Monday, June 27, 2011
In case you hadn't realized....
I moved this blog over to WordPress, because I have problems creating links and posting videos in Blogger. It's now at deconstructingleftism.wordpress.com. I hope to see you there.
OneSTDV: Reflections on Carter Strange Attack and the N-Word
OneSTDV: Reflections on Carter Strange Attack and the N-Word: "http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/06/hordes_of_unruly_teens_shut_do.html"
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Conservatives and constitutionalism
Conservatives love to say we have to get back to the Constitution and all our problems will be solved. The Constitution is instead the cause of most of our problems.
Consider, if you will, the Dred Scott decision. The North didn't want slavery there or expanded to the West but didn't really care that it continued in the South. The problem with slaves is that they are a naturally increasing asset- being living creatures they produce offspring, which is a great way of increasing your wealth, but the resulting persons must be put to work somehow, somewhere- you can establish new plantations and have them work there, or you can sell them to an entrepreneurial planter who will establish a new plantation and put them to work.
The land devoted to cultivation under slavery must increase with the slave population. A slave you can't work still must be fed and will quickly destroy your profits.
The South then wanted to open Western lands to slave cultivation. The Northerners wanted to expand their own economic system and culture into this area, based on owner family farming.
The long, ugly, and angry story of all this eventually came to a legal and constitutional end. With the Civil War, you say? No, not at all. The Dred Scott decision made it a final decision, of the unappealable law of the land, that slavery would be established in the Western territories.
Slavery is, you see, "constitutional." The concept of the Supreme Court as the final and unquestionable authority on the law of the land had been established for over 50 years, by of course John Marshall in Marbury vs. Madison.
I looked up John Marshall and was a bit surprised, although I should not have been, to find he was very much the product of English feudalism. His father, and he after him, were clients of Lord Fairfax, who functioned as an English lord in the Virginia colony. John Marshall is a great hero of liberals; he and his enthronement of judicial review are one of the great stories of liberalism taught in American schools.
The North was then placed in a very difficult position. It was widely expected- not unreasonably- that Roger Taney would soon declare slavery to be constitutional in every state. Even its expansion in the West would destroy the dream of New England, the Midwest, and the old Northwest- a nation of freeholders. Such a nation didn't exist anywhere at that time.
Stephen Douglas and the northern Democrats tried to downplay this- they said slavery couldn't be successfully established against the will of the people if the people refused to establish or enforce laws for its maintenance. The alternative was of course worse, and what was going on in Kansas- Southern vigilantes coming in to force slavery on the population.
The Civil War was, then, as the Southerners of the time correctly perceived, a revolt against and for purposes of overthrowing the Constitution. The love affair that liberals have with the Constitution, judicial review and an activist federal judiciary only dates to about the 40's, by which time they had taken over the academic culture and thus the judicial culture.
The bottom line is the Constitution means, and says, whatever the people who run things want it to mean and say. The idea that we don't currently live under a Constitutional regime and if judges would only apply the Constitution we would be free is outdated. Was it true at some time in the past? Not really. Roger Taney was no socialist- he was one of the worst human beings ever to live, and certainly the worst who was not a communist, but he was a very respected legal scholar and a traditional man of property. John Marshall might be thought of as a Roman patrician- a man who believed in the law, as long as it kept the people in power in power.
Consider, if you will, the Dred Scott decision. The North didn't want slavery there or expanded to the West but didn't really care that it continued in the South. The problem with slaves is that they are a naturally increasing asset- being living creatures they produce offspring, which is a great way of increasing your wealth, but the resulting persons must be put to work somehow, somewhere- you can establish new plantations and have them work there, or you can sell them to an entrepreneurial planter who will establish a new plantation and put them to work.
The land devoted to cultivation under slavery must increase with the slave population. A slave you can't work still must be fed and will quickly destroy your profits.
The South then wanted to open Western lands to slave cultivation. The Northerners wanted to expand their own economic system and culture into this area, based on owner family farming.
