America was cooked a long time ago

A lot of people are saying that this election shows America is cooked.

What this elections shows is that producers are now outvoted by gimmiedats, a change that happened between 2010 and 2012: The gimmiedats are mostly non asian minorities plus white sluts.

Obama’s stimulus failed to stimulate, for the same reason as Britain’s austerity is not austere. It discouraged people from being producers, while encouraging them to become gimmiedats. While this failed to stimulate the economy, it did a mighty good job of stimulating the left wing vote. The British conservatives, as much as Obama, give economics second place to moving the electorate ever leftwards by making it ever more dysfunctional, and it seems likely that Romney would have at best been no better than British conservatism.

But this outcome was made inevitable a long time back

Obviously politicians want to buy votes, which tends to destroy democracy no matter what the franchise. And they want to buy the cheapest votes going, hence want to expand the franchise and import an underclass, which tends to destroy democracy.

The founders attempted to protect against this tendency, but actively encouraged it by proclaiming that “all men are created equal”, and by substituting “pursuit of happiness” for “protection of property and freedom of contract”.

America worked when there was a frontier so that people could get away from the establishment, and it worked when there were fifty different establishments in fifty different states, so that there was a high level of competition between state governments, which limited how bad any one state government could get. After the civil war, there was only one establishment, but the constitution limited how much power it could exercise centrally, prohibiting the establishment from cartelizing effectively, so America still worked – but, inevitably, the establishment set to undermining the constitution from above, and the masses from below. Every barrier to an ever lefter America has been deemed oppressive, and removed or worked around, and this set in immediately. As is apparent when one reads the anti federalist papers, federalism was a leftwards movement, and the bill of rights, and all the features of the constitution that slowed the leftward slide, such as the enumerated powers, were concessions to the anti federalists, which concessions have, predictably, been progressively retracted. The defeat of the Whiskey Rebellion was the initial military victory of progressives, from which followed all their political victories.

31 Responses to “America was cooked a long time ago”

  1. josh says:

    Jim,

    You might like this (the second half at least).

    http://www.sidis.net/TSContents.htm

    It’s written from a very strange communist/libertarian perspective, but it is consistent. In any case, (not based on the link I just posted), I can’t agree that the Federalists represented the pre-revolutionary left. They represented the right side of the left wing. The Jacobin Democratic-Republicans were the left of the left and were largely comprised of the old anti-Feds and Rhode Island/Shay’s rebels.

    • jim says:

      Your source interprets Shay as a leftist and soft money advocate. I don’t think this is accurate. The proximate and ultimate cause of Shay’s rebellion was that Shay was stiffed.

      I don’t think stiffing troops is right wing. Stiffing anyone is left wing, and stiffing troops is more left wing.

      The proximate cause of Shay’s rebellion was that Shay, and people like him, were owed money and they themselves owed money. They faced demands to pay their debts, but were unable to get what was owed to them paid. That there was deflation made it difficult for them to pay, and difficult to pay them.

      If their position had been “We can’t pay, we won’t pay”, that would have made it a left wing rebellion.

      Since their position was “We can’t pay until we are paid”, I would call that a procapitalist, and therefore right wing, rebellion. Lots of leftists favored soft money, but Shay was not in favor of being paid in soft money.

      The deflation was caused by a rush to hard currency. The rush to hard currency was caused by a loss of confidence that debts would be paid. The loss of confidence happened because Shay, and people like him, were not paid. The original sin that provoked the crisis was not capitalist exploitation or social injustice, it was failure to pay the troops.

      You just have to make payroll. Soldiers should be paid first, and if they are not paid first, really should entitled to rape, pillage, kill and burn in lieu of pay. It is disorderly when soldiers pay themselves, but it is also disorderly when soldiers are not paid.

      Inflating the currency was a proposed left wing solution to this problem. But inflating the currency would have meant paying Shay in worthless money, and making that worthless money legal tender for him to pay his debts with – which would, I think, still have been a less left wing solution than shafting Shay, though more left wing than actually paying him what he was rightly owed.

