Scott Terry, famously, got listed as a hate group, for arguing at CPAC (conservative political action conference) that the slave Frederick Douglass was the recipient of a favor by his master.
I have often argued that most slaves were not enslaved for profit, but because they profiled as likely to only be able to survive by hunting someone else’s cattle and gathering someone else’s crops, and so the owners of those crops and cattle proceeded to chase them off to anywhere they could go, and if there was nowhere they could go, ship them off to anyone who would take them, which is pretty much Scott Terry’s argument – that slaves in large part were, and their descendents in substantial part are, people who to survive in the modern environment need either state subsidies or external discipline, both of which are favors commonly done by white people to black people. The largest source of slaves was black elites exporting their unwanted underclass, or ethnically cleansing inferior groups that caused problems. Underclass people do not deserve freedom, and are not capable of handling it. If you allow them to vote, they will of course vote against freedom.
CPAC, the supposedly conservative political action conference, stands firmly in favor of electing a new people, in favor of the mass importation of a welfare underclass from Latin America to outvote employed taxpayers. A lot of people say this is a business friendly policy, because it reduces the cost of unskilled labor and so forth. This is untrue. A business friendly policy would be to make it easy for employers to get work visas for their employees. The CPAC policy is aimed at making it easy for illegal immigrants to get welfare and vote. A business friendly open borders policy would aim at importing people who work, rather than people who collect welfare, thus would issue visas through employers, rather than issuing voting rights through federal agencies.
The big conflict at CPAC is between “conservatives”, and “libertarian” equalists. A CPAC “conservative” believes in affirmative action, government spending, social breakdown, family breakdown, general lawlessness, and so on and so forth, but believes in this increasing slightly less rapidly than it has been doing under Bush/Obama. He also believes the economy will grow rapidly to sustain the slightly slower growth in these things. He is is in favor of “immigration reform” – importing a massive welfare underclass to vote democrat.
The libertarian equalist believes that we can some how pretend that inferiors are equals without affirmative action, government spending, and so on and so forth increasing rapidly, and that the Latin American underclass we are importing are going to get jobs, buy houses in the suburbs, and pay their mortgages. He too is in favor of “immigration reform” – importing a massive welfare underclass to vote democrat. He is probably right about them buying houses in the suburbs, but demonstrably wrong about them working and paying for them.
CPAC is probably slightly to the right of the median voter, so a CPAC approved political movement will never win an election. The median voter is a fatherless husbandless jobless white woman with an obamaphone, zero assets, and two children by two different biological fathers. CPAC is, however, wildly, bizarrely, insanely, to the left of reality. I would say that the CPAC program would be politically realistic if the median voter was divorced white woman, no assets, and children by a single biological father, child of intact family, mother of a broken family which she broke up. Now, however, we are getting the second generation of broken families, making CPAC’s program as unrealistic electorally, as it is unrealistic about dealing with our problems.
You think maybe I am being a little harsh in saying both sides favor increasing lawlessness, favor anarcho tyranny? When did either side acknowledge the selective enforcement of ever more laws against white males, and ever less enforcement of ever fewer laws against other groups? When did either side acknowledge one way equality, wherein women are equal to men, but men not equal to women, and mestizos are equal to whites, but whites not equal to mestizos, the former being demonstrated in VAWA, the latter in most Californian traffic accidents, which are generally an unlicensed uninsured unemployed mestizo on welfare driving into someone and getting away with it.
VAWA stands for “violence against women act” and requires police and courts to assume men are aggressors and women are victims in every conflict involving violence, which is probably true in general even if often untrue in individual cases. Let us imagine, however, a similar law VAWA, “violence against whites act”. It is probably roughly as true that in any violent conflict between a white and a nonwhite, the nonwhite is the aggressor, as it is true that in any violent conflict between a woman and a man, the man is the aggressor. The point of having a justice system is to find the truth in the particular individual case, which VAWA forbids. If it is reasonable to have a general law defining all males guilty, let us have a general law defining all blacks guilty.
