Libertarian Conservatives

""Racism is not the norm in mainstream Western culture or in its institutions: not even close to the norm."

"Talking memes with @MaximeBernier"

"No, movies and TV shows are not racist."

"I saw the other day, it was horrific, they had Russian soldiers in Red Square going through and asking people to see what was on their phone and saying 'We're going to arrest you if you don't show us what's on your phone. [...] Because we need to see if you're posting pro-Ukraine stuff.' Horrific. Unfortunately this happens in the West as well, just people can't see it publically yet."

"and they [the boomers] definitely pranked us fiscally with debt that [we] will never be able to pay off."

"Excellent stuff from CPC leadership candidate @MaximeBernier There's hope for Canada!"

"I'm going to take that dog away from you. Not a fucking thing you can do about it either, because you are a weak, broke, piece of shit."

"I launched the idea of Donald J. Trump for President."

"I met Donald in 1979 when I was sent to New York to organize Ronald Reagan's campaign for President. He and his father were members of the Reagan for President finance committee. We became good friends. I was invited to two of his weddings. He attended my wedding in Washington DC. He is very smart, very tough and can be very very funny. He is also very tall."

"[About her reputation:] [I think] that there is a bit of an unfair retrospect going on here where at that time it was way more controversial to say the things that I was saying than it is now. And if I had waited five years, I don't think I would have had the reputation that I have today whatsoever."

"By 1972, Stone was working for Nixon’s re-election campaign. His official title was scheduler. His real job, he said, was dispatching people to spy on the campaign of Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic nominee. ...He worked for successful presidential campaigns of George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and later opened a mega-successful Washington lobbying firm with Manafort that included GOP political strategist Lee Atwater. Not only did Black, Manafort & Stone work for Republicans, they also earned a fortune representing brutal dictators... When Trump ran for president in 2016, Stone served for a time as an adviser and knee-capper of Trump critics. ...Stone also became Trump’s ambassador to fringe right figures and bogus conspiracy mongers like Alex Jones, on whose “Info Wars” program he was a frequent guest."

"I am not trying to sell the idea that myself, as a 22-year-old, needs to be married right now for the sake of traditionalism and not being a degenerate. ... What is also just completely shocking to me is the utter lack of understanding of nuance and exceptions. People who ignore that there are exceptions to the rule are just as crazy as people who ignore that there’s a rule in the first place."

"He is an expert in stabbing people in the back. That guy's got an incredible capacity for treachery."

"Roger Stone has been Donald Trump's chief political advisor. He planned and ran his presidential campaign. ...His entire business has been dirty tricks, has been lies, has been personal smears."

"Yeah, I live a pretty Machiavellian life, and I'm a sceptic. I tend to believe the worst of people because I understand human nature. Human nature has never changed. That's why one of Stone's rules is that hate is a stronger motivator than love."

"When people think of Washington corruption, they think of organizations like Black, Manafort & Stone, that shook down dictators, took all their money, and then tried to take America's government and make them serve the dictator's interest. You know, it is the swamp."

"[H]e's been everywhere dark and ugly in our politics for many, many years. In 2004, he's blamed for forging the documents that destroyed Dan Rather's career and also helped to re-elect President Bush. ...That same year, Stone consulted for Al Sharpton's presidential run that helped disrupt the Democratic primary process. ...A few years later, he took credit for bringing down his nemesis, New York governor Eliot Spitzer. He says he got a tip from a hooker in a sex club. ...Stone's so desperate to stay in the public eye, that he peddles garbage conspiracy theories."

"Black, Manafort & Stone, in their brazeness, really created the modern sleazeball lobbyist."

"Check out @MaximeBernier if you want to save Canada."

"I think it's fantastic that Twitter has come out and put a little thing that says 'Russian state affiliated media' behind RT. I think it's fantastic that they put 'Chinese state affiliated media' behind that. Now where the hell is the BBC, CBC and all of the Western ones? Why do we not show that our states fund media as well? [...] We all have the exact same temptation to appeal to where our checks come from."

"I believe anyone who supports feminism is anti-woman even if they are not conscious of it. Feminism and "female empowerment" has led to a generation of the least happy women in history. They are lost and are being told that they are the EXACT same as men and should be able to compete at the same level in all fields of life. How sad to always fail at something you are supposed to be equal in. How sad to be led astray to never get married then hit a wall where you wish for nothing more than a family but cannot have it... simply because you bought into this false notion of feminism that promised happiness and fulfillment. The reality is women are biologically different and different things will make them happy."

"Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil."

"Women who choose the assholes will fuckin' end this race. They will fuckin' end this human race, if we don't start holding them a-fucking-ccountable. Women who choose assholes guarantee child abuse. Women who choose assholes guarantee criminality, sociopathy, politicians. All the cold-hearted jerks who run the world came out of the vaginas of women who married assholes. And I don't know how to make the world a better place without holding women accountable for choosing assholes!"