      A businessman always makes payroll before he makes any other payments. If you have to shaft someone, should not shaft employees, still less shaft soldiers. Cohesion is important. Stiffing the troops destroys social cohesion.

      A reasonable solution would have been to pay the troops with chits promising payment in hard money, soft money to be eventually redeemed in hard money, and make those chits legal tender for debts – semi stiffing both the soldiers, and those that the soldiers owed money to, while promising to pay in full in due course. Another reasonable solution would have been to designate particular areas and individuals responsible for paying particular soldiers and small groups of soldiers, and tell each soldier and small group of soldiers to help themselves if necessary, which solution results in feudalism, which should be more than right wing enough for anyone. Stiffing the troops was left wing. Resisting being stiffed was right wing.

      • josh says:

        I see where you are coming from , but weren’t the Cincinnati pro-order pro-heirarchy (at least relative to the D-Rs?) The Cincinnati stood for temporary dictatorship to reimpose order when necessary. This is why GW was accused of being a monarchist, and why Hamiliton referred to his enemies as Jacobins (they were. Wasn’t it Citizen Ganet who founded the first D-R clubs as insttuments of revolutionary propaganda?) I’m sticking with right of the left vs. left of the left. The real right had already moved to Canada.

        • jim says:

          Cincinnatus was celebrated for giving up power as soon as possible. He was not given power to restore order when necessary, but to lead Rome against its external enemies.

          It was Sulla that temporarily became dictator to restore order, and then resigned once order was restored. If they had called themselves the Sulla Society, we might not be in this mess.

          The point of the name (the Cincinnati) was that the military leaders submitted to badly behaved civilian authority, when they could have, and should have, insisted that their troops be paid. The point of the name was soldiers bowed to priests.

          And on day one, priests were badly behaved, and since then have been behaving worse and worse.

          Conversely, Shay’s rebellion was not a workers and peasant’s rebellion, it was not soft money rebellion, it was a soldiers rebellion demanding that soldiers should be paid, Shay’s rebellion was soldiers against priests.

          • josh says:

            Except the external enemies, in the eyes of the late 18th C Cincinnati, were the Jacobins who had infiltrated. This is why the Cincinnati had actually been active in staging the Constitutional coup, which was essentially, though not exclusively, a military coup. After he served, he went back to farming a la Cincinnatus. The trouble was, the Jacobins reemerged stronger than ever and the military order lost control of the Federalist party. The modern left traces more lineage back to the D-Rs than the Feds.

            After the collapse of the Feds following the war of 1812, the US was a one party Republican state. Their was a schism after Van Buren used some agitation about the Congressional caucus not being “Democratic” enough and some anti-freemasonry sentiment to take the Tamany system to the national level. Van Buren was, of course, the protege of Arron Burr.

      • guest says:

        That there was deflation made it difficult for them to pay, and difficult to pay them.

        The deflation was caused by a rush to hard currency. The rush to hard currency was caused by a loss of confidence that debts would be paid. The loss of confidence happened because Shay, and people like him, were not paid. The original sin that provoked the crisis was not capitalist exploitation or social injustice, it was failure to pay the troops.

        After the initial inflation, deflation of the fraudulent credit supply is inevitable (paper money is an IOU, debt, credit); Economic crashes are a consequence of massive amounts of malinvestments – malinvestments which can only be caused by artificial credit expansion.

        The original sin was inflation – a deviation away from hard currency. We’re SUPPOSED to lose confidence in an elastic currency, since prices in terms of a currency the supply of which keeps growing cannot be trusted.

        It wasn’t the money supply that was shrinking, but the fake credit supply. Paper isn’t money. Such a contraction is impossible under a hard currency (without legal tender laws).

        Wars are often funded by debased currency. Soldiers who are paid in debased currency will be ripped off. It’s a foregone conclusion. It’s inherent to the intended purpose of fiat/paper money, which is based on bad economic thinking.

