Archive for the ‘party politics’ Category

Progressives are channeling me

Friday, November 15th, 2013

Not long before 10-10 no pressure came out, I compared environmentalists the French Revolutionary terrorists, and said that they would murder children for insufficient environmentalism, and then the revolution would devour its children. And lo and behold, they produce an ad depicting themselves murdering children for insufficient environmentalism, and then murdering each other.

Observe, the Obama ads for Obamacare: Now people who actually work for a living will fund your self destructive behavior! Is it not great? Obamacare is wonderful since it makes other people pay for your decisions! Now typical Obama voters, such as alcoholics and fat sluts will no longer have to bear the costs of their own decisions!

The only way they could have made the Obamacare ads more truthful would be to give the beneficiaries the appropriate skin color.

The anti-anti reactionary FAQ Part 2, Crime.

Friday, October 25th, 2013

A major reactionary argument is that since the early eighteenth century, since the reign of throne and altar, war, state political repression, state violence against respectable citizens, underclass crime, and minority crime have all risen enormously, that the overclass and underclass are attacking the productive, and the attack has been escalating.

Scott’s anti reactionary FAQ  points out that murder is pretty much the same as ever it was.  Quite so.  Those crimes that the state tolerates are increasing – thus burglary, assault, and mugging has soared everywhere, whereas home invasion burglaries, where the criminals riotously enter an occupied dwelling, have only soared in those countries such as Britain where home invasion is tolerated.

Scott tells us that Victorians felt profoundly unsafe from crime:

Violent attacks by strangers were seen as grave cause for concern. There was a disproportionate amount of attention paid to violent nighttime assaults by strangers in urban areas, called “garroting” and similar to what we might call “mugging”. There were garroting panics in 1856 and 1862

He neglects to tell us why the Victorians panicked.

The Victorians panicked because, over the course of several weeks, two people in the city of London were mugged, a crime that they had no words for, never having experienced it before.

Scott points out that crime has diminished over the last few decades, neglecting to acknowledge that this is a short term and small decline compared to the long term trend of a gigantic rise in private and state violence.

The cause of the decline is pretty obvious in San Francisco. Police are kicking black ass. The highly progressive far left elite piously averts its eyes while its police force does extremely racist and reactionary things to protect them from minorities.

It seems the same thing has been happening everywhere.

Although progressivism moves steadily ever leftwards, in any one area of policy there are waves. First a large movement left. Disaster ensues, as with freeing the slaves, then a small movement right, as with Jim Crow. Then after a while, another large movement left.

Crime has diminished somewhat because we are in the small movement right phase with respect to crime. From what is happening in New York city, looks like the next large movement left phase is about to resume, whereupon we will see gentrification end, white flight resume and New York head off in the footsteps of Detroit.

Crime has risen because of movement left. It fell because, for a little while, we moved a little bit right on crime.  But since progressives always need each to be lefter than the other, they can only move rightwards on crime by moving leftwards on something else – and in due course, are coming back to moving leftwards on crime.

The outer party rolls over

Thursday, October 17th, 2013

The outer party has rolled over for the inner party and wet themselves.

Because they lost, they will be blamed for holding the confrontation at all. Had they won, Democrats would be blamed.

In that the Democrats had accepted funding to keep almost all the government open except Obamacare, the Democrats were most of the way to losing. In that the Democrats were starting to call the Republicans crazy, the Democrats were most of the way to losing (since in a game of chicken, the guy who can most convincingly demonstrate craziness wins). So the Republicans had no choice but to declare defeat.

That the Republicans snatched defeat from the jaws of victory confirms my original analysis, that the whole thing was charade from beginning to end, which analysis I had started to doubt as the confrontation went on for two weeks and the Democrats came ever closer to capitulating.

The “shutdown”

Wednesday, October 16th, 2013

I have been analyzing the “shutdown” as politics as usual, which is to say, a fake conflict between the inner party and the outer party to give the appearance of democracy.  I predicted the Republicans would roll over and wet themselves in a week.

It has now been two weeks.

I still think it is politics as usual, but the increasingly strident reaction of the inner party organs indicates that some of them are seeing it as politics for real.  “Outside In” is therefore analyzing it as a real conflict.

In the Game of Chicken, the side that can most convincingly signal madness wins, so when the inner party call the Tea Party crazy, they are preparing to lose.  Or they could be preparing to ship the Tea Party off to concentration camps, after the fashion of Golden Dawn.

Two cars drive at each other at high speed down the middle of the road.  The guy who swerves loses.   In the Republican car, the establishment, the outer party, is in the driver’s seat, and wants to swerve.  The Tea Party is in the passenger seat, but is fighting for the wheel.

Given the commotion in the Republican car, the Democrat car would be well advised to swerve.  Or they could shoot the guy in the passenger seat. (more…)

Obamacare is not the law of the land.

Thursday, October 10th, 2013

Obamacare is not a law that Congress and the President negotiated together and passed.

As Hayek pointed out: Socialism needs a central plan. There are an infinite possible number of different central plans, any one of which will step on the toes of quite a lot of people, so one can never get majority support for any one central plan, or even the support of a significant plurality for any one central plan.

So the ordinary procedures of legislative rule will not work, will never come to agreement. And, as we saw, they did not work, did not come to agreement.

The normal procedure for passing laws, as laid down in the constitution, is that one house of the legislature passes an act, and the other house agrees to that act, and then the president signs it.