"Five years—if we can just get people to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases; almost all would be completely eliminated because they all arise from dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women."

"The Left is infested with pedophiles - they promote the welfare state and feminism in order to get protective fathers out of the home, so they have easier sexual access to the children of single mothers."

"The devolution of the US from an Enlightenment Republic to a semi-banana republic is also silenced, since that has a lot to do with racial IQ demographics esp permanent low Hispanic IQ"

"It's interesting that if you don't have a uterus, you can't have an opinion on women's issues, but you can compete in women's sports."

"The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates."

"The housing crash resulted from refusing to talk about racial IQ differences. Disparities in racial rates of home ownership were ascribed to racism, and banks were forced to make loans to unqualified minorities."

"It did strike me that this relentless propaganda for "white women with black men" would serve to lower the average IQ of the offspring. You don’t see nearly as much "white women with East Asian men," whose offspring would tend to have higher IQs on average. Hmmm..."

"Took my daughter to see my old graduate school desk in the University of Toronto Library, couldn't help but notice the almost complete absence of white males in the entire building. Next time we build a civilization, we should really aim to hang onto it."

"ADHD" grew in proportion to mass immigration. Hyper-creative white boys got crazy bored with dumbed-down value-less "education."

"Do you know that female lipstick simulates sexual arousal? Can you imagine a man showing up for a business meeting with a giant artificial boner straining at his pants? Yet lipstick is perfectly acceptable in the business world."

"Women have so much power at the moment, and a lot of that power is founded on makeup. It's founded on using makeup, fertility symbols to bypass the man's rational faculties and appeal directly to his bonobo brain, like, to his monkey brain, right? So, when I talk to men about the power of makeup, once you understand the power of makeup, it loses most of its power. Aha! Now you see we're getting to the heart of the matter."

"And of course if you look in society, and particularly if you look at curriculum going on in the social justice warrior factory of modern universities in what used to be called the humanities, and now I think can reasonably be called the leftist bigotries, the fermenting of anti-white hatred is extremely strong. And very toxic and very dangerous. And that of course comes with the big question, is that I can't help but think, Jared, that if I lived in a society of white people then the giant flyswatter of "shut up whitey, you're racist" could never be used against me."

"Sorry, just very very briefly, the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff."

"From 800 BC to 1950 AD, 97% of the world's scientific advancements occurred in Europe and North America. 98% of the significant figures were male. No white males, no modern world. Fact. I'm grateful. Are you? End the hate. Aspire to admire, whatever the race."

"If we had been allowed to talk about race and IQ, the invasion of Iraq would never have occurred, because no one would have been under the illusion that a Jeffersonian Republic was going to emerge from a population with an IQ in the 80s. Opposing science got >500k people killed."

"Suppose a clothing manufacturer learns of a machine that will make men’s and women's overcoats for half as much labor as previously. He installs the machines and drops half his labor force.This looks at first glance like a clear loss of employment. But the machine itself required labor to make it; so here, as one offset, are jobs that would not otherwise have existed. The manufacturer, how ever, would have adopted the machine only if it had either made better suits for half as much labor, or had made the same kind of suits at a smaller cost. If we assume the latter, we cannot assume that the amount of labor to make the machines was as great in terms of pay rolls as the amount of labor that the clothing manufacturer hopes to save in the long run by adopting the machine; otherwise there would have been no economy, and he would not have adopted it.So there is still a net loss of employment to be accounted for. But we should at least keep in mind the real possibility that even the first effect of the introduction of labor-saving machinery may be to increase employment on net balance; because it is usually only in the long run that the clothing manufacturer expects to save money by adopting the machine: it may take several years for the machine to "pay for itself."After the machine has produced economies sufficient to offset its cost, the clothing manufacturer has more profits than before. (We shall assume that he merely sells his coats for the same price as his competitors, and makes no effort to undersell them.) At this point, it may seem, labor has suffered a net loss of employment, while it is only the manufacturer, the capitalist, who has gained. But it is precisely out of these extra profits that the subsequent social gains must come. The manufacturer must use these extra profits in at least one of three ways, and possibly he will use part of them in all three: (1) he will use the extra profits to expand his operations by buying more machines to make more coats; or (2) he will invest the extra profits in some other industry; or (3) he will spend the extra profits on increasing his own consumption. Whichever of these three courses he takes, he will increase employment."

"Among the most viable of all economic delusions is the belief that machines on net balance create unemployment. Destroyed a thousand times, it has risen a thousand times out of its own ashes as hardy and vigorous as ever. Whenever there is long-continued mass unemployment, machines get the blame anew. This fallacy is still the basis of many labor union practices. The public tolerates these practices because it either believes at bottom that the unions are right, or is too confused to see just why they are wrong. The belief that machines cause unemployment, when held with any logical consistency, leads to preposterous conclusions. Not only must we be causing unemployment with every technological improvement we make today, but primitive man must have started causing it with the first efforts he made to save himself from needless toil and sweat."

