Saturday, December 10, 2011

The Free Market Distributist Budget: State & Local

State finances and local government finances probably each deserve a post of their own, but because my data source handles them both at the same time and because they share their proposed main tax source, the Henry George-style land value tax, I am dealing with them both in the same post.  (This is a followup to my post proposing an ideologically-similar budget for the Federal government.)  

This post is even more abstract than the first, because I am dealing with the statistical average state and city (not even using medians, but arithmetic means!)  The goal of these numbers is to show the potential benefits of fiscal discipline, even at this late hour.  

State and Local Revenue Sources - - annual revenue in dollars per capita (state   |   local):
Property taxes - - 275   |   1099
Motor fuel taxes - - 118   |   4
Alcoholic beverage taxes - - 17   |   2
Tobacco products taxes - - 54   |   2
Corporate income taxes - - 153   |   26
Motor vehicle license taxes - - 64   |   5
Other taxes - - 172   |   74
Highway charges - - 22   |   16
Port facilities charges - - 3   |   9
Parks and recreation charges - - 5   |   24
Sewerage charge - - 2   |   126
Solid waste management charges - - 2   |   47
Other charges - - 56   |   138  

State and Local Expenditures - - annual outlay in dollars per capita (state   |   local):
Libraries - - 2   |   35
Veterans' services - - 3   |   0
Highways - - 294   |   199
Port facilities - - 5   |   
Police protection - - 39   |   262
Fire protection - - 0   |   131
Correction - - 155   |   86
Protective inspection and regulation - - 30   |   18
Natural resources - - 66   |   33
Parks and recreation - - 17   |   114
Sewerage - - 4   |   150
Solid waste management - - 9   |   70
Financial administration - - 71   |   59
Judicial and legal - - 68   |   71
General public buildings - - 12   |   37
Other governmental administration - - 17   |   77
Interest on general debt - - 146   |   189  

State Fiscal Balance - - +5
Local Fiscal Balance - - +28


All spending items in the above are funded at their actual per capita levels circa 2008.  All other spending items I have zeroed out (education, social services and income maintenance, public utilities other than solid waste and sewerage, etc.)  As far as revenues go, many taxes were abolished but I left the total levels for the other taxes alone.  The main exception is property taxes, which I have replaced with land value taxes at the same overall revenue level but with more (20%) going to states (in reality, states collect very little in property taxes but I needed to alter this since the biggest of the abolished taxes, the sales tax, currently funds state programs much more than local).

Friday, December 9, 2011

The Free Market Distributist Budget: Federal

Classically liberal distributists like myself have never had much of a political party, although we have something in common the Single Tax movement.  Recently I have moved away from classical liberalism, with its usual civic-nationalist underpinnings, to a basically ethnopluralist position, but on fiscal policy the "classical liberal" shoe fits well enough.  On a whim, I recently took a look at some US Federal budget data and found that the corporate income tax brings in much more money than I had once thought, and furthermore that the estate and gift taxes bring in much less than I had once thought.  

I like Henry George's justification for his land value tax, i.e., that it's not an individual who gives his land value, it's the surrounding community (which needs fiscal support) that does. But by the same token, an individual does add value to the whole property by building houses or businesses upon it.  Therefore, an efficient and fair tax should be on land alone, exclusive of improvements.  

An analogy struck me: Just as the community gives land its value, government gives corporations their existence.  Thus corporate income taxes have a justification lacked by personal income taxes, estate taxes, and (at other levels of government) sales taxes.  Furthermore, one major objection to the individual income tax is its intrusion into people's personal lives, which can't be directly applied to a tax on a business with multiple owners and a government charter.  Corporate finances must be public to a great degree because of the nature of management in a company in which the managers are not generally owners (and in which many of the owners never even visit corporate premises).  

