- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- October 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- October 2007
- September 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- September 2006
- July 2006
Fred Phelps has died. The gays are dancing in the streets. Besides being religiously conservative he was a racial liberal, a civil rights attorney honored by the NAACP for his assistance to black clients. That’s considered very weird today, but until recently white liberals were repelled by sexual perversion and most black people still are.
Phelps had good reason to hate gays, as I wrote in my religion blog awhile back. Gays, supported by the good liberals of Topeka were unwilling to take action against child sexual abuse occurring openly in public. Let’s not kid ourselves. A great many gays, maybe a majority deep down, don’t make the same distinctions about children and adults that are a crucial basis for some kind of functional sexual morality. Whatever adults may do, kids are off-limits, that’s a sort of truce between formal morality and libertinism. But simply trying to enforce this Phelps got rebuked.
Not wanting your grandchildren to be solicited in a public park by homosexuals does not make you an evil homophobe. Or actually, yes it does. It wasn’t that homosexuals wouldn’t recognize this boundary, it was that the entire legal, political and religious establishment of Topeka, Kansas wouldn’t recognize it. And this was over twenty years ago, before the last two decades of gay propaganda.
Gays are very powerful, and probably have been for a long time. They help each other and probably once formed a very strong secret network, which is now pretty much public. You would think perverts hanging out in park restrooms looking for sex with children would be hobos, bums or lowlife freaks, but that may have been a hobby of a few respectable businessmen and ministers…… If our country is controlled by these people, we can’t much help it. But the fact no church in Topeka- in 1991- was willing to stand up to these people, no matter how futilely, shows that Phelps was probably right. America is doomed. Fighting for America is fighting for pederasty, on some level.
I recently wrote about the old American organizing philosophy of “Americanism”, which called for the non-ethnic, non-racial, and non-religious unification of Americans in service of the greater interests of the nation, very broadly defined as including various wars and military operations overseas and major social reorganization at home.
Something to understand about Americanism was that it didn’t actually put all ethnic and religious groups on the same footing- it was implicitly understood that America was based on English political principles organized originally by English people, and while all were welcome, the newcomers were under obligation to conform to a deracinated version of this. Newcomers could take pride in being accepted into the nation, and the old Americans could take pride it was their culture it was based on. The joining together of things that are not actually the same is shown in the Americanist coining of the term “Judeo-Christian”.
I’m going to call this “pseudo-nationalism”- a system that recruits the passion and pride of nationalism by giving some credit or at least paying lip service to traditionalists, without actually offering them the benefits of nationalism. America is the most obvious pseudo-nationalist entity. Empires that call themselves empires don’t need to engage in this obfuscation, because they can offer their citizens the benefits of nationalism at home and if they can’t make it at home or want to increase their status, they can go abroad for jobs as imperialists.
Russia however also qualifies as a pseudo-nationalist entity. Russian expansion over the centuries has meant incorporating non-Russian, non-Orthodox people into the Russian empire. Russians had a primary place in this empire as soldiers and administrators, but it was not really run for their benefit.
The Bolsheviks took over this system, but Russian nationalism wasn’t of any interest to them, in fact it was the sort of thing they were trying to wipe out. World War II changed this. A sense of Russian nationalism was helpful for fighting the Germans.
Viktor Suvorov, in one of his books, commented that economic well-being in the USSR was proportional to assumed political reliability- inversely proportional, the opposite of what you might think. He said the Central Asians were the best off, then the Ukrainians, and worst off the Russians. The Russians were allowed to dine off the idea that they were bosses of all this.
Putin is deeply loved by traditionalists, who seem to mostly regard him as the white knight against sinister foreign forces in the Ukraine. But Putin has just revived Russian pseudo-nationalism as policy. It’s a good policy- the US rose to hyperpower status as a pseudo-nationalist entity. Putin shows respect to the Orthodox at home, but real Russian nationalists who oppose Moslem crime in Moscow get harsh treatment.
The Ukrainian uprising seems to represent a split between West and East that goes back a long way. The Right Sector describes their conquest as a “Reconquista”, although I don’t know how the translation works on that. The protestors had Crusader crosses on their shields, and more pointedly one had made a helmet of the pepper-pot style preferred by the Teutonic Knights. According to Sailer one of the big Russian Ukrainian oligarchs is a Moslem, so there may be a lot of Moslem organized crime associated with Russian rule.
