Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Now four sovereign nations

Tuesday, July 19th, 2016

Reactionaries are fond of saying there are three independent nations on the earth: America, Russia, and China. Everyone else is under the boot of the Cathedral, except for a few small protectorates of Russia and China. Each sovereign nation has its own Twitter equivalent, which enforces the values of its own state religion.

It looks like Turkey may be added to the list, probably leading the Cathedral to re-evaluate Islam.

Since the Cathedral does not realize it is a state religion like any other, but regards itself as simple truth and decency, it believes it can crush Islam without overt violence and naked repression, in the same way it has crushed Christianity without overt violence and naked repression. Supposedly Islam rightly understood, like Christianity rightly understood, is indistinguishable from progressivism. Mohammed the community organizer like Jesus the community organizer. Progressivism thinks itself scientific, as Marxists used to think they were scientific.

Which is what Turkish Universities used to preach. I am not sure that they will still be preaching that now that Erdogan has purged every single university dean and most of the judiciary.

Erdogan is purging Gulenism. Gulenism is interfaith, arguing that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all basically the same. Well, if they are all the same, then they are all the progressivism of progressive Jews.

But, I hear you ask, how can Turkey achieve sovereignty without nukes? Won’t America murder them all in some horrifically gruesome fashion after the fashion of the Boers and the Tutsi?

Turkey has nukes. American nukes. Supposedly they cannot detonate without US command codes, but the US has been industriously affirmative actioning “moderate” muslims into its security apparatus, so I would not bet on that.

Progressive “Jews” act like conversos. “Progressive” Muslims do not act like conversos. I think the Cathedral has been suckered by Muslim taqiyya.

Putin has adopted Orthodox Christianity as his state religion in place of progressivism, which is fundamentally western, and which celebrates the western values, culture and tradition that the Cathedral seeks to destroy and erase from history. Orthodox Christianity is our friend. Islam is the enemy of our enemy, but is not our friend.

If it turns out that Turkey is defecting from the Cathedral, it is possible that the Cathedral may come to doubt that importing three hundred million black male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy and giving them affirmative action mortgages to move into green leafy suburbs will turn them into tax payers and mortgage payers to replace the missing grandchildren.

But more likely they will just double down on madness, deciding that the way to defeat Erdogan is to turn these guys into middle class mortgage payers and tax payers even faster.

Defense of capitalism:

Friday, July 15th, 2016

Reactionary future criticizes capitalism from the right.

Capitalists have power independent of the state. They are apt to use that power politically. Example George Soros. By and large, capitalists overwhelming back the left.

But, if they back the left, they are sucking up to power, or like the NGOs, serving the state when the state wants a smidgen of deniabity. For example you cannot see daylight between George Soros in the Ukraine, Harvard in the Ukraine, and the State Department in the Ukraine. In the Ukraine, it is perfectly clear that George Soros it taking orders from the State Department.

Charles the second said that science and the scientific method was high status, and rich people all over the place proceeded to apply the scientific method and sponsor science. Harvard says that equality is high status, and all the rich people attempt to tap the untapped potential of women and nigerians.

The State Church keeps capitalism in line with no problems.

Separation of Church and State has failed catastrophically.

Sunday, July 10th, 2016

Same problem as anarcho capitalism. The vacuum is apt to be filled. And today it is filled with an official government belief system that daily becomes more extreme, and is enforced more coercively.

In retrospect it is clear that in England the demand to disestablish the Anglican Church came from a competing religion, then called Evangelism, descended from Puritanism, which was already most of the way to becoming the state religion of England though it continually changed its name in the process.

The history of official religion in the US is more complex. When the United States was many separate states with a common defense and a common foreign policy, back when people said “The United States are” rather than “The United States is” there was absolutely no separation of Church and State, for each state had its own state religion, and the seminary of the state religion of Massachusetts, charged with promoting and enforcing the state religion, was Harvard.

After the English restoration the religion of New England became aggressive, political, this worldly, and bent on conquest and domination. They forever resented the English restoration which had disempowered them and purged them from lucrative positions in the Church of England and in the English government. Whig history began as their plan for reconquering England and the world.

