This is not riot control, it is a manufactured photo opportunity

Manufacturing the appearance of significance

Observe the hand motion.  He is tossing a smoke grenade just in front, not at the protestors.  If you are wondering how heavily outnumbered protestors accomplished their goal  of occupying the city hall, despite announcing it at least a day in advance, the above photo explains the inexplicable.

And here are the protestors are in occupation, burning the vandalized and stolen city hall flag.  Although the photo does not show it, police are watching a short distance away.

Another photo opportunity while police watch

There were amply sufficient police watching to have seriously cramped their style, and yet, they did not.  First the photo opportunity, then the police intervene.  When the police finally intervene, the protestors yield without any resistance or fuss, revealing police complicity in this photo opp.

This post placed in the economics category, as well as the politics, being an example of your tax dollars at work, the government funding agitation for more government funding.

Hwan Lewi:

How about ‘atheocracy’? It should be instantly recognizable as derivative of ‘theocracy’ and thus retain most of the descriptive and shock value, and it gets around the deism/non-deism issue.

From now on, atheocracy it is. In addition to being clear, it avoids pissing off those reactionaries who favor a genuinely Christian theocracy.

Digressing, I fully agree that that a genuinely Christian theocracy would be a good system. I also think that a theocracy genuinely based on the pagan religion of the early Roman monarchical period would be a good system.

The Roman monarchy worked fine when the King was elected for life by the Senate and the people of Rome, and endorsed by the Gods. When the Gods started to bend to whatever the prevailing wind was, the monarchy started to become corrupt and decadent. So Kings were removed. Thus began the Roman Republic. Elections were now more much more frequent. This worked fine for a while, but almost immediately the Republic started an ever leftwards drift, which soon became intolerable – so intolerable that the army stopped tolerating it.

The leftward drift was abruptly reversed by Sulla, who implemented a hard reset similar to that advocated by Mencius Moldbug and restored the old Republic. The restored old republic worked fine for a generation, but this failed to fix things permanently, since the reset led to a drift to military dictatorship. One generation later, civil war resumed and dictatorship followed.

So I am trying to crowdsource some less confusing terminology.

Without the word “theocracy”, how does one concisely explain why society moves ever leftwards?

One way around this problem is to use the concept of a ruling clerisy, since the word “clerisy” has in the past been used to refer to what is in common in the exercise of political power by priests and bishops, and the exercise of political power by journalists, academics, and intellectuals.

Trouble is that “clerisy”, when used unironically, merely means the class of learned persons, when what we want to refer to is the class of persons learned in the state supported and state supporting belief system. Obviously we want the ironic meaning of clerisy – the class of ignorant brainwashed but officially credentialed holders of officially true opinions, the class of people learned only in political reliability.

So “clerisy” like “theocracy” brings in unwanted meanings.

So could anyone who does not like my use of the word “theocracy” try to come up with an explanation of why the left always wins and the right always loses is, using different words?

“Coordination Problem” is treating this as a deep and puzzling mystery.  Obviously they have not been reading Moldbug.

Leftism is a form of theocracy. The state endorses the belief system, and the belief system endorses the state. The priests (the Ivy league professoriat) get power and the state gets power. Indeed, since there is no fixed doctrine or direction of leftism, it is merely theocracy. Any theocracy is in a sense leftism, which is why leftists are so fond of Islamists – but since Islamists, unlike leftists, do have a fixed and definite doctrine, an unchanging holy book, they do not return the affection.

Leftism is the state, and the state is the left. Leftism is the state at prayer.

Naturally, those who intend to remake society in their interests, adhere to the faction that has been successful in remaking society in their interests. The left is simply the gang that has been winning, and so keeps on winning, while the right is whoever is getting run over by the bandwagon. The process is inexorably self accelerating.

Leftists are confident that Islamism has no fixed essence, that Islam can be whatever leftists would like it to be, because leftists have no fixed essence.

Most theocracies do have a fixed essence – because those without a fixed essence destroy themselves quite rapidly. In a theocracy the way to power is always to be holier than the next guy, to be lefter than thou, and if the religion does not have a book and immutable doctrine to anchor it, this results in doctrine becoming ever more extreme and ever more crazy.

Leftists project onto Christianity their own theocracy, and onto Islam their own fluidity. When they see Muslims taking “moderate” positions, for example the Muslim brotherhood’s gradualism, they conclude that Muslim brotherhood is well on the way to being progressive, but in reality the Muslim brotherhood’s gradualism is Mohammed’s gradualism. Mohammed favored the salami slicer procedure for eradicating opponents, so favoring more abrupt repression of heretics does not make a Muslim more Muslim than a gradualist, whereas favoring more abrupt repression of heretics does make a leftist lefter than a gradualist.