I can appreciate that Russian pseudo-nationalism has appeal to Russians, but no one should expect Ukrainians to like it. There are oligarchs and intelligence agents working both sides; I’m going to have to root for the side not poisoned by communism and multiculturalism.
The most recent news on the holiday was about gays in the New York parade. Still no gays, in this case apparently “freedom of speech” trumps “gay rights”. But it got me thinking-what does it all mean? The parades, the parties, the celebrations, the raucous assertion of identity?
The Irish like to think of themselves as rebels, but the truth is like the Scots and Welsh they have mostly been pretty loyal and reliable servants of the English. The Scots are Protestants and though of a different kind, able to accommodate themselves to the English. The Welsh are just too few in number to be significant. In reality none of these peoples had any real choice.
The Irish however still feel the need to push back a little bit. We are your servants, and we know it, the celebration says, but don’t take our obedience and loyalty too much for granted, because we still have a little independent spirit. And indeed the celebration represents no threat to the elite. The Puritan component is revolted by the revolting peasants- which is why they not only don’t care if gays march in the parade, they don’t really want them to, they don’t want their pets slumming- but the more moderate element understands the benefit of letting the help get drunk and blow off steam once a year.
Certain expressions of ethnicity- by loyal non-elite groups, mostly the Irish and Scandinavians- are not minded by the elite. So put on the green, have a cold one, or a few, and celebrate that strange condition we know as Irishness. And do so in the comfortable knowledge the masters don’t mind at all.
I made a comment over at Jim’s Blog on the topic of working-class consciousness, how whites needed to see themselves as workers as well. Jim responded pretty strongly to this, to the original comment and to the extent of making a post directly on the topic, Working class consciousness, dismissing the idea comprehensively as leading to Nazism or communism.
It turns out Jim isn’t a “neo-reactionary” at all but just a very familiar figure, a Randian capitalist libertarian. According to Jim, people don’t make things, joint-stock corporations make things.
I don’t like to put my own links in comments, but the comment I made on quasi-black nationalist/comic book nerd/Howard University dropout Ta-Nehisi Coates is strangely enough appropriate for Jim. My comment on Coates was that black people don’t make things, white people make things; my comment to Jim, with only a few side comments needing changes, is that joint-stock corporations don’t make things, white people make things.
Ayn Rand is regarded pretty snidely by the good people- a crazy woman a few nerds like in high school, and some black-hearted libertarians and Republicans. And yet the Randian hero- a capitalist who strives against all odds, opposition, and even the law to build his empire- is at least as much a hero of progressives as of neoconservatives. Who is more the Randian hero than Steve Jobs? More the progressive ideal? Less heroic, but still in the mold, are Mark Zuckerberg, the Google guys, and various other tech capitalists. (The more socially conventional engineers who made it all possible with the actual technology are conveniently forgotten- after all they are just white guys making stuff in their garages like my uncle.) Unrestrained capitalism of the right sort is deeply admired by progressives. Blacks, latinos, women, and gays have rights, but workers are just losers, whatever their skill level.
The existential hero- a more modern version of the German Romantic hero- is the individual who defies fate and the conventional order to create his own destiny, to remake the world in his own image. Ayn Rand saw the mass-manufacturing capitalists of the late 19th century as her ultimate models, and yet the communist terrorists of the same era fit the bill at least as well. The existential hero shapes the colorless and dull mass of humanity to his ideal.
So both the idealized market economy and the two basic kinds of leftism- the cultural kind, progressivism, and the economic kind, communism- place great importance on the figure of the existential hero. Here’s the thing, though- there is no existential hero. Every human being is at the mercy of, a product of and hostage to forces far greater than he and far outside his power and control. The ostensible existential hero is only one, more visible member of a greater human community, and above that creation itself.
Marx placed the source of human wealth in the laborer- and ambiguous term, that in Marx’s original economics meant much more a skilled worker than came later, since he wrote in the early stages of industrialization. All the classical economists tried to form a labor theory of value, starting with Adam Smith, and never came up with a good one. Marx’s theory, which he set out at great length, is based on David Ricardo’s, which takes about a paragraph. Ayn Rand placed it in the genius of the untamed individual. Jim places it in a form of legal organization of assets.
All these things work together- work, of various levels of sophistication, genius and creativity, the organization of society, and in innovation a willingness to question and overthrow the accepted way of doing things. But to elevate one high above the others is to misunderstand their relationship. The defect of leftism is not a particular form of organization, as much as it is crushing the culture and the individual.