        The following videos are short, if I may suggest them for review. The first talks about debased currency as the engine of big government (19 minutes), the second talks about why there’s nothing wrong with deflation (7 minutes):

        War and the Fed | Lew Rockwell
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9lS5k7H5M

        Neoconservative David Frum Hearts the Fed
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d1rcaX-lzU

        I haven’t read much about Shays’ Rebellion, but I thought this article by Gary North might be an interesting read, since he sees the rebellion as a tax issue, rather than a debt issue:

        John Hancock’s Big Toe and the Constitution
        http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north247.html

        Shays’ Rebellion was an armed resistance movement of about 4,000 men in western Massachusetts. Contrary to reports from the anti-Shays faction in 1787, and contrary to historians’ accounts ever since, it was not a revolt of impoverished, indebted rural radicals. It included men of all economic classes. Many of them were veterans of the American Revolution, including Daniel Shays, who served from the battle of Bunker (Breed’s) Hill onward, and was a distinguished officer who worked his way up from the ranks to captain. Lafayette awarded him a sword for his valor. These men revolted against a group of speculators who had recently gained control of the governor’s office.

        For over two centuries, Americans did not know the truth. Then, in one of those fluke events that every historian dreams about, Professor Richards of the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) stumbled onto a fact that no previous historian had bothered to investigate. After the defeat of the rebels, the state required each of them to sign a loyalty oath. Unlike previous political rebellions, there were archival records of those who had participated. These records were right under Prof. Richards’ nose, yet it took several months for him to learn that they were actually in his own university’s library: on microfilm. He then made a detailed investigation of the participants: the towns they lived in, their family connections, their debt position in 1786, and their political offices, if any. What he learned enabled him to re-write the story of Shays’ rebellion. It was not a revolt of indebted farmers. It was a tax revolt.

        • josh says:

          Its an interesting article and probably is correct about the cause of the uprising. What I object to, however, is his dismissal of Knox’s impressions of the creed of the rebels. The author’s take is that Knox, is not just giving a biased impression, but is a big fat liar completely making things up.

          The author asserts that “there was no connection to Rhode Island”. He knows this how? He completely dismisses Knox impression of the rebels as in favor of communal property. Again, why? He wants to ignore the relationship between America’s libertarian and communitarian traditions. He wants to put them at odds with each other on all occasions, so that he can maintain the statist vs. anti-statist view of history, when they actually lived side by side.

          If the idea of proto-anarcho-communists in Western Massachusetts is surprising, you don’t know much about Western Massachusetts.

          One more thing; he presents as evidence that these men were not radicals, the fact that Shays fought at Breeds Hill. Who does he think the original pre-Washington “army” was composed of. Radical followers of the radical demagogues Adams and Hancock. That Shays participated in these early skirmishes only demonstrates that he was deeply radical, which is why it shouldn’t surprise us that he led an uprising of radicals.

          • guest says:

            I really do not know much about Western Massachusetts or Shays’ Rebellion.

            I know that Gary North would not be opposed to anarcho-communism, so long as everyone is voluntarily participating. He’s an Austrian Economist, so he believes in the Non-Aggression Principle (Anti initiation of force, but pro defensive force).

            What if he was simply applying Occam’s Razor: If the oppressive taxes were sufficient to cause the rebellion, and if the militia was standing down in support of the rebels, then why appeal to Rhode Island or the supposed threat of communist radicals?:

            The state of Massachusetts was in a position to suppress the rebellion, assuming that the militia would respond to the call. The fact was, the handful of speculators close to the governor could not persuade the legislature to fund the counter-attack, nor could local officers persuade militia members to respond to the call to arms. This was a grass-roots rebellion, as surely as the American war for independence had been, and with far better cause.

            • jim says:

              “Anarcho” communists have a nonstandard definition of “voluntary”, as becomes apparent whenever one discusses Catalonia with them.