The state Church of Massachusetts was state church of New England, and New England set up its Rome, its Papacy, in Massachussetts. The civil war and the Mormon war was New England conquering America – and then, following the civil war, denied it was a religious institution and proceeded to apply the doctrine of “separation of Church and state” as a very thin coat of white wash over the state religion of Massachusetts being enforced on everyone in America. And after World War II, everyone in the world, except those protected by nuclear weapons, Russia and China. There is a direct correlation between one’s alma mater’s proximity to the Boston-NYC-DC corridor and the height of one’s position in the government and ruling class of one’s country. Outside of Russia and China the only substantial resistance comes from Muslims. If you are Muslim a tranny nonetheless wins your song contest, your universities are run from Harvard, two thirds of the youngsters attending university are women due to affirmative action for women, and shortly after they attend university they find themselves covered in semen from head to foot and are told that they are liberated. Approximately half of all Muslims are moderate Muslims, and if you are a moderate Muslim you support the gay parades, you have only one wife in the event you have a wife, and if you do get married you will probably marry a women nearing the end of her fertile years, and are failing to reproduce. Immoderate Muslims, most of whom support Islamic state or some faction equally violent, are getting laid, marrying young women in their most fertile years, and having numerous children.

Ann Coulter famously said “Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”. Predictably, the US government adopted a policy of killing their leaders and converting them to progressivism, which policy is not entirely failing, but is having considerably less success and more serious problems than admitted. Conversion to progressivism is not keeping up with rate at which real Muslims, the ones that make women submit to their husbands, breed.

By and large, I tend to focus on power at the bottom – that women interrupt their boss tells me that they are hired for reasons other than their contribution to profit, that businesses are forced or morally pressured to hire women, and then stuff them into parts of the business where they cannot do too much immediate damage. Blacks walk down the street like aristocrats, taking up lots of space, while white males walk like serfs.

I also write a lot about female sexual preferences. Sexual selection, female choice, results in a positive feedback cycle, hence the peacock’s tail. I expect my readers, unlike Harvard alumni and Word Bank economists, to know the difference between positive feedback and negative feedback, to, unlike the typical Harvard alumunus, understand why the peacock’s tail is a really bad thing for peacocks, and to know that positive feedback is apt to have extremely bad consequences, and almost always needs to be broken and disconnected in the most direct way possible.

But this post is about power at the top. It is, however, also about my favorite topic: Positive feedback loops. And if you did not get that the peacocks tail is a manifestation of a positive feedback loop and that the peacock’s tail shows that women should never have been emancipated, do some homework before commenting. Seems that these days all they teach in university is how to hate white males, even if your degree is nominally in computer science. If your degree is in computer science, you damn well should know what a positive feedback loop is and why it is a bad thing.

During the reign of Charles the First of England, there was a remarkable outbreak of holiness. By and large, the holiest people tended to get the preaching jobs in the Church of England, and, since there was not a whole lot of entertainment and social events other than going to church, they persuaded other people to be holy.

To some extent this holiness was genuine and sincere. On the other hand, since Church of England jobs had good pay and status, it was to some extent pharisaical, and became increasingly pharisaical. And this pharisaical holiness started to increasingly resemble nineteenth century leftism, alarming the King, so Charles the First set to appointing Bishops that opposed and suppressed left wing pharisaism – or perhaps Bishops that, like Charles himself, enjoyed a good time and were not particularly holy. And this led to civil war, which the exceedingly holy won.

And pretty soon each candidate for office was even holier than each of the other candidates.

And pretty soon pharisaical holiness developed a striking resemblance to twentieth century leftism, the twentieth century labor movement and the hippies, Which alarmed Oliver Cromwell, who, like Stalin, found himself outflanked on his left, so he cracked down on it, a good deal more vigorously and more successfully than Charles the first did. Cromwell is both a villain to reactionaries, for executing a great King, and a hero to reactionaries, for putting a stop to leftism, and for equipping General Monck with a praetorian guard, the Coldstream guards.

Cromwell’s leftism did not go all the way to twenty first century leftism and celebrate sodomy, but the wind was blowing that way, as men ever more holy had to denounce yesterday’s holiness. The war on Christmas and the war on Marriage began under Cromwell, foreshadowing the twenty first century celebration of sodomy.

After Cromwell died, General Monck staged a coup, and to this day the Coldstream Guards, who were originally his praetorians, guard parliament. General Monck restored the monarchy, and the monarchy, Charles the Second, purged puritans from state institutions, including the Church of England.

This pissed off the puritans no end. Charles attempted to purge New England’s ruling institutions, but whereas puritans were unpopular in England, pretty much everyone in New England was a puritan, and the puritans eventually regained power in New England by a revolt that England let slide, and eventually legalized.

And having regained power, they proceeded to get holier and holier, until they were holier than Jesus (abolitionism and prohibition). And here we are.

How to give effect to Brexit

Wednesday, June 29th, 2016

Supposedly, if the British voted for exit, the government would immediately invoke article 50 – would give notice that Britain was resigning from the EU. That is what the prime Minister told them.