Then the question: If you abolished failed anti-poverty programs and privatized education and social insurance, could you run the country without personal income taxes, estate taxes, or sales taxes?  (The latter is important for state and local matters, which have a post of their own.)  Notice that I am being less radical than a true single-taxer, or even a "double-taxer" (land value and corporate income only).  I am tentatively accepting the other taxes which have any justification beyond simple revenue (other than wealth redistribution).  Thus I am leaving in place alcohol & tobacco taxes for harm reduction, motor vehicle licensing and fuel taxes for road improvement, and tariffs for protection from foreign competition.  

The verdict:  It's possible, not easy.  (This holds individual Federal income taxes separate to retire the debt; see below.)  Even after abolishing Federal education meddling and Robin Hood "egalitarianism", it took deep cuts in defense spending to get a small surplus (and this is after subtracting out all spending for the global war on terrorism).  It also estimated a 20% increase to the haul from corporate income taxes, which may be possible by including S-Corps and LLCs.  (This is subtracted from the individual income tax in my debt-reduction model, below.)  I left revenue figures for the other Federal taxes alone even though, as a moderate protectionist, I favor replacing quotas with tariffs, a move which should generate some more revenue.  

Federal revenue sources - - annual revenue in dollars per capita:
Customs duties - - 95
Excise taxes - - 221
Corporate income taxes - - 1224
Other revenue sources - - 164
Total - - 1703

Federal spending by department - - annual spending in dollars per capita:
Defense - - 1091
Veterans Affairs - - 128
Homeland Security - - 78
Justice - - 65
Health & Human Services - - 22
Transportation - - 27
Treasury - - 27
Interior - - 24
State - - 11
Energy - - 8
Agriculture - - 7
Labor - - 3
Other On-Budget - - 117
Other Off-Budget - - 88
Total - - 1699  

Federal Balance - - +$5 per capita

I zeroed out the budgets for the global war on terror, the department of education, HUD, and NASA.  The former will be unnecessary as soon as the nations of the West have erected the Iron Veil; the latter three can be completely privatized.

I gave 90% budget cuts to Health and Human Services, State, Energy, Agriculture, and Labor.  These departments are laden with programs which are unnecessary, counterproductive, and sometimes unconstitutional.  I didn't zero them out because they generally have important roles in gathering and analyzing information on things like communicable disease and nuclear proliferation.

I gave 30% budget cuts to Defense and Homeland Security.  We incur a lot of expenses defending other countries, which we can no longer afford to do.  I dislike a lot of what the DHS does, but they do patrol the borders and try to stop illegal immigration, so I figured I would be as easy on them as I am on Defense.  

I gave 30% budget cuts to Transportation, Treasury, Interior, and other programs (on- and off-budget).  I made fairly mild cuts here because these items are very diverse and since the totals are fairly small, I thought I would be generous rather than commit to a lot more research.

I left Justice and Veterans Affairs alone.  In the latter case, it is out of fairness to the soldiers returning from overlong, basically unnecessary wars in Asia.  In the former, it is because I strongly support prison reform, which must cost money, so I figured at least I shouldn't cut that department's budget.   

I have not yet dealt with existing debt and interest payments.  Thus the above numbers reflect an ultra-hypothetical "If we could start afresh" hypothesis.  However, even keeping the above figures we can see that fiscal discipline, though harsh (much harsher than if this program were begun ten years ago), can set things straight given enough time.  My modeling is very crude and assumes no population changes or economic growth (pessimistic assumptions which partially offset the considerable optimism inherent in assuming there is any fiscal discipline in the first place).  I am using total national debt of $13.56 trillion and an effective interest rate of 4%.  

Let us assume no defaults, and the highly un-Georgist individual income tax is temporarily kept in existence at falling rates only for debt reduction, on the condition that the rest of the budget (above) is in balance or surplus.  (FICA payroll taxes are still zeroed, as is spending for Medicare and Social Security.  State and local income taxes are zeroed as well as all sales taxes.)  