The CPAC conference is the sound of democracy becoming irrelevant, as tax producers are permanently outvoted by tax consumers, resulting in ever deepening economic and financial crisis.
CPAC reflects a vast and unbridgeable gap between reality on the one hand, and policies likely to be acceptable to the median voter on the other hand.
The time to address this crisis will be when printing money stops working, the day that soldiers find that they are not necessarily in the front of the line to get paid with money that can actually buy stuff. At that point the army will go into politics, and will be looking for an ideology to justify the move.
But it could, and well may, turn out worse than that. Things could continue to get worse until we see a transfer of power to sergeants, rentacops, and mercs, rather than to generals. By the time the proverbial hits the fan, the highest ranking officer in the Pentagon will likely be a mestizo male to female transexual claiming to be a lesbian.
Bu it could, and well may, turn out worse than that. Things could continue to get worse until, as in the fall of the Roman empire in the west, we see a transfer of power to bandits and pirates. Not that there is anything wrong with rule by bandits and pirates. The British empire was rule by pirates until around 1830 or so, and they did a fine job. The trouble is that there is likely to be a lengthy period of unpleasantness before bandits become stationary bandits.
I would like to see anarcho capitalism, but am realistically hoping for Blackwater neo feudalism, based on the impressive performance of mercenaries in dealing with Somali pirates, and rentacops in dealing with the Occupy movement. A feudalism that grows out of rentacops is likely to be more free, prosperous and law abiding than a feudalism that grows out of piracy and banditry as European feudalism did. Rentacops are instinctively propertarian. Soldiers and mercs not so much, bandits and pirates not propertarian at all.
Of course the least drastic solution, the minimal necessary reform, the reform that would solve the problem with the least disruption and violence, would be to keep electoral democracy while throwing everyone off the electoral roll except for income earning property owning heads of households. The voters should be pretty much everyone that has authority over his dwelling and household up to his fenceline. That is the moderate realistic reform, necessary to avert rather more drastic reforms, such as Blackwater neo feudalism Of course for such a reform to stick it would also be necessary to replace the presently politicized professoriat, educracy, and civil service with a professoriat and civil service that would take a benign view of such a polity– a new official truth, while speaking the old official truth becomes likely to render one unemployed, a transformation modeled on General Monck’s purge following the restoration, when doubting Divine Right or Latitudinarian Anglicanism became a bad career move for anyone in government, Church, or Academy. Most of the rest followed their bread and butter. Ridicule, supplemented by unemployment if necessary, rather than hanging, was sufficient to deal with those who would not dance to the new tune.
General Monck’s reforms preserved the existing state, while completely reversing the ideology of the state with astonishingly little violence. A move to Blackwater neo feudalism would involve the complete disappearance of the existing state, which might be a lengthy and violent process, as it was in the Roman Empire in the West. Trouble is, a supposedly lesbian transsexual is no General Monck, and Pinochet was no General Monck either.
> Hitler disenfranchise civil servants in Germany. I believe the civil servant sector went from 1/3 of the population to almost nothing by 1938.
That’s damn high. About 1/3 of the people were still tilling the soil in the ’30s.
Hitler’s inherent sense of moderation inhibited the thorough purge of the bureauracy that was needed. Also, the bureaucracy was recruited from an academic elite. If converted to the nationalist cause, they could be an asset.
In our case, most bureaucrats are useless mouths. BTW, Sweden is worse.
A registered package was sent by Royal Post here. They tracked to Stockholm where the Swedes promptly lost it.
Speaking of VAWA, are you familiar with the Duluth model?
As far as men being the main instigators of domestic violence, I’m not so sure. Have you heard of girlwriteswhat? Some of her stuff is interesting in the sense that it challenges sex ideas that pretty much everyone assumes must be true. There’s actually a domestic violence (I think) bibliography that has nearly 300 studies where women were as aggressive or moreso than men in relationships.