But what in fact happened is that neither house would vote for a version of Obamacare that the other house would accept, nor one that the president would sign.

Obamacare was passed by the mysterious extraconstitutional process of  “reconciliation”, resulting in a bill that neither house has ever voted for, which contains numerous amendments rejected by both houses, and fails to contain numerous amendments accepted by both houses, thus was not “reconciliation” at all, but the permanent government overruling the merely elected government when the merely elected government was unable to reach agreement.

After being passed by this extraconstitutional process, it was further amended by presidential decree, an unprecedented extraconstitutional action,

This abandonment of constitutionality and legality is an unavoidable consequence of socialism.

To implement socialism one needs a single individual, or a very small cohesive group, small enough to sit around a coffee table and feel each other’s breath, with immense power.

Ever since Reagan decreed unlimited free healthcare for the poor and illegals, we have had socialism without a central plan. It works very badly.

Our ruling elite think themselves terribly smart people and are sure they can do better, and I am sure any one of them could do better. I am equally sure that one hundred of them can not do better, and will very likely do a great deal worse. If power is too diffused in the legislature for the legislature to give effect to socialism, it is also too diffused in the permanent government for the permanent government to give effect to socialism.

Indeed, that is the basic problem with the permanent government. Power is diffused, leading to the tragedy of the commons, public money being a commons, and power over the subjects of the government being a commons. That we are ruled by an unelected government is not the problem. Democracy sucks. That the permanent and unelected government lacks a czar with the power to defund any activity, fire any bureaucrat or group of bureaucrats for any reason or no reason at all, impose a loyalty oath, and shoot any bureaucrat that violates his loyalty oath, is the problem.

Obamacare illustrates that democracy has been dead for a long time. So does gay marriage and affirmative action. The problem, however, is not so much lack of democracy, as absence of a central power. The rationale for government is to make one decision for all, in particularly, and most importantly, the decision of war or peace, that if it chooses peace, permits no one to cause trouble, if it chooses war, commands all to harm the enemy. But, in fact, our government is not capable of making one decision for all. It is anarcho tyranny.

A common semi humorous definition of anarcho tyranny is that everything is illegal (that is the tyranny) except crime, which is legal (that is the anarchy)

But a more serious definition is that the government is vast, powerful, intrusive (that is the tyranny) but is itself anarchic, itself subject to the tragedy of the commons (that is the anarchy)

The one definition, of course, tends to cause the other definition. The government being itself anarchic is uninterested in upholding law, since the rule of law, though it would benefit everyone, would not particularly benefit any one member of the government that himself attempted to uphold the rule of law without support from other members of the government, and the government being itself anarchic cannot restrain any one member of government from capriciously deeming any act by any subject illegal and punishing it.

The Shutdown problem

Monday, October 7th, 2013

The republican party has a big problem: How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The government has, without quite realizing it, accepted piecemeal funding of everything except Obamacare. There is no shutdown. There is just the government doing occasional bits of petty spitefulness and nastiness to express its hatred of its subjects.

Since no shutdown, no reason for the Republicans to pass a bill funding Obamacare. The “shutdown” can continue forever. How are they going to get themselves out of this problem? (more…)

Republicans not folding yet

Sunday, October 6th, 2013

A week ago I predicted that the Republicans would fold like a cheap deck chair, and and issue a grovelling apology for their evil attempt to implement their election platform merely because they won the House of Representatives.

Some of them are apologizing, but so far, no folding. (more…)

The fake shutdown confrontation

Tuesday, October 1st, 2013

Whichever party yields, winds up being blamed for any disruption caused.

Therefore, the party with the weaker hand should always yield swiftly, and the party with the stronger hand should never yield.  And since the constitution gives the party that controls the house of representatives the overwhelmingly stronger hand, the Republicans would win – except that the whole thing is staged.  They intend to lose, in order to persuade their voters that they have no choice but go along with Obamacare. (more…)

Radish nails libertarianism’s race problem

Monday, September 2nd, 2013

Libertarianism had its one brief shining day in power in alliance with the anti racist, anti slavery brigade, was swiftly kicked out of that alliance, and has been beaten over the head with race stick ever since, despite endlessly begging to be allowed to renew the alliance.

Since then, the only times it has ever gotten anywhere is in alliance with the “racist”, aka white, faction.

I predict no riots in Seminole County

Sunday, July 14th, 2013

The press have been calling on blacks to riot in the event of a Zimmerman acquittal

Assorted black leaders have been calling on blacks to riot in the event of a Zimmerman acquittal.

We have a full Zimmerman acquittal, somewhat to my surprise, since I expected an all female jury to do whatever the judge signals she wants them to do, which in this case was to convict Zimmerman of a lesser charge.

The sheriff of Seminole county, where the incident and the acquittal happened,  says rioting will not be tolerated.

Black riots are astroturf.  Always have been, always will be. Every black riot happens when the authorities give a wink that rioting will be tolerated.

If a riot happens, and the Sheriff follows through with his promise that rioting will not be tolerated, then I will be proven wrong.  Even if the riot was swiftly squelched, indeed especially if it was swiftly squelched, we would know that blacks had rioted on their own initiative, rather than as directed, which would show that black riots are not necessarily astroturf.

If a riot happens and the Sheriff fails to follow through, then we may conclude he said one thing in public and another thing in private to community organizers.  Such an outcome would not prove me wrong.  However I am pretty sure he is not kidding, for he called on businesses to remain open, which is code for “call up every rentacop”.