Well, the British voted for exit, and surprise, surprise, the government is not invoking article 50. The prime minister lied.

What a surprise. Are you surprised?

And every day, the most appalling scum, mostly black Muslims from darkest Africa, continue to pour through Calais to live on crime, welfare, and voting left. Theoretically England has a legal immigration policy that only lets in the better kind of migrant, but this has collapsed, as was always intended from the beginning, and now it is mostly violent black young male criminals, cannibals and terrorists. The supposed policy was collapsing from the beginning, and lately has collapsed faster and faster. If it had worked as officially intended, Britain would now be getting lots of high IQ Chinese, mostly wealthy Chinese businessmen. Instead it got a few, very few, low IQ Chinese, mostly poor Chinese waiters and welfare bums, and lately, rapidly increasing numbers of violent very low IQ black males. The supposed immigration policy was always dead in the water, and the real policy is now pouring over the border.

But look at Australia. Illegal immigration was abruptly ended totally and completely overnight with the stroke of a pen – well – with the stroke of a pen that authorized Australian Marines to shoot up boats and set them on fire anywhere on the high seas.

Legal immigration remained out of control in Australia, and has been getting steadily more out of control, but as the next Australian election comes very close, the Australian government has suddenly launched a crackdown to enforce the official policy, the official policy being “skills based”: that the rich, the pretty, and the clever are legally allowed in, and the rest not, while the actual unofficial policy was increasingly that the scum of the earth were legally allowed in to live on crime, welfare, and voting left. That unofficial policy has now, about a week before election time, been declared to be corruption, rather than high moral virtue. It is implied that the bureaucrats and judges that gave effect to the unofficial policy, gave effect to the actual policy, were, rather than acting according to the highest moral principles, bribed by migration agents. And by sheer coincidence this shocking and extremely surprising corruption was uncovered just before the election.

The official Australian story being that until a week or so before the elections, the government was too busy cracking down on illegal immigration to notice that legal immigration was a shambles. And until a week or so before the election supposedly no one had noticed. Or at least no one respectable had noticed and if anyone disrespectable noticed they probably got prosecuted for hate speech.

But now, they really are cracking down on both legal and illegal immigration. So if Australia can do it, so can Britain. The Australian government abruptly and totally stopped illegal immigration overnight, and it looks like they are now abruptly and totally stopping the scum of the earth from legally migrating. They got instant one hundred percent compliance last time, and I think they are going to get instant one hundred percent compliance this time. It is like lightning and thunder. Bam. Sudden radical change in policy immediately followed by sudden radical change in compliance. They had to shoot up a few boats, whereupon the rest fell into line, and I expect they will have to charge a few bureaucrats who thought themselves fireproof, whereupon the rest will fall into line. Sir Humphrey Appleby suddenly notices his minister talking quietly to a couple of large security guys about corruption. Swift and total implementation gives the enemy no time for counter measures. While leftist policies are introduced little bit by little bit so that the frog does not notice he is being boiled, rightist policies have to be introduced suddenly and totally, like a military offensive, like a coup.

The longer Brexit remains unimplemented, the harder it will be to implement.

In Britain, you theoretically have a sudden radical change in policy that is not being followed by compliance. Indeed, if anything, looks like they are getting in as many scum of the earth as fast as possible in fear that the compliance might be coming down the road. Slowly and eventually down the road.

So what are you going to do? As a reactionary, I say voting does not work, but voting worked in Australia. Eventually worked. Albeit after quite a while.

Vote for someone with the balls to give effect to policy decisively and suddenly. And if that does not work, because you have too many nonwhites voting against whiteness, and too many single women voting for rape by men of those races who are allowed to be alpha, well, then, there is always the reactionary solution.

The military and the spy agencies look perfectly loyal to the government, but so did the Chilean military, which had a long tradition of staying out of politics. The Chilean junior officers plotted and rehearsed the coup without anyone actually speaking the fatal words out loud until a few hours before the actual coup. The Thai coup is going smoothly, and in the Philippines, looks like a self coup is underway or has already happened. Obviously if you are in the military, you don’t go 1488 out loud, but if Brexit just does not happen, this discredits democracy.

When Napoleon entered the Council of Ancients with a squad of Grenadiers, they heckled him. One deputy called out, “And the Constitution?”

Napoleon replied “The Constitution! You yourselves have destroyed it. You violated it on 18 Fructidor; you violated it on 22 Floreal; you violated it on 30 Prairial. It no longer has the respect of anyone.”

And so it should be if Brexit has no effect. Our next Napoleon should tell parliament about Brexit.

George Soros on Brexit

Sunday, June 26th, 2016

Mixed in amongst the usual lies, were some truths.