Actually, I found it. Here it is: “SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.”
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
I haven’t looked at any of the studies, so I’m not sure of the contents of the studies themselves. Not sure how they’re defining “aggression” in the studies, but it might be worth looking at still.
Since women love drama, and men hate drama, it is usually the woman that provokes violence – but your studies say “physically aggressive”, which I find surprising.
But then, observing cats in heat, it is usually the female cat in heat that attacks the male cat. This is a shit test when female cats do it. They quite obviously want to be beaten up. Perhaps the same thing happens with humans.
Generally it is a shit test. Growing up I observed my friend mother chase his father around the house insulting him, demeaning him, and insulting him for a couple of hours before he hit her. I observed her repeat this pattern several times during my childhood. The other thing to observe is how light the beatings from men generally are. There’s a lot of blows, but not a lot of force behind the blows. For evidence of this: Given that women are generally smaller and weaker than their mates if the men where hitting at full force most would be dead within the first 10 blows or so if the men were hitting with full force.
Not all women need to be or desire to be hit, but there is a good chunk of them who do. And the women who like to be hit generally hook up with the men willing to beat them.
On the breakdown of societies, watch this nice loooong movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSfnOKXDn_0
first hour most interesting in many ways
See my article What really happened in Catalonia
> the least disruption and violence, would be to keep electoral democracy while throwing everyone off the electoral roll except for income earning property owning heads of households.
Shouldnt you also be disenfranchising civil servants. And almost anyone whose money comes largely from taxes.
But that just makes the whole thing more impossible.
Well yes, but as you say, makes the whole thing more impossible. If we have to disenfranchise civil servants, as likely we do, then the only real solution is to disenfranchise everyone: Moldbug’s monarchy growing out of rule by generals, or neo feudalism or anarcho capitalism growing out of total collapse to the state.
On the other hand, the vast majority of civil servants are not employed to do anything useful, but to provide a vote bank for democrats, to provide campaign workers, and such. Presumably all those would be fired, which is even better than disenfranchising them. The remainder may well be a small enough group that their votes are not a serious problem.
Total collapse of the state can go all the way to feudalism growing out of rule by pirates and bandits, as in the fall of the Roman Empire in the west, which tends to involve a lengthy and unpleasant dark age, and can easily be even worse than that, near total genocidal population replacement by pirates, as happened to the Romano British, and may well happen to the French and British this time around. On the other hand neo feudalism growing out of mercenaries, rentacops, militias, heroes, and unpaid soldiers would probably not require a dark age transition.
Hitler disenfranchise civil servants in Germany. I believe the civil servant sector went from 1/3 of the population to almost nothing by 1938.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Professional_Civil_Service
It’s generally only written from a perspective of discrimination of the jews, but a huge number of people were moved from the non product state to the productive sector of society.
Don’t think he disenfranchised them, except the Jews. He fired them.
Yet some claim the Nazi state was intensely bureaucratic. I’m not sure which to believe.
I would be inclined to believe both: The existing bureaucracy was anti nazi, internationalist socialist left from top to bottom, jobs for the boys, votes for the established left, so over time I would imagine that the Nazis would naturally fire it, but, being socialists and anti capitalists themselves, proceeded to manufacture a new bureaucracy full of Nazis.
Jobs for their boys, sackings for the established left’s boys.
Jim has a point. The only practical way to defeat a hostile bureaucracy is through the spoils system. You probably honestly don’t need to fire and replace 100%…my guess is 20% would do. Most people aren’t real believers in anything, 80% just do whatever gets the most status plusses.
[…] I want an SPLC listing too! « Jim’s Blog […]
Hmm. I see a conflict here between my principles and my personality. As one who is on the reactionary Christian end in my thinking, I pretty pretty much concur with you on the “Root, hog, or die!” thing. As a natural-born slacker, (my Latin teacher in high school called me the laziest white boy in Dade County, FL) I tend to goof off.