Another way- not exactly a third way, maybe a fourth or fifth way, without Marx or Rand, and without a corporate legal system that shuts out any plaintiff without huge amounts of money- recognizes the organic nature of human society, and protects and disciplines all. The truth is the existential hero is a myth. People build on the accomplishments of others, and pass along what they have built to others. A society or system that doesn’t understand or recognize the contributions of all types and classes of people will suffer from a harmful imbalance.
(Cross-posted with substantially the same content to my religion blog here.)
This is one of those things that may be politics, or may be religion. The two are inescapably intertwined, and in many cases the same thing, so I will put it here on my politics blog first, then cross-post it at my religion blog.
I was reading some religion blog, I can’t find the source, and it brought up a Puritan named Samuel Rutherford, who took the ancient Latin proverb, rex lex- the king is the law- and turned it around to lex rex, the law is king. This of course follows the Puritan effort to delegitimize the authority of the king and the Catholic hierarchy, and replace it with something else- but what else? The law? What is the law anyway?
The “rule of law” is a sacred American concept, logically enough as America is a Puritan country. Conservatives love the rule of law, because they see liberals violating the law all the time, usually through the legal system itself.
Here’s a good example- I hate to foist the Atlantic on you, but it’s the only progressive fish-wrapper I read. This “legal scholar” presents his view on a subject, with a combination of confidently asserted logical fallacies and menacing normative language. The law might be any number of things, but for the most powerful people in the most powerful country, that’s what it is.
Rex lex means the king is the law, or says what the law is. Lex rex means the law tells the king what he can do. Since the law will always be interpreted by someone- especially in the Anglophone system, where the law is deliberately vague to leave power in the hands of the judge, who represents a king who no longer exists- there is always some power that comes before the law. The only question is what it is.
As far as Anglophone power reaches, we are ruled by the whims of the Puritan elite. In the religious or existential sense, though, what comes before the law is God, if you believe in God, or just simply reality, if you are an atheist, in which case reality is God- the final source that can’t be questioned or challenged.
Any kind of law, policy, or custom has to conform to, or at least not challenge, reality. Progressivism is entirely lies, but makes a loophole for itself by exempting the elite from most of their own rules.
So the answer is rex lex, and anybody who says otherwise is setting himself up as your ruler.
John Derbyshire recently reiterated his belief that global warming is indeed occurring. Derbyshire is more than a curmudgeon, he’s sort of a contrarian. One of his great joys is throwing cold water on conservatives, or what passes for conservatives, as of course the title of his book “We Are Doomed” tells you.
The real thing about Derbyshire though is that he replaces his lost faith in God with a pretty strong faith in science. He writes a lot about math, is quite intelligent, and yet needing to believe in something, as people do, he needs to believe in science a little too much.
Well, you say, we know the soft sciences, the social sciences, are unreliable, but the hard sciences- physics, chemistry, and in this case meteorology, which is simply physics applied to the gases of the atmosphere, are all pretty solid right? Physics as typically understood is solid, but the theoretical and experimental physics that excites journalists like Derbyshire is mostly just that, theoretical and experimental. They need theories to explain the theories, and theories to explain the results of the experiments, then more theories and more experiments, apparently without end. Physics has been working on a unified theory of things for about a hundred years, and they are still working on it.
Still that’s better than the statistical base of meteorology. Statistics in meteorology are no safer from corruption than statistics in sociology. The “credentialed experts” of which Derbyshire speaks want to keep their jobs and not get their tires slashed, so they will subconsciously or consciously come up with the right answer.
Notice how a few years ago they switched the terminology from “global warming” to “climate change”. People began noticing severe winter storms, which didn’t seem to match with the global warming hysteria. The explanation became that global warming caused changed in the weather so that the climate was more severe, so that the fact it was colder was proof, solid scientific proof, that it was getting warmer, and if you didn’t believe that it was just proof you are a COMPLETE MORON.
Last winter in the upper Midwest was bad, and this one is brutal. The one before that was fairly warm, so the obvious trend for anybody actually observing is that it is getting colder. No statistics from a leftist source can be trusted- in fact they must assumed to be false- so I have more faith in my own personal observations than what Michael Mann is saying. Even when caught lying, he tells you to shut up, which is the true sign of a bully and a Stalinist scumbag.
If you are a modestly intelligent person and your personal observations contradict what “science” tells you, you can safely assume the science to be contrived.