The “Leave” campaign exploited the deteriorating refugee situation – symbolized by frightening images of thousands of asylum-seekers concentrating in Calais, desperate to enter Britain by any means necessary – to stoke fear of “uncontrolled” immigration from other EU member states.

Why the quote marks around “uncontrolled” Soros? Was not that the plan all along – to bring in five hundred million males over the next few years from Africa and the middle east to permanently outvote the white population while living on crime and welfare?

… scenes of chaos like the one in Calais.

… A sudden influx of asylum-seekers disrupted people in their everyday lives across the EU.

The lack of adequate controls, moreover, created panic, affecting everyone: the local population, the authorities in charge of public safety, and the refugees themselves. It has also paved the way for the rapid rise of xenophobic anti-European parties – such as the UK Independence Party, which spearheaded the Leave campaign – as national governments and European institutions seem incapable of handling the crisis. …

Xenophobic? Is it not entirely rational to be alarmed by scenes of chaos like the one in Calais. If people found their everyday lives disrupted, maybe they have a right to act collectively and individually to protect their everyday lives against this disruption engineered by their ruling elites.

… making the disintegration of the EU practically irreversible.

If we are sufficiently lucky and virtuous.

Brexit will open the floodgates for other anti-European forces within the Union. Indeed, no sooner was the referendum’s outcome announced than France’s National Front issued a call for “Frexit,” while Dutch populist Geert Wilders promoted “Nexit.”

How about that.

…Tensions among member states have reached a breaking point, not only over refugees, but also as a result of exceptional strains between creditor and debtor countries within the eurozone. At the same time, weakened leaders in France and Germany are now squarely focused on domestic problems. In Italy, a 10% fall in the stock market following the Brexit vote clearly signals the country’s vulnerability to a full-blown banking crisis – which could well bring the populist Five Star Movement, which has just won the mayoralty in Rome, to power as early as next year.

🙂

The five star movement is a non cathedral leftist movement. Much like Bernie Sanders. Their economic program is, like that of Bernie Sanders, pure self destructive evil madness, akin to the flagellant movement that flogged each other to show how holy they were, but, like Bernie Sanders, they are outflanking the Cathedral on the left and, like Bernie Sanders, trying to produce a leftism that is not held together by hating white heterosexual males, the destruction of the white race, and the physical destruction of white civilization. Instead, they hate the economic system that produces stuff, and propose to replace it by a program of not producing stuff, since actually producing stuff is low status and insufficiently holy. I suppose everyone will earn their living by doing socially conscious puppetry and artisanal basket weaving.

The bottom line is that switching to fast boiling the frog, declaring that there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant, that everyone in the world had the right to live and vote in white countries, rob their citizens, rape their women, and receive welfare, gave the game away. Too many people can now see what is coming down the road.

That said, I don’t think we can stop this by democratic means. Women will vote for rape by alpha cock, and white males are beta by law. But quite substantial and rapidly growing numbers of people realize we have to put a stop to this.

All slopes are slippery

Saturday, June 25th, 2016

The Guardian remarks:

The deeper fear among Tory remainers now isn’t just of a recession. It’s about the rise of something new in British politics

When Tony Abbott halted illegal immigration to Australia he took a total no exceptions policy – not one illegal would be allowed in or allowed to stay, however sad his case, not one anchor baby would be allowed to stay. A power struggle ensued over a tiny handful of cute babies with photogenic ailments requiring urgent medical attention, and it immediately became obvious that both left and right believed that if one cute baby whose parents were fleeing religious persecution was allowed in, it would swiftly become extremely difficult to say “no” to one hundred million black male African Muslims with machetes fiercely screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, that if you cannot hold the simplest possible reasonable Schelling point, you cannot hold any Schelling point anywhere, that everyone with any expertise in politics believed that all slopes are slippery.

Brexit may well lead to a cascade of independence movements, and a cascade of walls against brown skinned people and Muslims – or at least that is what our leaders fear.

Brexit does nothing in itself to prevent Britain from being overrun by Muslims who are fundamentally and intrinsically hostile to Britain and the British. But it makes possible the will and intent to prevent Britain from being overrun with Muslims.

Brexit makes it possible for Britain to make free trade agreements with those nations with which she is united by history, language, culture, and customary law – which suddenly means that history, language, culture, and customary law are likely to become salient in people’s minds. Those that seek to abolish Britain and the British can no longer claim that unelected Eurocrats make abolishing Britain and the British economically efficient.

I am not saying that we are winning (indeed as long as we have one person one vote we are inexorably doomed to lose horribly, to vanish utterly from history, and to be unremembered as those capable of remembering the past perish also) but Brexit is going to set free dangerous thoughts.