What would you do with people like me, Jim?
I do admit that I do best when there is a Sergeant-like person around to yell at me from time to time to get the best out of me.
Trouble is that supervision is costly, thus a low value worker that needs a lot of supervision is a negative value worker.
Slavery does not solve this problem any more. Slaves were fine for simple repetitious physical work like rowing a big galley, but if you want a slave to shovel snow, your supervision costs go right up. All major uses for slaves have been mechanized. Slaves require more supervision than employees, thus slavery these days is not economically viable for low value people and low value tasks. If someone has negative value as an employee, chances are his value would be even more negative as a slave.
One solution is something like monasteries. Sterilize people of negative economic value, the undeserving poor, and conscript them into small communities which provide them with community, meaning, purpose, companionship, and most importantly, discipline, whether they like it or not. Of course only something like a state could do something like that. Difficult to see how an anarcho capitalist society would deal such people. I suppose in an anarcho capitalist society, the undeserving poor would be hungry, being hungry would commit petty crimes, on the umpteenth petty crime, would be shot.
“Difficult to see how an anarcho capitalist society would deal such people.”
Didn’t Moldbug address this? The charity can be paid out of the general revenue and contracted-out. Of course, I think the sterilization aspect is key. Previously this was done with vows of chastity, but since I don’t see religion coming-back as a driving force for society: Norplant and tubal ligation.
An anarcho capitalist society does not have general revenue. All roads are private roads. All cops are rentacops or vigilantes, all armies mercenaries or militias. The justice system is the reputation system. Organizations and respectable individuals get rated for criminality as well as willingness and ability to pay their debts. Unrated people get the short end of the stick. People with really bad ratings are effectively outlaws – you can shoot them on sight without adverse effect on your own rating.
The shopping roads are owned by malls, associations of homeowners own suburban roads, there are some toll roads.
The deserving poor will be taken care of by private charity, not general revenue. Care likely comes with strings attached. Beneficiaries may be required to act deserving. The undeserving poor, probably not taken care of.
Undesirables would face being moved along, but then you eventually find there is nowhere to move them to. Upscale Mall dumps unwanted guests on downscale Mall, downscale Mall dumps worst ones on bottomscale mall, bottomscale mall attempts to sell them into chattel slavery to the suburban homeowners, gets no offers, shoots them.
Neocameralism then. In anarcho capitalism, the undeserving just provide for their own defense by forming gangs in lands no decent person wishes to maintain or defend.
In science, I notice that all scientists by their words believe that female scientists are the real thing, but nearly all by their behavior reveal that they believe that the great majority of female scientists were affirmative actioned into their credentials and positions. Similarly, I notice a lot of science papers that seem to say something politically correct, and actually say another something politically incorrect, or which say something politically incorrect, but in a manner so delicate that the stupid are unlikely to notice.
Glynn Cochrane, and everyone who voted against convicting James Neel and Napoleon Chagnon of witchcraft and heresy. If they all believed what they say they believed, they would all have voted for a witchcraft conviction.
That is as if a German was to ask the allies “Who will run the Hitler Youth and the Waffen SS?”
I would hope that the new order would, like General Monck’s official Anglican church, be latitudinarian, thus would never need ed schools. The primary purpose of ed schools is to make politics compulsory. Left wing repression makes politics compulsory, right wing repression makes politics forbidden. If things work out right, all ed schools would be abruptly shut down, rather than being reoriented, and anyone with ed school certification would quietly leave their certification off their resume in their next job application. Should their certification be discovered, they will nervously and evasively give a spiel similar to all those good progressives that used to be members of the Hitler Youth.
The current elite doing that strike me as less than bright, in fact ignorant and stupid.
In particular, consider the policy analyses issued by the world bank and the flubs of Obama’s speechwriters It cannot be hard to hire better people than that lot.