              To an “anarcho” communist “voluntary” means that they round up the masses at gunpoint, and announce to them a glorious new era of liberty, and a general plan. With the guns still trained on the masses, the communists call for a unanimous vote for the general plan. The masses unanimously vote for the general plan by acclaim, not withstanding the fact that they are not told what is in it, and at this point little if anything has actually been planned. Then, whatever commands are subsequently issued to implement the general plan, the masses “volunteered” for those commands.

          • josh says:

            Because Henry Knox isn’t *just* a big fat liar making up *completely* random lies.

          • guest says:

            Perhaps this article will shed some more light. I originally got the above article from a link in an article that was designed to respond to Ellen Brown’s claims about Shays’ Rebellion.

            Here is that article:

            Historical Error #31: Shays’s Rebellion (1786-87) Took Place After the Constitution Was Ratified in 1788.
            http://www.garynorth.com/public/7023.cfm

            The rebellion in Massachusetts did not lead to rioting in the streets. It led to organized militia resistance, town by town. It had nothing to do with the contraction of the money supply. It had to do with the decision of the state government to tax the towns in silver instead of the paper money currency that had long been circulating. This was done in order to pay investors in depreciated state Revolutionary IOUs. Interest would henceforth be paid in silver.

            The legislature was run that year by men who had an vested in these highly discounted bonds, and who were trying to make a fortune by forcing the taxpayers to provide the silver to pay off the bonds at face value. Local governments revolted.

            This political resistance was based on a late change in the rules. The towns had not previously been required to pay taxes in silver. So, there was political resistance, not to a shrinking of the money supply, but to a new law that required the payment of property taxes in high-value silver.

            • jim says:

              Leftists are always rewriting history to make the state non left, and rebellious anti state forces left, much as the Communists claimed that the liquidation of the kulacks was a peasant uprising against rich peasants, rather than the state attacking the peasantry. The state is the left and the left is the state.

              Shay was a farmhand in civilian life. He had no assets that were taxable or likely to be foreclosed upon.

              His major opponent was Luke Shephard, who did have land, and did have to pay tax, and pay it in silver, because Luke’s land could be foreclosed upon.

              If you stiff troops, you get rebellion, so I discount all other stories about Shay’s rebellion.

              If it was about silver and foreclosure etc, it would have been Luke’s rebellion, not Shay’s rebellion. People rebelled or not depending on how important military back pay was to them, not how important land taxes and foreclosures were to them.

              A rebellion in favor of soft money is a left wing rebellion. A rebellion in favor of paying troops their due is a right wing rebellion. So I would classify Shay’s rebellion as a right wing rebellion, because it was Shay’s rebellion, and Shay was totally unaffected by foreclosures and paying land taxes in silver.

              Soft money is always what the state wants. It is never what oppressed workers and peasants want. So a history that tells us that Shay’s rebellion was a rebellion in favor of soft money is unlikely to be true. There are no left wing rebellions, so the state manufactures the appearance of them, for example “occupy wall street”, and rewrites right wing rebellions as left wing rebellions.

              Seems to me that people said to themselves “Well, Shay was a proletarian, and Luke was a gentleman, so Shay must have had a left wing cause.” I don’t think so. The leftists are mostly members of the elite, and always have been. Left versus right has always been elite versus elite, though leftists from time to time invoke the masses as mascots.

          • guest says:

            Jim,

            Thank you for the extra information. I’ll look into it.

            It wasn’t about soft money advocacy, as I understand. It was about the state trying to force those who had been forced to accept payment in fiat money (to later be redeemable in silver) to give up their silver – so that holders of the bonds could be paid in a currency that didn’t depreciate:

            The legislature was run that year by men who had an vested in these highly discounted bonds, and who were trying to make a fortune by forcing the taxpayers to provide the silver to pay off the bonds at face value. Local governments revolted.

            So, the soldiers were forced to accept an IOU (paper money), but then the state wanted to confiscate their silver.