Leftists tend to be staggeringly ignorant of cultures and societies different from their own, since any actual knowledge of such societies is likely to be politically incorrect, or have politically incorrect implications. Since the way to power is to sincerely and loyally believe every single one of ten thousand points of ever shifting leftist doctrine, and reality is apt to contradict leftist doctrine, the way to power is to avoid knowing the difference between shit and beans. Even if reality fails to contradict today’s leftist doctrine, it might contradict tomorrow’s, so knowing reality can get you into trouble. Perhaps tomorrow it will be necessary to believe that beans remain unchanged after passage through a mule, in which case should you have ever believed otherwise, you will be a global warming denier or something equally heinous.

It is always safe, and apt to be profitable, to be lefter than thou, whereas right wing deviation is apt to be punished. This has been the case for a couple of hundred years. Even when slavery was in effect, it was apt to be hazardous to argue in favor of slavery, while very safe, and wonderfully respectable, to argue against it, and to argue for the dignity of the negro race, the inherent equality of women, that labor and the poor are oppressed. Dickens was wonderfully respectable, taking the safe, respectable, and popular position. Carlyle was not. In a conspicuous display of affirmative action the reasonably literate black schoolteacher John Jacob Thomas was in 1869 paraded around London as a brilliant intellectual, like a monkey dressed in a business suit – not primarily because he was a reasonably intelligent counter stereotypical black man, but because he was a reasonably intelligent counter stereotypical black leftist. And if anyone doubted the supposed brilliance of John Jacob Thomas, it cannot be because Thomas really was not all that bright, it must be because the doubter hates blacks and favors slavery. The doctrine first enunciated by Thomas is still around as Ebonics, and to doubt what we now call Ebonics was as hazardous back then as it is now.

And indeed, by and large the doubters did favor slavery, in the sense that they believed that blacks needed white rule for their own good or they would revert to savagery. And by and large, the doubters were right. For example, when the whites fled the Congo, cannibalism and genocide returned. Since the progressive finds it perfectly obvious that blacks are on average precisely equal to whites, and woman on average precisely equal to men in every respect, there can be no reason for doubting this other than hatred of blacks and desire to harm them. And thus, if one makes unkind remarks about women’s driving and parking skills, one will on most blogs be promptly banned, lest your horrid hatred of womankind causes trouble for the blog owner.

The good leftist will not only perfectly confident that women are just as good at driving as men, he will also be agnostic as to the difference between beans and shit, just it case that too becomes a point of leftist doctrine.

Does this mean we are doomed to always and forever move ever leftwards? Of course not. Trees do not grow to the sky. They grow to a certain height, then fall over. But we will move ever leftwards until we run into crisis and collapse. Chances are that democracy and the United States will end before the ever leftwards movement ends. Predicting when a tree will fall is chancy, but predicting that a tree will fall is certain. If you are in bus moving at high speed, and the driver is blind and insane, the bus will stop eventually.

There is Governor Romneycare, who created the original of which Obamacare is a copy.

There is Governor Perry, a man who fully supports underclassing and the suppression of Christianity by state power combined with state sponsorship of alternatives to Christianity such as Islam.

There Newt Gingrinch, who talks like a right winger, but is an entryist.

He supported the key element of Obamacare, the individual mandate. He supported Scozzafava, an extreme left candidate inserted into the Republican party by an openly entryist far left organization.

He points out that we end up taking care of the uninsured anyway, and proposed to fix this by providing more socialism for everyone, rich and poor alike.

The correct solution for the uninsured is not to make health care more socialist for everyone, but to provide death camps free government doctors and hospitals with death panels.

If you don’t want to face the death camps free government doctors and hospitals with death panels, you pay for your own health care.

The long term trend is for any semi socialist industry that everyone depends on is to become ever more socialist, more left wing, more oppressive, ever more tyrannical, and ever more murderous (example, British National Health System treats elderly people who are having trouble breathing with barbiturates – which depress breathing)

If, however, you have a government hospital system that only treats the poor and the desperate, the natural trend is that no one cares how shitty the government health cares is provided the private system is fine, so a free public system with for pay private tends over time to approximate the libertarian solution: That those that cannot pay, shall have little or no medical care.

If you have socialist health care for the poor, and private health care for the rest, then the natural tendency of government to cruelty, tyranny, murder, and corruption, tends over time to approximate private health care plus some pious rituals to make people feel better about dumping those that are poor and sick and who no one cares about.

If, however, you have socialist health care for everyone, you wind up with the state exercising power of life and death over everyone.

Gingrich in 2005 wanted to fix problems with a bit of socialism for everyone, rather than a bit of socialism for the poor.

Today, you need to simulate politically correctness, which is to say left wing views, to get into university. Tomorrow, you may well have to simulate left wing views to avoid getting your organs harvested for the greater good.

You know how the occupiers demand virtue jobs at government expense?  Jon Corzine was betting on the great productivity of Greeks who have virtue jobs at government expense.

