Defunding the left

Nuts

White flight builds real cities, progressives attack and destroy those cities, turning them into festering hell holes.

White flight is real conservatives.

> American conservative cities aren’t really cities. They’re just places you drive through on the way to the city.

You think that white flight from California is building cities that they drive through to commute to San Francisco?

White conservatives built the cities, then when those cities came under attack from a flood of voters imported to live on crime, welfare and voting, they fled to the suburbs. Now the suburbs come under attack, they flee California to build new cities in flyover country. And then Obama launched the attack on those cities.

> They can show up with the job applications and get into a fight with campus activists they could actually win

No they cannot win and they know it full well. The game is rigged. It is been rigged from the beginning. It has been that way for over two hundred years. Harvard was always a theological college, and now it is an even more theological college.

The orthodoxy on homosexuals changed abruptly.

And now the military have to accept homosexuals, and if they did not, I guarantee they would get violence at elite universities. And similarly, Rolls Royce executives in expensive suits would have to tell students that they are hiring women and blacks, because women are wonderful and blacks are wonderful.

And if they did not, would be subjected to physical violence.

This comment asked me questions as if I thought in terms of Marxist Class theory, as if everyone thinks in terms of Marxist class theory, as if Marxist class theory was entirely obvious and uncontroversial.

Nuts.

Try asking questions that presuppose I think in terms of reactionary class theory, that most people around here believe that Marxist class theory is wrong, stupid, evil and crazy. You can argue for Marxist class theory, you can even presuppose Marxist class theory, but I am not going to let you presuppose that I accept Marxist class theory, not let you presuppose that everyone else accepts Marxists class theory.

All your purported questions have been answered many times over in the plainest possible fashion. You are just trying to get me to accept Marxist frame on those questions. You don’t actually care about the answers to your purported questions. Not accepting Marxist frame, not allowing anyone to impose Marxist frame on the plainly expressed reactionary position.

Reactionary class theory is priests, warriors, merchants, and everyone else, and only priests and warriors matter for political power, though merchants matter very much for revenue and technology. Our present problems are due a swollen and excessively powerful priesthood, which is devouring merchants and warriors.

Work on it. Offer me an account of reactionary frame.

Frame is a set of assumptions about the conversation and the interaction, and in order to facilitate communication and the interaction, we tend to tacitly accept the assumptions without conscious awareness.

My frame that male society consists of priests, warriors, merchants, and followers, and the female population is not a society, but consists of feral women and women under the authority of a husband or father, that women are only part of society through an intimate relationship with a male authority.

Whenever I reference “priests” I immediately clarify by making it clear from context that I am referring to professors, judges, social justice warriors, and suchlike, as if everyone already knew and already agreed that progressivism is a religion, and that it is the officially unofficial state religion.

I have not been consciously and intentionally promoting reactionary frame, the way Heartiste has been promoting alpha asshole frame, and maybe I should, but I have been holding frame in the face of stubborn efforts by some commentators to shift the frame.

I intend a restoration modeled on Charles the Second: Fertile semi hereditary aristocratic elite, divine right monarch, openly official state religion, which one must affirm for state or quasi statal office, modern corporate capitalism, with a restriction that the business plan be approved and adhered to. Investors need to know what they are investing in, and governments need to know that large successful corporations will not start investing in unrelated activities that buy them political influence and restrain competition. One corporation should have one business model.

The situation immediately preceding Charles the Second resembled today’s American Hegemony: An officially unofficial state religion that had suffered a leftist singularity, which singularity was ended by Cromwell, not Charles the Second. He ended it with far less bloodshed than Stalin ended it in Russia, though bloodshed is frequently unavoidable, and more difficult to avoid the further leftism has gone.

The American hegemony also resembles the Turkish empire, which had become the anti Turkish empire as the US State Department has become “The International Community”. It was the Turks, not the provinces, that revolted against the Turkish empire. I had hoped that Trump would be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, would be Atatürk, Cromwell, and Charles the Second in one man, but that is a tall order. An Atatürk needs to be a military man, and the left has taken precautions against such a man.

> Non-corporation businesses with a lot of money or whos owners have a lot of money are prime targets for lawyers.

This is the anarcho tyranny that ensues when you have a thousand kings instead of one king.

The solution is not limited liability, but William the Conqueror’s forms of action, so that you can no longer sue anyone for anything in any jurisdiction.

The objection to forms of action was that real and grave wrongs went unpunished, because somebody did not do their paperwork. They failed to keep a receipt, or they failed to explicitly write down an agreement about property that the actions of both parties clearly implied.

Well cry me a river. The paperwork was pretty simple, even in a largely illiterate society.