The long, ugly, and angry story of all this eventually came to a legal and constitutional end. With the Civil War, you say? No, not at all. The Dred Scott decision made it a final decision, of the unappealable law of the land, that slavery would be established in the Western territories.
Slavery is, you see, "constitutional." The concept of the Supreme Court as the final and unquestionable authority on the law of the land had been established for over 50 years, by of course John Marshall in Marbury vs. Madison.
I looked up John Marshall and was a bit surprised, although I should not have been, to find he was very much the product of English feudalism. His father, and he after him, were clients of Lord Fairfax, who functioned as an English lord in the Virginia colony. John Marshall is a great hero of liberals; he and his enthronement of judicial review are one of the great stories of liberalism taught in American schools.
The North was then placed in a very difficult position. It was widely expected- not unreasonably- that Roger Taney would soon declare slavery to be constitutional in every state. Even its expansion in the West would destroy the dream of New England, the Midwest, and the old Northwest- a nation of freeholders. Such a nation didn't exist anywhere at that time.
Stephen Douglas and the northern Democrats tried to downplay this- they said slavery couldn't be successfully established against the will of the people if the people refused to establish or enforce laws for its maintenance. The alternative was of course worse, and what was going on in Kansas- Southern vigilantes coming in to force slavery on the population.
The Civil War was, then, as the Southerners of the time correctly perceived, a revolt against and for purposes of overthrowing the Constitution. The love affair that liberals have with the Constitution, judicial review and an activist federal judiciary only dates to about the 40's, by which time they had taken over the academic culture and thus the judicial culture.
The bottom line is the Constitution means, and says, whatever the people who run things want it to mean and say. The idea that we don't currently live under a Constitutional regime and if judges would only apply the Constitution we would be free is outdated. Was it true at some time in the past? Not really. Roger Taney was no socialist- he was one of the worst human beings ever to live, and certainly the worst who was not a communist, but he was a very respected legal scholar and a traditional man of property. John Marshall might be thought of as a Roman patrician- a man who believed in the law, as long as it kept the people in power in power.
O, Canada!
I made a short visit to Canada. There is plenty bad said about Canada, all of it true- the snide self-satisfaction of Canadians, the lack of free speech, the crappy government medical care- but all the same it's a nice place. Clean and friendly.
In all the talk of the worldwide fiscal meltdown it's sometimes mentioned Canada had trouble in the 90's and made significant cuts in spending. This is always spun in a liberal way- a liberal government is more trusted to make cuts- but whatever the case it makes it unique among Western social democracies.
Canada is like the US in that it never had the social cataclysms of the 20th century involving communism and nazism, and didn't develop a large welfare system to dampen any possibility of revolution from the left or right. As a British colony it was more comfortable with private property and free markets. It never had a lot of industry and avoided the labor unrest and associated tendency toward socializing the economy.
But I think that if there is one big advantage that Canada has it is that it's substantially white. The east Asian immigrants are middle class. The Islamic immigrants are middle class, certainly hostile to their host but without the intensity of the lower class Moslems in Europe.
Canada still doesn't have and probably won't have massive Third World immigration and this will keep it in much better shape than the US, Europe, and Australia- New Zealand also should remain white. If the cold keeps out the riffraff, maybe it's worth getting the Carhartts.
In all the talk of the worldwide fiscal meltdown it's sometimes mentioned Canada had trouble in the 90's and made significant cuts in spending. This is always spun in a liberal way- a liberal government is more trusted to make cuts- but whatever the case it makes it unique among Western social democracies.
Canada is like the US in that it never had the social cataclysms of the 20th century involving communism and nazism, and didn't develop a large welfare system to dampen any possibility of revolution from the left or right. As a British colony it was more comfortable with private property and free markets. It never had a lot of industry and avoided the labor unrest and associated tendency toward socializing the economy.
But I think that if there is one big advantage that Canada has it is that it's substantially white. The east Asian immigrants are middle class. The Islamic immigrants are middle class, certainly hostile to their host but without the intensity of the lower class Moslems in Europe.