For this model I am taking into account the expanded (S-Corps and LLCs too) corporate income tax on a dollar-for-dollar basis.  That is, since my 20% increase in corporate income tax revenue expanded its haul from $1020 per capita to 1224, I have reduced my total individual income tax haul by $204 per capita.  The debt reduction rule is, 4% of the remaining debt must be retired each year until income taxes are cut at least in half, after which point taxes remain constant until the debt is gone.   

Income tax revenues are immediately cut 9%.  After that they fall at about 3% annually for the first decade, and fall at about 2% thereafter until year 16.  From year 16 until year 33, income taxes remain at 50% of their present values.  Thirty-three years after the unblinking adoption of fiscal discipline, the debt and the individual income taxes go away.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

A Matter of Discipline: Crazy Talk

It is often stated that one should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.  (My rejoinder is that one should never attribute to stupidity that which can only be explained by malice.)

One might ask: where does this leave the Third Great Cause of Wrongdoing, i.e. insanity?  
My brief answer is: leave that to the Bolsheviks.  It is a cliche of Communist propaganda that anyone who disagrees with the progressive viewpoint is "insane".  (They could also call you "reactionary" but that is tautological, and to me it is a compliment anyway.)  

So what exactly is so implausible about the idea of collective insanity, of "Emperor's New Clothes" connivance, of an elite so drunk on ideological purity they can only be considered insane by anyone with real-world experience?  It's not that these concepts are implausible, only that they are an unacceptable expansion of the term "insanity", and that they risk releasing Bolsheviks (and crypto- and neo-Bolsheviks) from culpability.  

If someone isn't confined to a mental institution, or under house arrest or something analogous, we have no business calling them insane.  It is difficult to get out of the habit of using this expression.  I've tried.  Just because I can envision rightist discipline doesn't mean that I myself am disciplined.  Bad habits notwithstanding, I firmly believe that treating personalities as diseases is modernist degeneracy.

This doesn't mean were left to a simple dichotomy to explain wrongdoing.  Between wickedness and idiocy lies a variety of conditions like laziness and insincerity.  Typically, leftists believe what they believe because they foolishly channel all of their brainpower into the exclusive analysis of Cool Thinking. They've all read The Mismeasure of Man  (and believe me, you can quote Gould chapter and verse all you want - if you don't agree with him, the leftists will simply never believe you have read him; a fair number of them haven't read him themselves, and so will not recognize your quotations).  Willful ignorance is a form of wickedness, particularly if it is intended to protect the ignorant from cognitive dissonance*.  Ignoring all Uncool Thinkers leaves you with no possible way to explain, for example, why black anger has gotten so much worse since the civil rights movement achieved its goals.  

Thus you can see that leftism is not a product of insanity at all, but selfishness and immaturity.  A grown-up will note when a government program has the opposite of its intended effect, and will be willing to note that aloud even if he can't do anything about it.  Pilloried for criticizing "progress", the grown-up may be forced by economic or political considerations to keep his mouth shut, but he's not going to adjust his thinking so he doesn't have to carry the "burden" of believing mass opinion to be wrong.  

The ethical, mature individual uses the full force of his mind to analyze government policies, even if that means being Uncool.  Many wicked, sane people have developed ways to combat this.

* Let's not confuse cognitive dissonance with doublethink.  

Sunday, November 6, 2011

A Pair of Quotes

Let the white race perish! They seize your land. They corrupt your women. They trample on the bones of your dead . . . . Burn their dwellings—destroy their stock—slay their wives and children that their very breed may perish! War now! War always! War on the living! War on the dead! - Chief Tecumseh, 19th Century
You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race. - Lord Amherst, 18th Century

Verdict:
Chief Tecumseh, American hero.
Jeffery Amherst, wicked genocidalist.

(Note that the first quote is not included on the relevant page in Wikipedia; the second quote is, at least twice.)