Jon Corzine is a politician, an important power in the Democratic Party, he was the Senator from New Jersey, and then became Governor of New Jersey, a rapidly rising star in the Democratic Party. When the Democrats, to everyone’s shock and amazement lost New Jersey, he was appointed chairman and CEO of MF Global Inc, by much the same people who caused him to be nominated Senator and Governor. As a politician, he sponsored Obama, Obama held a fund raiser in Jon Corzine’s home on Fifth Avenue, and as Chairman and CEO of MF Global he funded Obama – and Greece. He was expected to return to politics as soon as a post sufficiently important for a man of his stature could be found for him.

When you see photographs of Jon Corzine, they are the sort of photos a politician arranges to have taken of himself, not the sort of photos a businessman arranges to have taken of himself.

“Occupy Wall Street” are just astroturf puppets of the people who gave you the bailout, and Jon Corzine is one of the people who gave you the bailout.

MF Global recently made a bond sale with an unusual clause, saying the interest rate on the bonds would rise 1 percent if Jon Corzine ended up being appointed to a post in the Obama administration, indicating that MF Global was perceived as primarily governmental, rather than private, as what in England is called a quango, quasi governmental organization, and in most of the world, an ngo, non governmental organization – the “non” being euphemistic or ironic.

The finance system is in collapse because our ruling elite is buying up an underclass with finance system money, and it is running out.

Was Jon Corzine ordered to help out the Greeks at the expense of himself and his depositors?

Unlikely:  But the elite of which he is part has a consensus, a quite delusive consensus, and he would not have been placed in charge of other people’s money had he not shared or plausibly appeared to share those delusions in full. He was placed in charge of other people’s money because, like Angelo Mozilo appointed to Countrywide and Kerry Killinger appointed to WaMU, he was mad as a hatter.

That he gambled with his depositors money, intending to keep the profits if he won, but they would take the losses if he lost was evil.  That he gambled on Greece is insane.  No one sane bets on Greece with his own money unless someone is twisting his arm.  Thus John Corzine personally exemplifies the fact that consensus always winds up dominated by evil and madness because the sane shift, but the insane don’t shift, and the evil lie about what they believe.

In the first five seconds of the video, top right, a cop pats a protestor on the shoulder, murmurs something in a friendly manner and the protester replies in a friendly manner “you are shooting us, that is fine, that is fine”, which sounds like the actor playing the good guy discussing the upcoming scene with the actor playing the bad guy, a few moments before they get into character.

The police in this video are not Davis City cops. They are university cops Their bosses are far left, far, far left.

If the students are obstructing the cops, they are all obstructing the cops, yet most are acting like the audience for the prospective spraying, and the prospective victims are acting like the prospective victims.  The script, evidently, has been leaked.

If a Southern Sheriff was the bad guy in the video, it might be believable. If they were Davis City police, might almost be believable. But these are University cops answerable to management that is to the left of Mao, answerable to the same management that astroturfed the students to the protest. Chances are the kids are being sprayed with tomato sauce.

You will notice that when the protestors attempt to occupy an office building, the rentacops handle it without creating a spectacle for the cameras, while here, everyone knows well in advance that a spectacle is going to unfold, and what the spectacle will be – it is the cops whose bosses are enthusiastic supporters of Occupy, and who are sending in student astroturf for course credit, that act out the spectacle. The spectacle, as at Oakland, is played by the cops with the leftmost bosses, not the cops with the rightmost bosses.

but the science of human nature demolishes more than just bitchy feminism.

A number of people in the manosphere have pointed out that today’s Christian right churches take a position on marriage, divorce, and female chastity that in the fifties would have been seen as radical hippy dippy leftism, but back to the topic addressed by “Alternative Right” – evolution and racial inequality. (On another day, I will address evolution and gender inequality)

The origin of species, full title: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

Darwin tells us:

Descent of Man, Chapter 01

Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals.

Descent of Man, Chapter 05

Man accumulates property and bequeaths it to his children, so that the children of the rich have an advantage over the poor in the race for success, independently of bodily or mental superiority. On the other hand, the children of parents who are short-lived, and are therefore on an average deficient in health and vigour, come into their property sooner than other children, and will be likely to marry earlier, and leave a larger number of offspring to inherit their inferior constitutions. But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilised races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races.

Descent of Man, Chapter 07

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Hundreds of demonstrators marched onto Seattle’s University Bridge Thursday halting traffic during the evening rush hour in one of several rallies nationwide for “Jobs Not Cuts.”

You may ask:  How did they manage to get “hundreds” to show up, and how could “hundreds” halt traffic?

• They were able to halt traffic because
  

  Seattle police escorted the group from the University of Washington to the University Bridge, and later reported there had been no conflicts in what they termed “the peaceful demonstrations.”

  Peaceful because the police by protecting the astroturf prevented motorists from getting where they wanted to go, which the motorists probably felt was not at all peaceful.

• And “hundreds” showed up at the protest assembly site where the march to obstruct traffic was prepared because:
  

  … a couple hundred people were milling about. … representatives from various unions. However, despite the fact that the protest was being held on the University of Washington’s campus, precious few students.

  …I overheard a young woman saying something about how attending the protest was part of her gender/women’s studies class.

Without those cops, the occupiers would have been road kill.