Canada still doesn't have and probably won't have massive Third World immigration and this will keep it in much better shape than the US, Europe, and Australia- New Zealand also should remain white. If the cold keeps out the riffraff, maybe it's worth getting the Carhartts.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Elmer Fudd And My New Mnemonic Of Politics
Guy White (a Jewish HBD blogger, guywhite.wordpress.com) takes a shot at Charles Schumer-
"I hate Schumer. His ideology is everything I am opposed to. (Incidentally, he agrees more than he disagrees with neo-Nazis: opposes free trade and free market, supports abortion.)"
http://guywhite.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/schumer-set-to-become-majority-leader
This of course just illustrates the parallels between white socialists and- what do I want to call them? Regular socialists? Socialists historically classified under that label? Left socialists seems best, since that is their place on the traditional political taxonomy.
So we have white socialists and left socialists. White and left. Which sounds like right and left, as said by Elmer Fudd! Perfectly appropriate, because most of what is called "right" in our day to day political discussion is actually just white socialism.
To keep your head clear when thinking about politics, remember Elmer Fudd. For "right and left" immediately substitute "white and left" and see if that isn't more accurate. Usually it will be.
"I hate Schumer. His ideology is everything I am opposed to. (Incidentally, he agrees more than he disagrees with neo-Nazis: opposes free trade and free market, supports abortion.)"
http://guywhite.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/schumer-set-to-become-majority-leader
This of course just illustrates the parallels between white socialists and- what do I want to call them? Regular socialists? Socialists historically classified under that label? Left socialists seems best, since that is their place on the traditional political taxonomy.
So we have white socialists and left socialists. White and left. Which sounds like right and left, as said by Elmer Fudd! Perfectly appropriate, because most of what is called "right" in our day to day political discussion is actually just white socialism.
To keep your head clear when thinking about politics, remember Elmer Fudd. For "right and left" immediately substitute "white and left" and see if that isn't more accurate. Usually it will be.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Philadelphia Phil
Mangan has an interesting quote on his blog-
"I ceased in the year 1764 to believe that one can convince one's opponents with arguments printed in books. It is not to do that, therefore, that I have taken up my pen, but merely so as to annoy them, and to bestow strength and courage on those on our own side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us." - Lichtenberg
Herr Lichtenberg was a bit of a cynic, although undeniably a realistic one. I can't even muster his reduced level of hope. Not only can't we convince our adversaries, we can hardly convince our friends. I would like to find a way to alter the system; I will settle for some useful analysis of it, so that some form of alteration may become apparent later.
And still we must argue, for the reasons Lichtenberg stated. The system works more than anyway else by getting people to shut up. There can be no other explanation for people who offer so many insults and so few arguments. And the system is remarkably effective at this. On some subjects, such as race and public affirmation of homosexuality, they have been so effective they can mostly let the subject drop, with only the occasional maintenance "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" On others, like the current criticism of the Obama administration, more aggressive measures must be taken.
Essentially the degree to which they feel they have matters in hand is directly proportionate to the frequency and hysteria with which they demand that people "SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
It's important to know they don't have everybody intimidated. Irritating them keeps them off balance and absorbs some of their resources, although their resources are almost unlimited. And it gives the silent a little bit of strength, to know they are not alone, if only to use the "n" word in a conversation with a friend or vote Republican.
Philadelphia Phil is a character in a movie titled "Big Fan", directed by the guy who wrote "The Wrestler" and featuring comedian Patton Oswalt as an obsessive New York Giants fan who calls into a sports talk show every night to argue the virtues of his team. Phil is a Philadelphia Eagles fan who calls into the same show for no other reason than to provoke and annoy Giants fans. He succeeds in getting under the man's skin, a little too well as it turns out. But there is something to be said for just pissing people off.