The practical effect of forms of action was that you could not sue someone unless you had a waxed slate in standard format, there being a very limited number of standard formats, saying he cannot do something or must do something, and if he does it or fails to do it, must hand over money or property. You did not have to be able to read the forms, you just had to know which form you had to have, what the numbers were, and which item of property.

The classic example of a great and grave injustice arising as a result of forms of action, is Bob needs to go off to war in the holy land, so he tells Dave “take care of my property when I am gone”. When he returns, Dave tells Bob “You gave me this land and I am keeping it”.

Hard biscuit. Bob should have asked Dave to sign a form saying “This property belongs to Bob or his heirs, and Dave or his heirs must return it on demand.”

The problem is that there is no way of giving judges general discretion to remedy any obvious injustice, without giving them general discretion to order anyone around for any reason or no real reason at all.

I don’t think there have been any successful slave rebellions.

Slaves do not have what it takes to pull of a rebellion except the central power wants them to rebel.

Haitian slaves only won because the French government and priesthood was on their side.

Mamelukes were a successful slave rebellion, but they were higher class of slave. Warriors routinely rule, and find it easier to do so when priests lose their faith.

Why don’t you move to Venezuela or North Korea then?

You enthusiastically urged the measures taken in those communist countries: socialism, detailed command control of the economy, and in particular the absence of junk food – which tends to be accompanied by the absence of any food other than bread, for which one must queue in long lines.

Free people often make bad choices, because decisions are difficult. Often one does not have the information one needs.

You are going to solve this by making all their decisions for them, even for faraway strangers of whom you know nothing.

Been tried.

You deduce from Alf’s words beliefs that would only follow if he accepted that Marx’s theory of classes was true, and that it was readily possible to immanentize the eschaton, that would only logically follow if he was a Marxist.

You are debating everyone from in the frame that Marxism is true, and there is no need to discuss it because everyone agrees that it is true.

Now how about presenting some actual evidence for Marx’s theory of history: Present some evidence that Restoration England and King Solomon’s Israel were command economies, that they were not far more capitalist than today’s west.

King Solomon’s Israel had taxes, conscription for war, and conscription for state work and state projects, and state project were built by command. But private consumption goods were provided by private production, and private production operated by capitalist markets, where private individuals created capital, directed capital to its highest value use, and hired wage laborers on short term contracts to do stuff using their capital.

The Book of Proverbs is a lecture on incentives in Solomonic Israel: “Do this good thing, and you will prosper, people will like you and your social status will rise. Do this bad thing, bad stuff will happen to you, and maybe people will kill you, and if they kill you, King and God will not care because you had it coming.”

It is the same stuff as the copybook headings that Kipling refers to.

The enlightenment piously declared that you could not deduce morality from reason, but the Book of Proverbs is a pious lecture confidently deriving morality from reason, and you get kind of irritated because you feel that you are being addressed by a powerful authority figure who is confident in the righteousness of his religion and his social order.

So King Solomon explicitly tells us what the incentives are under his social order, and implicitly that priest, King, and God approve of these incentives.

But the incentives imply a social order, so he is implicitly telling us that priest, King, and God approve of this social order, and that it is backed by the potential violence of the King’s mighty men.

And what are the incentives? Among them are that hard work, thrift, and wise investment, purchasing capital wisely, applying it to its highest value use, and creating capital industriously, will make you wealthy.

Publishing a book that is about incentives, rather than that such and such is commanded, and such and such prohibited, presupposes a predominantly capitalist society.

King Solomon has no difficulty deducing morality from reason, because he implicitly presupposes a private capitalist market economy of free and independent agents – and that this order is backed by priest, King Solomon, and God.

Conversely, the enlightenment was unable to deduce morality from reason, because the question they are really asking is “after we liquidate the kulaks and immanentize the eschaton, what then?” If you can remake reality at the minor cost of a few kulaks here and there, then of course you cannot deduce “ought” from “is”.

Deleted for putting words in my mouth.

Lets have a discussion about the evidence. Let’s have a discussion of the words of King Solomon in the Book of Proverbs.

Let’s talk about what ancient sources tell us about King Solomon’s Israel. I gave you my source, and it is early iron age. What is your source?

The argument you attribute to me makes no mention of any evidence, you have me merely attempting to argue from Marxist theory and Marxist principles to non Marxist conclusions, which argument you then correctly point out is invalid.

You make up an argument for me that presupposes that I agree that Marxism is true, that we are disputing history of King Solomon’s Israel within the Marxist frame, and then rebut the argument you invented for me. You have us as two Marxists disagreeing about the implications of Marxism for King Solomon’s Israel.

Nah, we agree perfectly about what Marxism is and what it implies about King Solomon’s Israel. It is just that Marxism is as nuts as flat earthism.