The Altright is the Dark Enlightenment manifesting as a mob, and Trump is the altright manifesting as electoral politics. Brexit is also the altright manifesting as electoral politics.

A key point of the Dark Enlightenment is that mobs are not the solution to the problem and electoral politics are not the solution to the problem – but they are a manifestation that people are thinking about the problem and thinking of solving it. Even if Trump becomes president, his greatest accomplishment will remain that Trump set free dangerous thoughts. Ideas are far more powerful than guns, for someone has to aim the guns. The mob, and the electoral politics, are not power, but are echoes of power, they are the thunder that tells us the lightning has already struck.

Church Authority versus Sovereign authority

Monday, June 13th, 2016

The natural tendency is for Church and Sovereign to become one (interpreting Religion and Church broadly to include progressivism as a religion and Harvard as its Church)  If one, the question goes away.

But sometimes church and sovereign are geographically different, as when the Holy Roman Empire lost power, resulting in one Roman Catholic Church and many Roman Catholic Kings. Whereupon trouble ensues, and the question becomes urgent. What tends to happen is that the Pope proclaims himself superior to Kings, but is under the thumb of one particular King, so that the supremacy of the Pope started to look suspiciously similar to the supremacy of the Habsburgs. Today we see that Harvard has alarmingly great power in Iran, and Obama alarmingly little, and we see state department functionaries taking power in supposedly independent states, which state department functionaries were usually educated within a very short distance of Harvard.

The solution to this problem is given by the Chrismation of Solomon: Zadok the Priest & Nathan the Prophet Formally Chrismated Solomon King

Formally, Solomon became King because the priest and prophet anointed him so, making church authority supreme over sovereign authority. (Chrismation is Eastern Orthodox Christian language for anointing with oil. Supposedly the oil goes back to biblical times, having been continually diluted with fresh oil.)

In actual substance, Solomon became King by murdering his brother Adonijah, arguably the legitimate heir, in a fight over Abishag, the most beautiful woman in Israel, even though it was illegal and immoral for either of them to possess her, and even though there is no mention in the bible that she intentionally did anything to tempt either of them, and by shedding the innocent blood of Joab in the tabernacle, thereby desecrating the tabernacle.

However by formally submitting to the Church, the sovereign pointed away from the unpleasantness of a messy succession, and to God. In substance, Solomon was in charge, largely due to craftiness and ruthlessness. In form, the church was superior to the state. In substance, Solomon dismissed one priest and appointed another, violating the principle of hereditary priestly succession. 1 Kings 1 and 1 Kings 2 lists numerous morally dubious or openly wicked killings and purges by Solomon over the succession question, and 1 Kings 2 concludes:

So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; which went out, and fell upon him, that he died. And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.

So was it blood or oil that made Solomon King?

Thus the bible points to the formal authority of Church over Sovereign, in order to give the sovereign authority, in order to make Kingship inspiring rather than demoralizing, but the substance of authority belongs to the sovereign, not the the Church. Napoleon was wrong to crown himself, not wrong to have himself crowned.

If there is a distinction between Church and State, and there usually is not, nor should there be, we should take the Chrismation of Solomon to demonstrate the proper relationship of Church and State. The Church should be formally superior, to make Kingship holy, to give dignity and virtue to the state. But actual superiority leads to the problems encountered with the sons of Samuel, and with Papal indulgences, and with Habsburg empire, and with Harvard.

Trump for King

Tuesday, May 31st, 2016

This image, and this entire blog is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This is an outline of how President Trump might well become King Trump the first, if we are sufficiently lucky and virtuous.

The world is sick of anarcho tyranny, and hungers unknowingly for the power and authority of Kings.

The recent election of Duterte, on a platform of his praetorians simply killing the bad guys out of hand without charges or trials, is an example of this hunger.

Now I hear some of you saying (and the progressives thinking but not saying out loud) that apart from being tough on crime, corruption, and governmental indiscipline, Duterte is a leftist and that is just a bunch of rice niggers, low IQ south Asians. White people are more civilized than that – perhaps a little too civilized for our own good.

In Australia, one of the whitest countries remaining, a few elections back, the election was on the issue of illegal immigration. Tony Abbott said he would stop illegal immigration.

The judges, of course, ruled stopping illegal immigration illegal. Tony Abbott ignored the judges. The net effect is that today, if you violate immigration law they send you to jail in Villawood detention center without bothering with charges or trials. From time to time the left whines about due process, and gets absolutely zero traction. Suddenly it was revealed that there is zero support for due process, that there are almost no voters who care about due process any more. And in particular and especially very few white voters who care about due process.

