Archive for the ‘party politics’ Category

No enemies to the left, no friends to the right

Monday, November 17th, 2014

Scott Alexander’s blog used to be good, but now he has been terrorized out of politics. Therefore boring. The problem was he purged all frequent commentors to the right of him out of the comments, which means that he had only enemies in his comments. And, being the rightmost, was persecuted. He has stopped posting on politics, I assume as a result of this persecution.

Every so often I see someone reeling in shock and horror that we cannot possibly tolerate any connection with Person P, because they have some connection with person Q, who went to an event that was also attended by person Y, who has some connection with person Z, and, gasp, shock, horror, person Z has some connection with the “extreme” right.

Meanwhile posters, badges, and tee shirts of notorious communist mass murderers continue to sell well, and checking academic syllabi, one regularly reads questions of the form “explain why this noted communist mass murderer was amazingly wonderful, and why those whom he had eradicated were vile scum of the earth”, which questions usually contain very clear hints as to exactly what the answer is supposed to be.

If one follows this policy, and one’s friends and enemies also follow this policy, then one’s enemies are one’s friends and one’s friends are one’s enemies.

Thus the tea partiers and rinos quarrel for republican pre selection, but, once republican preselection is over, the tea party allies with the rinos, the rinos ally with the democrats, and the democrats ally with the foreign enemies of America. The right acts towards the left the way an abused woman acts towards her boyfriend. Hence the pattern of inner party and outer party. The permanent government is innermost, then then democrats, and the republicans are the outer party.

Inner Party always wins

Wednesday, November 5th, 2014

The tea party, upon being elected, deems it impossible to repeal obamacare, despite the fact that it is unpopular, about to become more unpopular with startling price rises, and that it was quite popular to run against obamacare.

Meanwhile, in a move that has absolutely no connection to obamacare, we are seeing a movement to publicize sedative overdose as a peaceful happy death.

It generally is not. The dying person makes horrifying sounds that sound very much as if he is very aware that he is dying and has changed his mind very strongly about the issue. Peaceful death, in so far as any death can be called peaceful, is heavy morphine (or fentanyl, which has much the same effect as morphine), not heavy sedatives.

Further, with heavy morphine, the difficult moral issues go away. You give the patient a pain control clicker with no limit, or a very high limit. And if he should die, death by misadventure. Chances are it was accidental overdose, a common side effect of extreme pain control with self administered morphine in dying patients. Doctor did not kill him, and it is hard to tell if he killed himself. Probably he did not.

The great advantage of heavy sedatives from the point of view of the medical profession is that a heavily sedated patient is unable to protest being killed off. Hence the popular “suicide” method where the patient is heavily sedated, then has a plastic bag popped over his head, then a cord is tightened around the patient’s neck. Sounds voluntary and peaceful, like Obamacare.

The great disadvantage of unlimited self administered morphine through an IV drip is that if pain control is successful, patient is likely to decide there is no hurry to commit suicide, and hang around occupying an expensive hospital bed for months or years.

Opiates control pain, and overdose will kill you. Sedatives control the patient, and overdose will kill you. If a patient is heavily sedated, cannot choose, therefore, not suicide but murder. Murder is a lot more effective at controlling health care costs.

Don’t vote. It only encourages them

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

You will undoubtedly hear that the election is nail bitingly close.

That is a lie. To sustain the illusion of a two party state, large numbers of Democrats are elected as republicans. They reliably vote Democrat whenever it matters. Observe, for example, the “bipartisan” budget passed by the supposedly Republican controlled house.

And what is the issue of the election? Once in a while Republicans point out that Obama is up to his armpits in foreign wars and losing, that the economy has been depressed and is sinking further under Democrat rule, that the streets are unsafe, that the young have no job prospects, that middle class means a hundred thousand dollars in college debt while working at starbucks, that Obamacare turns out to be unaffordable, and so on and so forth. So what are Democrats on about?

They have microtargeted campaigns for low information voters – women, homosexuals, blacks, and hispanics. But if you add up all the microtargets, their one issue is “We hate straight white males.”