"In brief, on net balance, machines, technological improvements, economies and efficiency do not throw men out of work."

"So we have finished with the broken window. An elementary fallacy. Anybody, one would think, would be able to avoid it after a few moments’ thought. Yet the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics. It is more rampant now than at any time in the past. It is solemnly reaffirmed every day by great captains of industry, by chambers of commerce, by labor union leaders, by editorial writers and newspaper columnists and radio commentators, by learned statisticians using the most refined techniques, by professors of economics in our best universities. In their various ways they all dilate upon the advantages of destruction."

"Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see “miracles of production” which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a postwar world made certainly prosperous by an enormous “accumulated” or “backed up” demand. In Europe they joyously count the houses, the whole cities that have been leveled to the ground and that “will have to be replaced.” In America they count the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out automobiles and tires, the obsolescent radios and refrigerators. They bring together formidable totals.It is merely our old friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat beyond recognition. This time it is supported by a whole bundle of related fallacies. It confuses need with demand."

"The spread-the-work schemes, in brief, rest on the same sort of illusion that we have been considering. The people who support such schemes think only of the employment they would provide for particular persons or groups; they do not stop to consider what their whole effect would be on everybody.The spread-the-work schemes rest also, as we began by pointing out, on the false assumption that there is just a fixed amount of work to be done. There could be no greater fallacy. There is no limit to the amount of work to be done as long as any human need or wish that work could fill remains unsatisfied. In a modern exchange economy, the most work will be done when prices, costs, and wages are in the best relations to each other."

"I do not mean to suggest that all those who call themselves monetarists make this unconscious assumption that an inflation involves this uniform rise of prices. But we may distinguish two schools of monetarism. The first would prescribe a monthly or annual increase in the stock of money just sufficient, in their judgment, to keep prices stable. The second school (which the first might dismiss as mere inflationists) wants a continuous increase in the stock of money sufficient to raise prices steadily by a "small" amount—2 or 3 per cent a year. These are the advocates of a "creeping" inflation. … I made a distinction earlier between the monetarists strictly so called and the "creeping inflationists." This distinction applies to the intent of their recommended policies rather than to the result. The intent of the monetarists is not to keep raising the price "level" but simply to keep it from falling, i.e., simply to keep it "stable." But it is impossible to know in advance precisely what uniform rate of money-supply increase would in fact do this. The monetarists are right in assuming that in a prospering economy, if the stock of money were not increased, there would probably be a mild long-run tendency for prices to decline. But they are wrong in assuming that this would necessarily threaten employment or production. For in a free and flexible economy prices would be falling because productivity was increasing, that is, because costs of production were falling. There would be no necessary reduction in real profit margins. The American economy has often been prosperous in the past over periods when prices were declining. Though money wage-rates may not increase in such periods, their purchasing power does increase. So there is no need to keep increasing the stock of money to prevent prices from declining. A fixed arbitrary annual increase in the money stock "to keep prices stable" could easily lead to a "creeping inflation" of prices."

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

"The "Austrian" economists, more consistently than those of any other school, have criticized nearly all forms of government intervention in the market — especially inflation, price controls, and schemes for redistribution of wealth or incomes because they recognize that these always lead to erosions of incentives, to distortions of production, to shortages, to demoralization, and to similar consequences deplored even by the originators of the schemes."

"It is often sadly remarked that the bad economists present their errors to the public better than the good economists present their truths. It is often complained that demagogues can be more plausible in putting forward economic nonsense from the platform than the honest men who try to show what is wrong with it. But the basic reason for this ought not to be mysterious. The reason is that the demagogues and bad economists are presenting half-truths. They are speaking only of the immediate effect of a proposed policy or its effect upon a single group. As far as they go they may often be right. In these cases the answer consists in showing that the proposed policy would also have longer and less desirable effects, or that it could benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The answer consists in supplementing and correcting the half-truth with the other half. But to consider all the chief effects of a proposed course on everybody often requires a long, complicated, and dull chain of reasoning. Most of the audience finds this chain of reasoning difficult to follow and soon becomes bored and inattentive. The bad economists rationalize this intellectual debility and laziness by assuring the audience that it need not even attempt to follow the reasoning or judge it on its merits because it is only “classicism” or “laissez-faire,” or “capitalist apologetics” or whatever other term of abuse may happen to strike them as effective."

"Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye."

"Every man knows there are evils in this world which need setting right. Every man has pretty definite ideas as what these evils are. But to most men one in particular stands out vividly. To some, in fact, this stands out with such startling vividness that they lose sight of other evils, or look upon them as the natural consequence of their own particular evil-in-chief."