We could fire the whole lot and replace them with people who are considerably smarter but come from backgrounds less highly selected for political belief. But I think it would suffice to fire a minority to see an abrupt change in the ideology of the remainder. Over time the remainder would be gradually replaced, not for politics, but for stupidity.
A lot of my commenters keep telling me the elite is really smart, but the challenger inquiry and the World Bank publications reveal people who are stupid, stupid in the sense that we could replace them by the average pineapple farmer, or the average guy that runs a McDonald franchise, and see an immediate and massive improvement.
The Challenger inquiry reveals an elite that not only did not want to believe that the Challenger was going to blow up, but failed to understand papers that they signed off on saying it was going to blow up.
Leftism makes people stupid. Once someone has internalized progressive ideology as part of their self-image no amount of truth can penetrate. Rationalization reigns supreme. I have talked to people who are clearly smart in a non-ideological context, but toe the political line. Maybe they are being disingenuous; maybe they are actually just dumb, but it seems most likely that people are very good at fooling themselves when necessary.
Well, it depends on how far they go. Most folks smart enough to toe the line *and* to know better just keep their mouths shut and heads down. Most Leftists are dumber than they, so they know how to get by. If someone’s preaching the gospel they’re genuinely dumb/brainwashed. I suppose some (e.g.: politicians) can play a really deep game, but most would derive no benefit from doing so.
The CPAC conference is the sound of democracy becoming irrelevant, as tax producers are permanently outvoted by tax consumers, resulting in ever deepening economic and financial crisis.
There is a tension here, though. The tax consumers are that way because they are dumb/impulsive/whatever and specifically because they are dumb in a way which prevents them from acting spontaneously in their self-interest with sufficient consistency.
Lefties have long noticed (“false consciousness,” What’s the Matter with Kansas) that people frequently fail to vote or otherwise act politically in their own narrow economic self-interest. Often, they can be induced to act in some sort of group interest instead—in the US white Christians tend to do this. So, there is some chance that this phenomenon can be channeled to keep some semblance of sanity in government.
This is not just a conjectural point. In Latin America and especially Mexico, elites have conjured up an imaginary bronze race to which both the white elite, the mestizo servant class, and the indio peasant class allegedly belong. This plus xenophobia against the Yanqui has allowed the elites to mostly stay in control and to prevent the worst excesses of redistribution.
it would also be necessary to replace the presently politicized professoriat, educracy, and civil service with a professoriat and civil service that would take a benign view of such a polity
That’s hard. If you judge by what people say, the replacement elite just does not exist. This is not like the Restoration where there were still lots of elites lying around, as it were. You are going to put, say, Anthropology in the hands of Cochran and a tiny handful of others? Who are you going to put in charge of Ed Schools? Who is going to do all the nitty gritty law writing, judging, policy analysis and etc? Who will produce movies, tv, news and the like? There are whole fields with essentially no seemingly sensible people in them.
Maybe if Timur Koran is right that we are in a preference falsification equilibrium in which the professions are just brimming with sensible people waiting to be permitted to talk sense. Some days I think this is true, and some days not.
“Of course the least drastic solution, the minimal necessary reform, the reform that would solve the problem with the least disruption and violence, would be to keep electoral democracy while throwing everyone off the electoral roll except for income earning property owning heads of households.”
This. This would re-establish the natural hierarchy. Children do not rule the household, for if they did, there would be serious misery riding under the 24/7 cake and ice-cream video game party. That is what we’re experiencing now – the proxies of children are running the state, and there’s serious misery riding under the bread, circuses and propped-up balance sheets.
[…] I want an SPLC listing too! « Jim’s Blog […]
How does this all work without someone launching nukes? Our elites are not exactly sane these days.
Our ruling elite pretends to be decentralized, and to some extent it really is. And to some extent it really is not. Nukes would erase our ruling elite far more efficiently than they would erase the rest of the US.