The purpose of due process was supposedly to ensure that the innocent do not go to jail, and the guilty do go to jail. But anarcho tyranny means that with so many laws, the innocent are bound to be guilty of something or other, while actual criminals are deemed the oppressed, and are coddled and protected by the state. Due process lets real criminals loose, mostly dark skinned real criminals who prey on white people, while imposing enormous and impossible legal costs on innocent middle class honest respectable people. For middle class people, due process is just the government’s way of punishing you when it cannot be bothered finding a crime to convict you of, even though with so many laws you have undoubtedly committed more crimes than you can shake a stick at.

White people just don’t like due process any more, for much the same reasons as Filipinos rejected it.

So in our current environment due process and judicial review is discredited, and lacks political support. In Tony Abbot’s Australia as much as in Duterte’s Philippines, it was suddenly and startlingly revealed that judges are simply all out of moral authority. No one cares about due process, because, under anarcho tyranny, there is no reason why they should care. It is not just a tiny handful of reactionary intellectuals thinking like this. It is pretty much everyone.

The point of due process was to prevent the King from treating repectable decent people like criminals. But now that we are all treated like criminals, people just don’t care.

Power divided can be power reduced. If the benevolent party controls all the food, or ninety nine percent of the food, as in communist China, today’s Venezuela, or Allende’s Chile, then you are toast. The result is at best severe oppression as in Venezuela, at worst mass murder on an enormous scale, as in China.

If however ninety nine percent of the food is controlled by ninety nine members of the one percent each of whom controls one percent of the food, then no problem. In this case, power divided is power reduced.

But if you need ninety nine approvals by ninety nine bureaucrats to build a house, you are more than ninety nine times as oppressed than if you need the approval of one bureaucrat, because you face a coordination problem between bureaucrats.

With one bureaucrat, you could hope to pay him off, formally or informally, by giving his bagman/consultant, say, a third of the surplus value you create by building the house. With ninety nine bureaucrats, they each want ten percent, so you just cannot build the house.

In this case, power divided is power increased, enormously increased. This enormous multiplication of oppressive power is another aspect of anarcho tyranny that leads people to hunger for the power of kings, they hunger for one man who could say “give me half the surplus value and build it” and who would tell the other ninety eight bureaucrats to take a long walk off a short pier. They hunger for a Duterte who would shoot the other ninety eight bureacrats behind a shed.

America’s smartest member of the ruling progressive elite tells us:

Investigating the reasons behind the bridge blunders have helped to illuminate an aspect of American sclerosis — a gaggle of regulators and veto players, each with the power to block or to delay, and each with their own parochial concerns. All the actors — the historical commission, the contractor, the environmental agencies, the advocacy groups, the state transportation department — are reasonable in their own terms, but the final result is wildly unreasonable.

Larry the prog worries that regulation, a multiplicity of veto players, makes government inefficient, and therefore unpopular, worries that he cannot get the bridge he needs to go to and from Harvard, and fails to see the glaringly obvious, that regulation makes the private sector inefficient.

I, too, have had to deal with a multiplicity of veto players, each with his bagman collecting his bribe.

And I do not believe that any of them were reasonable. That is just Larry the prog issuing the required pieties. All of them deserve to be shot. All of them were evil, corrupt, and insane.

Larry is pissed because his commute to Harvard is obstructed, blissfully unaware that Americans further from the seat of power suffer from the anarchy of government far more severely than he does.

In America, the presidency has gathered to itself enormous power, intervening in every small business, every household.

Husbands are thrown out of their houses, fathers torn from their children, thanks to the Department of Justice, which is theoretically answerable to the president. Women with husbands tend to vote Republican. Children with fathers tend to vote Republican. If the Depart of Justice has its way no woman will have a husband, nor any child a father.

Similarly the department of Justice arranged for white people to be burned out of Ferguson, forbidding the Ferguson police from protecting people and property, and forbidding collective self defense against collective aggression.

But the presidency is not the president. It is an enormous horde of bureaucrats that are theoretically supposed to obey the president, but which the president cannot fire, which results in anarcho tyranny. If the president could fire them, this would enormously increase the power of the president, but enormously decrease the power of the presidency, because one would be merely subject to one tyrant, instead of ninety nine tyrants.

In practice, the bureaucrats tend to treat the president as their public relations boy, rather than their boss. And if he fails to run good PR for what they have already decided to do they will smack him around the ears in the pages of the New York Times.

The bureaucrats are answerable to the consensus of their fellow bureaucrats, they have to be a square peg in a square hole, but the consensus is controlled by the consensus of the Ivies, and the consensus of the Ivies is controlled by the consensus of Harvard.