            Are you sure Shay didn’t have property that the state was taxing through property taxes? (Not that property taxes are OK.)

            And would you need to be immediately affected, if you nevertheless wanted the freedom to pursue such property? Maybe Shay saw the writing on the wall, as it were.

            Speculation on my part. You’ve given me something to consider.

            • jim says:

              Shay is identified as a farmhand in civilian life. Taxes were on property. Property holders felt that taxes should be levied on trade – a townies versus country dispute.

              At one point, Shay had control of Western Massachusets, but was short on heavy weapons. He planned to seize the federal armory. Luke intercepted Shay’s communications, and in consequence, Luke knew of the attack on the armory, seized the armory first, and, by muddying Shay’s messages, made sure that Shay’s forces would arrive at the armory at uncoordinated times. Shay therefore suffered devastating defeat at the armory, and that was that.

              But suppose that Shay had more successfully managed command and control. Then the result would have been a military dictatorship over Massachusetts based on soldiers to whom back pay was owed. That sounds to me like a right wing outcome, even though it is perfectly true that lots of other issues were in play.

          • guest says:

            Then the result would have been a military dictatorship over Massachusetts based on soldiers to whom back pay was owed. That sounds to me like a right wing outcome, even though it is perfectly true that lots of other issues were in play.

            In case you were wondering, it’s the effect that monetary theory had on the economics of the time which interest me most.

            This is the reason why I disagree with the deflation aspect of your understanding. My intent is to defend sound money (there was no “Long Depression” in the late 1800s, by the way).

            I recently came across a video (timestamped, short) in which Tom Woods talks a little bit about Shays’s Rebellion, if anyone is interested:

            EXCLUSIVE: Tom Woods Visits Chicago
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-riszLylkCg#t=24m10s

            I’ll see if he talks about it, in greater depth, among a set of other videos he did about American history, and provide that if it’s available.

  2. Tom says:

    The beginning of the end came a long time back. This is the end of the beginning.

  3. fnn says:

    OK, why are the Asians voting with the gimmiedats?

    74-25
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/11/national-exit-poll-asian-vote-74-25-for.html

    I won’t even bring up the Jews.

    • jim says:

      That is “Asians and pacific islanders”. I would like to see the figures for Asian type Asians. I think they skew left, but would be surprised if they skew that far left. Pacific islanders vote like blacks, for very similar reasons to blacks.

      Most people who vote Obama are voting their economic interest: Obama’s policy is in large part a transfer to sluts, blacks, and mestizos. It is also a transfer to the non productive elites – school administrators and suchlike. School administrators now massively outnumber actual school teachers, and are generally recruited on the basis of left wing ideology. To the extent that Asians are voting left, they are not voting their economic interest, but some members of the elite are voting their economic interest. I don’t have any data as to what extent Jews are voting their economic interest. I don’t seem to see many Asians in government jobs for progressives, though I don’t have any data on this.

      You can get racial breakdowns on government employment, but I have not done so. I would appreciate it if one of my commenters found it. I think you would find disproportionate employment of “Asians and Pacific Islanders” – mostly being Pacific Islanders.

      Progressive Jews, most Jews, are progressive to get into the establishment, so they tend to hope for establishment jobs. Obama is awarding lots of establishment jobs to progressives, though I have no data to what extent these are going to Jews.

      Sluts, however, are a far bigger voting block than Jews.

    • zimriel says:

      Asians see themselves as non-white and crave the status of elite whites. Republicans are the White Party. The GOP can never be other than the White Party. Another party that offers Asians status, independently of the Democrats, will have to replace the GOP.

      One possibility is that Obama seeks a third term (post 2014 election or else through a sock puppet); if so, we could see a “Whig Party” aligned against Obama and his base. Asians and Hispanics might sign up for that one.

      But if the Republicans are still around in 2016 they will lose the general election again.