"I ceased in the year 1764 to believe that one can convince one's opponents with arguments printed in books. It is not to do that, therefore, that I have taken up my pen, but merely so as to annoy them, and to bestow strength and courage on those on our own side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us." - Lichtenberg
Herr Lichtenberg was a bit of a cynic, although undeniably a realistic one. I can't even muster his reduced level of hope. Not only can't we convince our adversaries, we can hardly convince our friends. I would like to find a way to alter the system; I will settle for some useful analysis of it, so that some form of alteration may become apparent later.
And still we must argue, for the reasons Lichtenberg stated. The system works more than anyway else by getting people to shut up. There can be no other explanation for people who offer so many insults and so few arguments. And the system is remarkably effective at this. On some subjects, such as race and public affirmation of homosexuality, they have been so effective they can mostly let the subject drop, with only the occasional maintenance "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" On others, like the current criticism of the Obama administration, more aggressive measures must be taken.
Essentially the degree to which they feel they have matters in hand is directly proportionate to the frequency and hysteria with which they demand that people "SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
It's important to know they don't have everybody intimidated. Irritating them keeps them off balance and absorbs some of their resources, although their resources are almost unlimited. And it gives the silent a little bit of strength, to know they are not alone, if only to use the "n" word in a conversation with a friend or vote Republican.
Philadelphia Phil is a character in a movie titled "Big Fan", directed by the guy who wrote "The Wrestler" and featuring comedian Patton Oswalt as an obsessive New York Giants fan who calls into a sports talk show every night to argue the virtues of his team. Phil is a Philadelphia Eagles fan who calls into the same show for no other reason than to provoke and annoy Giants fans. He succeeds in getting under the man's skin, a little too well as it turns out. But there is something to be said for just pissing people off.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Again- There Is No Such Thing As "White People"
I came across this Moldbug classic in Mangan's current post, and read it again-
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist.html
Usually Moldbug steps back too far and loses a certain amount of perspective from this. Here he misses something, simply out of lack of familiarity, although I'm the only person who really recognizes this.
His taxonomy of white people recognizes three groups- Brahmins (the master culture, as I call it, that runs the system), Optimates (the old elite) and Vaisyas, or what is usually thought of as traditionalist whites of the middle and working classes.
What he doesn't see is that Vaisyas are further divided, into at least two groups, possibly three or more.
More than one VDare contributor would say, that because my ancestors come from Scandanavia and western Ireland, rather than Great Britain, including the English-occupied northern part of Ireland, I am not a real American. The Old Americans can be thought of as being English, Scottish, Dutch, and some Germans. Of all these groups only the Scots, or the abominably termed "Scotch-Irish" of the highland South are not close to the establishment- and not even all of them as I'll point out.
So the primary group of American nationalists- the term "white nationalist" is too perjorative, and really applies to different groups- are what I'll call the Highlanders. I knew a lot of these people in the military. I'll be honest that from a social standpoint I didn't much care for them, and truthfully they didn't much care for me either. If I was going to engage in a healthy, manly, improving activity such as slicing up Communists, I would likely enjoy myself more in the company of a Spaniard or a German, cultures with real records of slicing and dicing. The Scots haven't done anything in the world other than as stooges of the English.
An important element of American nationalism is overseas intervention. As Patton said, all real Americans love to fight. And a real American doesn't need too much justification for kicking somebody's ass, any more than he needs an excuse to ride a motorcycle on a sunny day. Some things are their own rewards. The Highlanders however reject this. They think we are no better than what ever brown people we are currently roughing up and have no right to tell them what to do. That's as weak as an alcohol-free fraternity.
The Highlanders are also rather attached to the system through white socialism. I read years ago about a black man killed in a white area in Vidor, Texas. The white area was a public housing complex inhabited only by white people; the area apparently had public housing for blacks but this man was desegregating the white housing. Now, isn't public housing for white people just retarded? I mean, just by living in public housing you cease to be white. A poor white person might live in a trailer or a shack, he might sleep under a bridge or in a refrigerator box, but he would not live in public housing without losing his status as a white person. But the New Deal is full of stuff for people like this. Highlanders would like socialism for whites only but the only way to get it is to make a deal including minorities so they do it.
