistas have well and truly gone that way.  But some of us never bloody well did - or have quickly recovered.  For this we are roundly condemned.  But what would we want with praise from such useless, squawking political peacocks?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 12, 2006, 06:55 PM | #

Reading this thread has made me proud of myself.  I’ll get down in the pit with ANYONE.  The idea of censoring or ignoring my opponents insults ME.

Forgive my preening, it just struck me anew and I had to express myself.

Of course, this might have a lot to do with the fact that I actually hold to a VIABLE worldview.

Seems I need to purchase an anonymiser.

No, get Privoxy and Tor.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 12, 2006, 07:06 PM | #

I’ll get down in the pit with ANYONE

Well, assuming they are actually trying to discuss matters, of course.  If all they’re doing is insulting me, then I have better things to do.

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 12, 2006, 11:17 PM | #

I wonder if the Libertoids will defend these guy’s liberty.

http://www.heretical.com/

2006: Simon Sheppard and Luke O’Farrell were both arrested in early morning raids by British police. Sheppard was released at around 4pm, at which time O’Farrell was still in custody, and has again had computers, hard drives and floppies impounded – the police have still not returned the large amount of equipment and stock they took in their first raid on 30 March 2005. The police, on orders from London, are clearly angling for the first ever prosecution in British history for running (or contributing to) an unorthodox political website.

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 13, 2006, 05:57 AM | #

Geoff,
As much as they defended Prof. Ellis’s freedom of speech I suspect. Their recent flakiness on a number of issues of free speech combined with their very noticeably censoring practices on their own sites makes me wonder if Inconsistency isn’t the Muse of libertarianism.

weak, softened, effeminate, cosmopolitan beings

One impeccable libertarian of my acquaitance refused to go on a survival course, using the state-invented “illness” of depression as an excuse! Rugged individualism, indeed!

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 13, 2006, 07:00 AM | #

DIDDUMS WATCH (chapter 94):

Matt, it is a bit late in the day for you to portray yourself as some sort of high-minded teacher of us “puppyish” types when you have, from day one, insulted various main posters here, constantly mocked us for the supposed pointlessness of our views, hinted darkly at how genetics renders our views irrelevant, and so on.

How exactly are our views on the case for a liberal society made irrelevant by genetics, anyway? Give me some concrete examples. Then I might even debate you properly.

(Johnathan Pearce)

http://www.samizdata.net/mt/hippotime.cgi

Anyone care to take up the challenge, or are most of you just going to go on kvetching about ‘race replacement’ among chums?

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 13, 2006, 07:13 AM | #

I’ve given him some “concrete examples”! Alas, these concrete examples were deemed to be “Nazi Raus”. I don’t think there’s any way back for me, even my post arguing for a Singapore-style welfare system has been consigned to the uncaring ether of cyberspace as “pseudo-science”.

Before the ban, the Samizdatistas were ignoring me. As such, Perry must have been terrified of anyone even reading my comments. I suspect I got ‘em were it hurts.

GW, you claim that libbos are just advancing Jewish interests. Yet libertarianism contains the seeds of the current system’s destruction: free speech and freedom of association would bury the Holocaust grief industry. Would Jewish interests not be better served by morally libertine despotism?

Posted by Lurker on April 13, 2006, 07:38 AM | #

Arguing with that lot is trying to catch smoke. They always fall back on thier slogans. Its an ideaology/religion and a lame one at that.

I commented on Alex’s thread there, they seem to have removed it entirely, it was my usual “why dont you go and live in Sierra Leone” line.

Posted by Lurker on April 13, 2006, 07:40 AM | #

Or even their slogans.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 13, 2006, 07:42 AM | #

Luke O’Farrell, aside from being brave and determined, is another very good writer lost to us through a one-dimensional concentration on the JQ.  As with Linder, we need talent of that quality to argue for our survival at a level and in a way that is accessible to and appreciated by ordinary men and women.  But the fact is that both are too indisciplined to benefit their own people.

We, who have some little knowledge, should be able to agree that the JQ cannot be usefully communicated without other pre-existing understandings being in place.  It lies not at the beginning but at the end of a journey of discovery, and that journey is a challenge to emotional maturity.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 13, 2006, 08:29 AM | #

Alex,

you claim that libbos are just advancing Jewish interests.

Jewish interests are advanced freely within the liberal zeitgeist.  Liberalism, in which libertarianism is on the right, has been turned into a vehicle for that very purpose.  It is cultural Marxist in form and purpose.

Libertarianism has some redeeming features, but not in the high-octane Samizdatista variety.  Extreme individualism presents an open field for the more hyper-ethnocentric.

To answer more specifically of Samizdata, I would estimate that up to nine of their twenty-one contributors are Jewish.