And as we have seen Harvard does not much like Trump, and to judge from his list of Supreme Court judicial candidates, Trump does not much like Harvard.

For Trump to rule, for Trump to accomplish any of his goals, the president has to subjugate the presidency, a process that will inevitably require massive firings, and some actual violence against those who decline to be fired. Quite possibly some Duterte style sudden violent deaths that no one is inclined to investigate because everyone knows what an honest investigation would reveal.

Trump will need to get rid of some turbulent priests.

The president’s power is so very great as to diminish the power and effectiveness of democracy thus we see a tendency to dynasties – the attempted Kennedy dynasty, the attempted Clinton dynasty, and the Bush dynasty.

An enormous increase in the power of the president, which will happen if Trump succeeds in firing those bureaucrats who do not obey him, would pretty much guarantee dynastic rule. Trump would govern for eight years, then be succeeded by his sons.

So we would have a system that was nominally democratic, but actually hereditary and monarchic. Such a difference between actual and formal power is necessarily corrupting and destructive, because such government operates by lies. To remedy this corruption, one of Trump’s sons would have to declare himself King Trump the third, and his predecessors King Trump the first and King Trump the second.

So for Trump to become King in substance, and eventually King in name, he has to seize the power to fire the fireproof.

Which, given that he has support from the military, the praetorians, the cops, the rentacops, and the mercenaries, and that judges do not have much support from anyone, is quite doable.

If Trump says “You are fired”, and security frog marches the offending presidency bureaucrat out of the building and does not let him back in, has that bureaucrat not been fired?

If HR attempts to keep paying the bureaucrat, apply the same measure to HR. If judges rule the firing illegal, do like Abbot and Duterte, and tell the judges to take a long walk off a short pier.

Thus could Trump exercise the power of Kings.

And if he wants to build a wall and deport anchor babies, that is what he needs to do, he needs to exercise the power of a King, for otherwise the presidency will not permit the president to act.

And if Trump exercises the power of Kings and does so competently and bravely, if he is worthy to exercise such power, Kings shall in due course ensue. I will then apply for the job of Grand Inquisitor when the time is right.

Libertarianism

Thursday, May 12th, 2016

Most neo reactionaries are ex libertarians, or ex anarchists.

Indeed, if you are a feudalist you are not even an ex anarchist.  You are an anarcho capitalist who doubts that most people should be allowed authority in the anarcho capitalist system of enforcement and justice, or are likely to receive a substantial voice.

“I pencil” is a famous criticism of socialism, which shows how difficult it is to centrally plan a pencil.

The problem is made much easier by good fences – and the occasional armed rentacop and fierce guard dog keeping an eye on those fences.

The socialist looks at those fences and says “the fences are unproductive, and the guard dogs are not only unproductive but costly and dangerous. They also look unfriendly and uncomradely, they divide us. Let us therefore abolish them”

And then the socialist, attempting to produce a pencil, produces instead many miles of red tape and a severe pencil shortage, frequently followed by a gulag full of “wreckers” that he blames for the pencil shortage.

The fences and the dogs serve a purpose, that purpose being to subdivide big problems into subproblems small enough to be manageable.  Central regulation, on the other hand, bureaucrats claiming the power to meddle in what goes on behind fences, turns many small tractable problems into one gigantic mess.

Libertarianism works provided you have fences, and often enough you also need rentacops and vicious junk yard dogs to make libertarianism work. And it is the only thing that does work to make a modern economy function – apart from terror and mass murder, and terror and mass murder does not work nearly as well as libertarianism and fences.

Libertarianism does not work where you do not have fences. Public transport in America fails because of blacks. To make it work again, you really are going to have to send blacks to the back of the bus. Whites just will not ride buses with significant black ridership, for excellent and glaringly obvious reasons that no one dares mention. You wanted integrated buses, got buses with no white ridership.

Similarly “integration” was in practice black workers in Detroit riding on the backs of white workers in Detroit, shortly followed by the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of whites in the inner city and Detroit.  Detroit’s car industry failed because they were forced to treat productive and unproductive workers alike and were forced to hire unproductive workers.  Ayn Rand depicts this, without, however, mentioning the overwhelmingly predominant race of the unproductive workers.  When Detroit was thriving, she accurately predicted its future as a desolate ruin, abandoned by all civilized people.

If you have blacks and whites in the same classroom, the blacks are very much louder, take up more space, and are dangerous and threatening, disrupting education and forcing the white kids into submissive roles.