We see an unbridgeable gap between these people and the dreaded "neoconservatives", which has somehow come to be applied to mainstream conservatives of the Reagan-Goldwater variety.
So looking at Moldbug's Vaisyas, we see further rifts, maybe deeper than even the others. But when has it not been so? Why didn't the Gauls or Germans unite against the Romans? Because then there were no Gauls or Germans. They thought of themselves by their own tribes, not by generalized terms applied later by historians.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist.html
Usually Moldbug steps back too far and loses a certain amount of perspective from this. Here he misses something, simply out of lack of familiarity, although I'm the only person who really recognizes this.
His taxonomy of white people recognizes three groups- Brahmins (the master culture, as I call it, that runs the system), Optimates (the old elite) and Vaisyas, or what is usually thought of as traditionalist whites of the middle and working classes.
What he doesn't see is that Vaisyas are further divided, into at least two groups, possibly three or more.
More than one VDare contributor would say, that because my ancestors come from Scandanavia and western Ireland, rather than Great Britain, including the English-occupied northern part of Ireland, I am not a real American. The Old Americans can be thought of as being English, Scottish, Dutch, and some Germans. Of all these groups only the Scots, or the abominably termed "Scotch-Irish" of the highland South are not close to the establishment- and not even all of them as I'll point out.
So the primary group of American nationalists- the term "white nationalist" is too perjorative, and really applies to different groups- are what I'll call the Highlanders. I knew a lot of these people in the military. I'll be honest that from a social standpoint I didn't much care for them, and truthfully they didn't much care for me either. If I was going to engage in a healthy, manly, improving activity such as slicing up Communists, I would likely enjoy myself more in the company of a Spaniard or a German, cultures with real records of slicing and dicing. The Scots haven't done anything in the world other than as stooges of the English.
An important element of American nationalism is overseas intervention. As Patton said, all real Americans love to fight. And a real American doesn't need too much justification for kicking somebody's ass, any more than he needs an excuse to ride a motorcycle on a sunny day. Some things are their own rewards. The Highlanders however reject this. They think we are no better than what ever brown people we are currently roughing up and have no right to tell them what to do. That's as weak as an alcohol-free fraternity.
The Highlanders are also rather attached to the system through white socialism. I read years ago about a black man killed in a white area in Vidor, Texas. The white area was a public housing complex inhabited only by white people; the area apparently had public housing for blacks but this man was desegregating the white housing. Now, isn't public housing for white people just retarded? I mean, just by living in public housing you cease to be white. A poor white person might live in a trailer or a shack, he might sleep under a bridge or in a refrigerator box, but he would not live in public housing without losing his status as a white person. But the New Deal is full of stuff for people like this. Highlanders would like socialism for whites only but the only way to get it is to make a deal including minorities so they do it.
We see an unbridgeable gap between these people and the dreaded "neoconservatives", which has somehow come to be applied to mainstream conservatives of the Reagan-Goldwater variety.
So looking at Moldbug's Vaisyas, we see further rifts, maybe deeper than even the others. But when has it not been so? Why didn't the Gauls or Germans unite against the Romans? Because then there were no Gauls or Germans. They thought of themselves by their own tribes, not by generalized terms applied later by historians.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Groan (again) I Knew This Would Happen
We have recently witnessed the spitting and roasting of Rand Paul for his timid, qualified disagreements with some aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He has quickly backed off those, and gone silent, but of course he's still a racist! RACIST!
Nonetheless the left finds things to cheer about with Rand Paul, specifically his foreign policy and defense ideas:
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/203286/can-rand-paul-revive-conservative-foreign-policy
Again we find the far "right" and the left sitting together under the apple tree, holding hands and gazing deeply into each other's eyes.
Nonetheless the left finds things to cheer about with Rand Paul, specifically his foreign policy and defense ideas:
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/203286/can-rand-paul-revive-conservative-foreign-policy
Again we find the far "right" and the left sitting together under the apple tree, holding hands and gazing deeply into each other's eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