Posted by Amalek on April 13, 2006, 09:38 AM | #

The Jews one finds at Samizdata or Firedoglake are often in panic flight from their Jewishness, like their little tin gods such as Alycia Rosenbaum and Noam Chomsky.

Suppose you’ve grown up surrounded by intense emphasis on the security and virtue of belonging to an in-group, and the extreme danger of turning your back on ‘your people’ or airing internal disagreements in the goyim’s hearing. Then you are likely—assuming you react against the mystique—to become an extreme individualist and universalist in your own mind. You will endlessly congratulate yourself for having broken free from all that lumber by your own will power. The Talmudic hairsplitter becomes a lecturer, shyster or media pundit, but the habit of sweet-talking sedition persists. International diaspora Jewry easily mutates into a cult of Humanity, undifferentiated and borderless, with yourself as a secular rabbi enlightening and instructing the multitudes in the noble lies of Progress, Modernity and Tolerance. ‘A light to lighten the gentiles’, backed by the strategic air power which Samizdatistas get so thrilled about.

It makes you very haughty towards those poor souls who are still imprisoned by heritage, tradition, religion, race, etc. The syndrome is also cognate with convent schoolgirls going to the bad, and lapsed Catholics are almost as assiduous as faithless Jews in preaching universalism, the bloodless successor to Christendom.

The typical secular-yiddishkeit giveaway, attesting to an exaggerated respect for book learning, is to call your opponents not only wicked but stupid: morons, imbeciles, ‘moonbats’, ‘wingnuts’. Thus pride in one’s own IQ is inadvertently betrayed at the very moment of claiming that it is unmeasurable or does not matter in real-world outcomes.

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 13, 2006, 11:21 AM | #

> Luke O’Farrell, aside from being brave and determined, is another very good writer lost to us through a one-dimensional concentration on the JQ. 

And of course they’ve actually put their boots on the ground and their necks on the line for their convictions.  They’ve defied the establishment in a very confrontational way: which, as is well known, is very tasteless and disrespectful thing to do.

Better just to write clever thing, verbal jujitsu you know.

Sure, they may be right about a few things… but yucky yucky they aren’t really the sort support. Ooooh.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 13, 2006, 04:53 PM | #

Extreme individualism presents an open field for the more hyper-ethnocentric.

They aren’t individualists in any sense that I can see. Their behaviour smacks of terrified herd animals where a single whisper with incorrect thoughts on race sends the entire herd into blind panic.

What they pass off as “individualism” is essentially a hedonism cult that celebrates the licence to engage in stupidities (and juvenile behaviour) - pornography, buggery and the like. But on the things that really matter, the things that begin to seriously challenge mass opinion and mass liberal pieties, they flunk the test completely. Nothing particularly rugged or individualistic about that.

Their philosophy is essentially effeminate. Talking about “choices” smacks of an effeminate soul. They mistake the “choice” between Pepsico and Coca Cola as representing true freedom. Their minds are obviously stunted.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 13, 2006, 06:30 PM | #

Phil,

Well, yes, first off let’s be clear that new wave libertarianism is, like every other means to a petty political liberation, a lie.  In a grand sense, freedom for Man is not provided by politics at all but by something greater.  Politics merely proposes differing applications of worldly power.  But such power, being a constant, always implies coersion.  New wave libertarianism is just an attempt to escape the power of coercive, exernal wills. 

But even that is not sufficient on the wilder Samizdatistan shores.  To be free, sovereign and individual a Samizdatista must choose literally everything and exclude all that is unchosen.  That, of course, is impossible, indeed a stunningly naive expectation.  We are creatures of Nature.  She fills and trammels us.  She is undeniable.  Attempting some Brave New Rebellion against her is completely without prospect.

The hedonism which you see, like the capitalism-worship which also infects blue skies libertarianism, is eloquent testimony to the poverty of the creed.  Personal vice is certainly not freedom, but slavery.  There is no shred of individualism in it because individualism is a product of something else entirely, for which an interest in real self-consciousness, self-knowledge and about fifteen years of wisely-directed effort is required.

Samizdata is, like Firedoglake, a blog for those who find prodding donkeys with a stick entertaining.

Posted by Matra on April 13, 2006, 06:47 PM | #

I’m not as hard on Samizdata as the rest of you (I think I have lower expectations) but this poster Nick M is really something. First he talks about wiping out all Muslims then he comes up with this:

We no longer tolerate guest-houses with signs in the window saying “no dog, no Irish, no blacks”, why should we tolerate Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani calling on Muslims to kill homosexuals in “the most unpleasant way possible”.