Further, the kind of discipline required to make it possible for blacks to learn in a classroom is a lot more severe than the kind of discipline required to make it possible for whites to learn in a classroom. Few blacks are capable of learning without being whipped. Successful black schools are harsh, and the harsher they are the more successful.

And of course, at a certain age, the blacks are into, or have completed puberty, and the black pupils are man sized and able to beat up the teacher, while the whites have not begun puberty, or have scarcely begun it, and are still child sized and still behave like children.

And if you have twelve year old white boys and twelve year old white girls in the same classroom, the twelve year old girls are well and truly into puberty, and the twelve year old boys are not, creating a profoundly disruptive environment, though not as severe as that caused by twelve year old white boys, and twelve year old black adult men in the same classroom.

But the biggest failure of libertarianism, the biggest failure by far, is marriage and the family. Libertarianism is basically incompatible with family formation, children, and grandchildren, with the continued existence of whites and east Asians, for white and east Asian women are psychologically incapable of breeding near replacement in a libertarian environment.

The problem is that for a man and a woman to raise their children together, to provide their children with a mother and a father, they have to form one household, no fences. But if one household, then one captain. The man has to be boss. Further, they have to be stuck with each other for incentive compatibility. Consent to sex has to be once and forever. If consent to sex is moment to moment, then marriage is moment to moment, and you get serial monogamy, which means that husbands have no incentive to care for and nurture their wives, and wives no incentive to please and obey their husbands. Which means that women get their way sexually until they hit a certain age and become cat ladies, and men do not get their way sexually, and means that children have only one parent, and a lengthy succession of violent and abusive step parents.

A libertarian solution to marriage and the family would mean two separate households with visitation rights. A lot of people are trying that today, and it is not working. This stuff just fails. Broken families, empty buses, hellish schools.

If you cannot solve a problem with fences, guards, and guard dogs, the solution is unlikely to be libertarian.

Duerte Harry

Monday, May 9th, 2016

If the votes are honestly counted, Duerte Harry will be the next president of the Philippines.

He was previously mayor of Davao, where he solved a crime problem, in substantial part a problem of Muslim criminals predating on Christians, by killing criminals.  A lot of criminals.  Of all religions.

When I was in Davao, some people threatened him with lawfare, and he responded in his newspaper that if they sued him, he would kill them, their wives, and their children.

Motorized tricycles are the major form of public transportation in some parts of Davao and most places near Davao.  My tricycle driver stopped to buy fuel, and told me how a street kid had snatched a fuel payment, equivalent to six US dollars, and subsequently been killed by one of Duerte Harry’s death squads.

I wonder how many other payments that kid snatched before they nailed him. Also, how big was this “kid”?  Had to be strong enough to snatch, and fast enough to get away.

The people who were allegedly death squads were wonderfully disciplined, always perfectly polite and courteous, their uniforms extremely neat, their guns and decorations shiny.  I felt very safe with them, whereas I don’t feel safe with western police, who are conspicuously undisciplined and discourteous.  I always get the feeling that western police may capriciously decide I have done something illegal (after all, there are so many things that are illegal) just to show me who is boss.   I have always been able to talk my way out of trouble with police even when caught red handed, except for traffic offenses, or else my lawyer was able to talk me out of trouble, but why the hell should I need to talk my way out of trouble? I am an honest decent guy.  Anarcho tyranny is that they enforce all sorts of laws against people like me, and not against the kid who snatches six dollars.

When car-burning riots raged in Sweden, police had a policy of deliberately doing nothing about the rioters while cracking down decisively on so-called “vigilantes” who tried to stop immigrant rioters burning cars and neighborhoods. To add insult to injury, authorities issued parking tickets on burned cars.

In America, a four year old boy was groped in a bathroom.  His father slugged the groper.  Father arrested, groper not arrested.

See Will’s anarcho tyranny blog for a long long list of what police do while allowing criminals to run amuck.  He tends to focus on tyranny.  Here is some anarchy. And more anarchy.

Duerte Harry’s death squads don’t do anything like that, any more than they would let the brass on their uniforms get dull, or drink while on duty, or wear uniforms that were less than perfectly neat and pressed.  Their scrupulous neatness and rigid discipline is a symbol that they do not engage in such self indulgent bullying.  Their perfect courtesy and crisply pressed uniforms are a promise that they do not threaten people like me.  They threaten people who would snatch six dollars out of my hand.

There a pattern all over the West of excessive force against the innocent, the weak, the law-abiding, and those defending themselves and others but excessive deference to actual violent criminals.

This reflects a more general problem of the state, and members of the state apparatus, displaying ever less discipline.  Which problem starts at the top with fireproof senior public servants.