To which the Republican reply is “We hate straight white males too. In fact we hate them even more than you do.” And sometimes, not very often, they add “But we also worry about losing wars and the economy sucks.”

Before this election, the anti straight white male party had a majority. After this election, the anti straight white male party will have a bigger majority and more extreme policies.

And similarly for the election after that, and the one after that. You face a government that hates you, and every year it will hate you more. Hence the visibly second class citizenship for whites that we see on the streets, that the recent catcalling video inadvertently highlighted.

Yes, political competition continues, and will continue, but it is competition within the permanent majority party as to hates straight white males even more.

Politicians will use public money to buy votes. They naturally want to buy the cheapest votes, so democracy tends to universal franchise. But they still want cheaper votes, so create an underclass. Then they import an underclass. The final outcome, as in Ivory Coast, is that the former natives get ethnically cleansed with the help of UN troops.

No good person should vote in an election with universal franchise, as it is a declaration that he is equal to his inferiors. Since, in fact, he is not equal to his inferiors, he must therefore be oppressing them, and will be punished for that oppression. Strangely, he remains unequal. Obviously the punishment was not sufficiently severe.

That is what you have been getting for voting, and will continue to get for voting. You have been punished, you will be punished, and the punishments will grow progressively more severe. When you vote, you affirm that you are equal. Since, in practice, you are not equal, you affirm that you deserve the punishment that you will receive.

Very minor outbreak of democracy

Thursday, June 12th, 2014

Elections are about goodies. Even more obamaphones for all. No money down mortgages for minorities.

One might hope that republican primaries might be conducted on a slightly higher level.

In the recent primary, Eric Cantor campaigned that he was going to bribe the voters with their own stolen money, while David Brat campaigned on issues that have overwhelming support – campaigned against immigration, against crony capitalism, and against Obamacare. Just about everyone in America, except Washington and big business, opposes crony capitalism, most oppose immigration and Obamacare, and almost everyone who should be voting in a Republican primary opposes all three.

David Brat won 56% to 44%.

However, David Brat does not take the horribly extreme ultra right wing neonazi position that we might actually deport illegals, let alone stop with the Obamaphones.

Bottom line: 44% of the voters in the Republican primary voted like sluts and underclass.

The American right is deader than God

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014

In the last presidential election, nominated governor Romneycare

In the election before that, nominated Senator McCain-Feingold

The current huge increase in government expenditures and substantial increase in taxes reflects a bipartisan budget that your Tea Party congressman voted for – which means that your tea party congressman voted to fund Obamacare.

And, very shortly after the 2014 election, the Republican party is about bring in thirty million Democrat voters.  (Each person amnestied gets to bring in relatives, and, in the 1986 amnesty, promptly did so.  We also had a huge, though short lived, baby boom among immigrants, probably because immigration rights for kin boosted and, for a little while enforced, marriage.  This caused some people to say that the immigrants were naturally socially conservative, though fertility eventually declined to normal underclass levels as the freshly imported women started normal underclass sexual behavior, responding to welfare incentives, rather than immigration control incentives.  It eventually became glaringly obvious that Mexican immigrants are not socially conservative, once they become eligible for welfare.)

It is deemed essential that the Democrat party appease its base, hence the ban on the Keystone pipeline, while the Republican party can take its base for granted, and should always do what maximally offends them.  Every Democrat agrees it is essential to pander to the most radical democrats, while most Republicans agree that the Republican wing of the Republican party are ugly hateful racist neanderthals.

And remember the Reagan Revolution.  Without the 1986 Reagan Amnesty act Obama would not have won the election, and probably would not have been nominated.

At election time, candidates posture about how right wing they are.  Sometimes they do dramatic things like “shutting down the government” – which invariably and predictably end in the total and complete capitulation of the right.  When it is time to pass a budget or a law, they are all leftists.  Just as you don’t get into Harvard except you can do an adequate simulation of leftism, you don’t get into politics unless you can adequately simulate leftism, even though you have simulate rightism for those hateful despicable disgusting voters.  Democrats are the inner party, Republicans the outer party.  They are all one party, the party of the state, preaching the religion of the state.

 

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.