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Gender Feminism and White Nationalism

(In this essay, I am not trying to use a particularly narrow definition of "white nationalists" or "paleoconservatives".  I chose those words for convenience.  I could just as easily have used terms like "reactionaries" or "race realists" or "alt-rightists".)

One of the things that struck me many times reading Who Stole Feminism? was the number of times something a gender feminist would write something that sounded embarrassingly similar to something a white nationalist said, or could have said.  The form of many GF dictums is identical to the form of many WN dictums, only with "whites" replaced by "women" and "blacks" replaced by "men".

Could a white nationalist (or paleoconservative) have written the following paragraph?
As long as some blacks use physical force to subjugate whites, all blacks need not.  The knowledge that some blacks do suffices to threaten all whites.  Beyond that, it is not necessary to beat up a white to beat her or him down.  An organization complying with recent interpretation of civil rights law can simply refuse to hire whites in well-paid jobs, extract as much or more work from whites than blacks but pay them less, or treat whites disrespectfully.  A black can fail to support a child he has engendered....  He can beat or kill the whites he claims to love; he can rape women, whether mate, acquaintance, or stranger.
I think so.  Of course, this quote is from Marilyn French, with "women" replaced with "whites" and "men" replaced with "blacks" and, in one case, "an organization complying with recent interpretation of civil rights law".  (This latter point is important.  In one notable way, WN form departs from GF form: WNs have black criminals and anti-white institutions as twin enemies; GFs have men, alone, for their enemy.)

It is natural that this should cause some dismay, since of course the GFs are wrong.  Woman-beating males do serious time for their crimes, partly because they deserve the punishment and partly because there are no nationwide "civil rights" organizations putting pressure on law enforcement to go easy on them.  Businesses that discriminate against women on pay grounds face serious legal action, which is why you need to ignore differing career paths in order to create the illusion of pay discrimination against women.  (Industries in which pay is higher for women face no such legal threat, which is why female investment bankers and dieticians earn so much more than their male counterparts, and why women who have never had a child earn 113 percent of what men earn.)  GFs have also made numerous false claims about rape, self-esteem, and even Super Bowl Sunday (I really recommend the book to learn about some eye-popping GF lies, and really shameful credulity on the part of the media.)

The dismay recedes when you remember that form isn't everything.  Content, true content, matters more, and that is what the WNs have.  Because of course what the WN/paleocon says is based on fact rather than emotion, which is why Jared Taylor and Pat Buchanan remind you of the host of a dinner party while Susan Brownmiller and Andrea Dworkin come off like hissing snakes.  GFs have had to inflate pretty much every claim they make about male-on-female violence and discrimination, something Sommers documents in admirable detail in her book.  In contrast, WNs only have to undo the suppression of facts about black-on-white violence (and discrimination by the government against white proles) to make their point.

Still, there is something fascinating about an utterly-wrong leftist ideology that gets the form exactly right but mistakes race & statism for gender.  What could the connection possibly be?  Sommers may provide the clues, even if she doesn't make the connection herself (since she has nothing to do with paleocon or WN ideologies):
[Katie] Roiphe sees the campus rape crisis as a phenomenon of privilege: these young women have had it all, and when they find out the world can be dangerous and unpredictable, they are outraged.
She quotes Roiphe as saying:
Many of these girls [in rape marches] came to Princeton from Milton and Exeter.  Many of their lives have been full of summers in Nantucket and horseback-riding lessons.  These are women who have grown up expecting fairness, consideration, and politeness.
Stripped of leftist-sounding talk about "privilege" this almost sounds like a paleocon praising traditional civilization for protecting women and families the old-fashioned way.  The loss of traditional communities and the rise of education-driven career paths put thousands of young women in the paths of strange males in unfamiliar settings.