      • jim says:

        Possibly, but the data is misleading in that it combines white Hispanics with mestizos, making mestizos appear less left wing than they really are, and Asians with pacific islanders, making Asians appear more left wing than they really are.

      • Johnny Caustic says:

        Zimriel,

        The notion of lazy sock puppet Obama having a sock puppet of his own makes no sense.

        Now if you had said “Valerie Jarrett seeks a third term through a second sock puppet,” then I’m with you.

      • Bill says:

        This is backwards. GOP’s problem, race-wise, is not that they are the white party but that they are ashamed of being the white party. Most mestizos self-identify as white. A GOP which said “We are the white party. Whites are awesome. Wake me up when Zimbabwe puts a man on the moon.” would do a lot better with Hispanics than the current GOP does. Probably better with Asians, too. All seven of the Jews who vote for them would leave, though.

        • jim says:

          The Democrat strategy is to get the whiter Hispanics (and, as you say, every Hispanic thinks he is a whiter Hispanic) to identify as non white. The Cathedral provides very substantial advantages, overwhelming advantages, to identifying as non white, even if you are blue eyed and blond haired.

          So you cannot get there from here. To get Hispanics to identify white, need to first end affirmative action. To end affirmative action, need to win on racial grounds. To win on racial grounds, need to first end affirmative action.

          So you cannot get there from here by democratic means.

          • Bill says:

            I think there is a lot of truth to that. By accident or design, the Rs have left it too late to get rid of AA. Unless someone or sometwo on the Supreme Court has a conversion experience on AA and decides it is unconstitutional, the Rs are probably cooked in the intermediate term.

      • jim says:

        Democratic elections are coalitional and tribal. Whites in the US face the same fate as Chinese in Indonesia, Tutsi in Rwanda, Coastal blacks on the Ivory Coast. The problems is not that blacks are bad, they are only ten percent of the voters, the problem is not that non whites are bad, the problem is that the end state of democracy is that you build a coalition to rob the other coalition, and the easiest basis to build such a coalition is religious and tribal.

  4. red says:

    I’ve been thinking that the only solution to the problem is giving the elites a trial, then lining them up before a firing squad. Every half measure just allows them to re-emerge 30-40 years later in a new guise.

    Do religious elites survive to rule again once the system they’ve created totally collapses? I don’t have any historical data on it and our rulers seem to believe they will rule no mater what happens. I know that the roman elites were wiped out almost to a man in the west.

    • jim says:

      Gratifying though that would be, Sulla tried it and it did not work.

      Monck was more successful. He killed only a handful, and purged only a small minority from the organs of the state. His fix worked beautifully from the restoration in 1660 to the crowning of Queen Victoria in 1837, maybe till the crowning of Queen Victoria as empress in 1876.

      But, under the institutions purged by Monck, if you wanted to get ahead, excessive holiness or religious purity was a bad career move. To get into the respectable universities, or to be a member of parliament, you had to be an Anglican, which is to say, officially subscribe to the official ideology. This is less restrictive than it seems, for Anglicans were allowed to believe pretty much anything about the next world that they wanted, but were required to adhere to the book of common prayer, which was pretty conservative. For example no coveting, no adultery, wife must submit, etc.

      The rich man in his castle
      The poor man at his gate
      God made them high or lowly
      And ordered their estate.

      The King was head of the official church, and it was not a good career move to be holier than the King. If a priest made a big drama that the priest was holier than the King, the King did not cut off that priests head. The King inflicted a punishment far more cruel than mere head removal: The King was mildly amused at the priest.

      Being holier than thou was treated with worse than persecution and mass murder: It was made into a bad career move and low status.

  5. PR says:

    What’s the best way to be a producer and a gimmiedat at the same time? Does anyone have a map for collecting bennies while earning a solid salary? It’s gotta be possible….

    • josh says:

      Sell heroin or be a local black politician in a place SWPLs don’t actually want to live, Houston or Atlanta maybe. Good luck to you.

Leave a Reply