Leaving aside the strange suggestion that it is up to us in the West to tolerate or not tolerate Iraqi treatment of homosexuals what’s wrong with a sign saying “no dogs, Irish, or blacks”? I thought libertarians believed in maximum individual freedom. That means the business owner should have the right to discriminate against people he doesn’t like without the state interfering. It may be a bad idea for him to do so as he would be forfeiting business from the communities he excludes but in a free market society revolving around radical individualism that should be his right. Anti-discrimination laws are a perfect example of statism. Surely the other libertarians at Samizdata understand that.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 13, 2006, 07:25 PM | #

GW,

Very well said. I have a feeling that if these Libertoids ever saw a true individualist (or should I say, a real man), they would run away like scared school girls.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 14, 2006, 03:36 AM | #

I’d love to argue with these pubsecent boys with fragile egos on a site that does not ban me for my opinions - sort of like a war on neutral territory (with neutral umpires). I suspect I’ll have them for a quick lunch.

Jonathan Pearce strikes me as a paranoid little pussycat. Hilarious.

Posted by Al Ross on April 14, 2006, 03:46 AM | #

The Irish part of the “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish” may have become common because of an unfortunate perception that the Hibernians were prone to bouts of drunken violence and minor lawbreaking.

It is a racist calumny and anyone caught enunciating it should be carted off in the paddy-wagon.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 14, 2006, 03:58 AM | #

I would estimate that up to nine of their twenty-one contributors are Jewish.

What percentage of them are fags? I’d imagine that would also be a fairly high figure.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 14, 2006, 05:57 AM | #

We now have ‘libertarians’ salivating over a nuclear attack on Iran and refusing to be upset about collateral damage, which would only be the odd ‘amiable cockroach’:

http://www.samizdata.net/mt/hippotime.cgi?entry_id=8825

When I asked why calling for mass murder and forced conversion of Muslims was so much more objectionable than trying to advert Samizdata readers to the latest in genetics and psychometry, I received the reply

Deleted. Bugger off Nazi.

As always, however vainly, I request the help of commenters at this site.

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 14, 2006, 06:33 AM | #

I think the Samizdatistas supported the Scottish hotelier (name slipt my memory) who was persecuted by state agencies for not allowing a pair of sods to share a bed. As such, they do appear to believe in freedom of association, even for us bigots.

However, all principles, all non-aggression axioms, all suspicion of gov’t power vanish once said gov’t power is applied in Mesopotamia. In short, they don’t trust the Westminster gov’t to run England, but they do trust it to run Iraq.

A truly independent-minded man would realise the fatuity of this. The vice-seking lemmings of Samizdata do not.

Matt, first they advocate genocide, then they call you a Nazi! Priceless!

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 14, 2006, 06:46 AM | #

Matt, first they advocate genocide, then they call you a Nazi! Priceless!

chuckle

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 14, 2006, 07:44 AM | #

I looked at some of their threads. The lack of intellect there is appalling. That is topped up by some rank stupidity, juvenile opinions and childish behaviour. It really is amazing.

Take this comment from Nick M for example:

“So how does that figure with the most fun I’ve had in ages. I blew up my knackered old fridge in the back-street. I had a couple of drams, stuffed it with The Times and aerosols, ignited it, taped the door shut and ran like hell. It harmed nobody (though it almost set a tree on fire).

It wasn’t sober, prudent or restrained but had me cackling for a week. And the council shifted the smouldering ruin the next day, something they hadn’t done with the extant fridge for weeks.

It actually produced a small mushroom cloud!”

http://www.samizdata.net/mt/hippotime.cgi?entry_id=8808

I never fully appreciated how high quality the
comments at MR tend to be - until now. This provides a
very good contrast.

Those Samisdatistas are an intellectual dead end.

Posted by Andrew on April 14, 2006, 08:59 AM | #

Well, it has not been deleted yet, and it shut them up for a short time. samisdatistas ; What is that ? some sort of newbiological germ terminology.

Posted by JB on April 14, 2006, 08:32 PM | #

related thread:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/samidioting/

^ it should be in the Libertarianism category but it’s not there right now

Posted by JB on April 14, 2006, 09:09 PM | #

Matt O’Halloran:

We now have ‘libertarians’ salivating over a nuclear attack on Iran and refusing to be upset about collateral damage

It’s very AynRand-esque :

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5407

What could be more morally obscene than 20,000 additional Americans killed in another attack on our cities because our government failed to bomb Iran, worried that Iranian casualties would be too high?

I don’t think this randroid cretin ever suggested that one efficient way for America to defend herself is to forbid large number of muslims/arabs from settling in or staying for too long and to maybe oh I don’t know build a Israeli-style fence on the mexican border to reduce the risks of terrorists sneaking in through the backdoor. No, arab countries have to be invaded and bombed with nuclear weapons if “necessary”.

These pathetic fools would prefer to see mass murder and nuclear mushrooms than to see MajorityRights-style nationalists running our governments.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 05:06 AM | #

The Jewish Randists are a lot like Neocons in many respects. They are unabashedly Zionist in the extreme and very pro-open borders for the West.

The Gentiles who play along with them are the usual list of gullible fools.