In a monoethnic, highly-religious society where anonymity was treated like a troublesome but short-lived "teething stage" in a human relationship, a bright girl could be put on a train, greeted at the station at the other end of the line by a firm but indulgent woman whom she had never met, and given an excellent education at a single-sex institution.  At school, far from being treated like a galley slave or an imbecile (as the antihistorical GF propagandists would have us believe), she would be introduced to Shakespeare, Ovid, and Socrates.  Nobody worried that Anne of Green Gables would get drunk or be raped when she went off to college. (And yet, with a combination of excruciatingly high educational standards and almost unbelievably low crime rates, the modern person can't quite put a finger on whether Anne was coddled or thrown into a sort of lace-curtain dungeon.)

Nowadays, anonymity is considered, of all things, one of the main benefits of urban living.  Furthermore, "anti-racism" has stripped the victims of leftist propaganda of their ability to notice that black-on-white stranger rape is hardly a "myth", but is, in fact, a very real phenomenon.  The expectations that women of northern European descent have, that a man will treat them with respect (or at least not rape them), have recently become quite unrealistic.  "Anti-racism" blinds us to an important reason for the change.  (The other major reason for the change, binge drinking, has been examined better, but hardly anyone forthrightly advises young females against heavy drinking around males.)

It was perfectly sensible for America to become collectively outraged at the loss of safety for women.  The combination of GF and anti-racism saw to it that this outrage became grist for its favorite mill: hatred of white men.  Equally important, ubiquitous leftist propaganda saw to it that the outrage was channeled safely away from the realization that racial diversity, bureaucratization, and urban anonymity are bad things.  As evidence supporting WN and paleoconservative assertions has mounted, the left has gotten stronger.  Only time will tell if modern internet technology will allow the record to be set straight.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Thoughts on Who Stole Feminism?

Christina Hoff Sommers is the author of the distinction between gender feminists (radical misandrists, cultural Marxists, etc.) and equity feminists (those who seek equal opportunities for women and men, like Sommers herself).  As far as I know she introduced the concept in her 1995 book Who Stole Feminism?


I won't summarize the book too much here.  Sommers did a lot of serious debunking of leftist horror stories about mistreatment of women, from rapes in college to beatings in the home to unfair wage gaps in the workplace.  Her main thesis is that gender feminism is not based on facts, it does not believe in or seek equity between men and women, and it does not improve the situation for anyone (except tenured gender feminist academics).  In contrast, equity feminism is what is good and and true, is as American as apple pie, and still enjoys healthy support among ordinary women (though it is somewhat underrepresented on certain campuses).

As a doctrine which both infantilizes and deifies women, gender feminism can naturally be criticized from several angles.  Sommers tends to doubt the notion of "women's ways of knowing" which gender feminists  have used to insulate themselves from criticism that their conclusions are asserted rather than proven, and developed using emotional feedback in committee settings rather than using facts.  Sommers is dead on, but I think she pays too little attention to the possibility that women do think differently from men.

I wouldn't go so far as to consider myself an equity feminist.  I'm a heathen formalist of the hard right.  I don't "believe in equality" so much as I advocate single standards.  Still, I see little that distinguishes my political positions from those espoused in the book.  Women may or may not process data differently from men (I think they do), a few may be able to succeed in virtually any occupation (I think they can), or maybe just as many women can succeed in a given high-power job as men can (I doubt it).

The bottom line is: as long as discussion is open and honest, and as long as the system is rich in single standards, any decent civilization can accommodate ambitious women.  The problem with feminism is not biological but ideological, and therefore transient.  Brave men and women can stand up to the genderfem/ cultural Marxist/ PC threat, particularly if they have a position at the American Enterprise Institute.

(Coming up: Strange, out-on-a-limb thoughts connecting feminism and white nationalism.  Be patient; my baby boy takes a lot of time.)

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Reflecting on the 1980s

DeLorean DMC-12, 1981-1982 (John DeLorean)
Dornaus & Dixon Bren Ten, 1983-1986 (Jeff Cooper)
Apple Lisa, 1983-1986 (Steve Jobs)

Can anyone add to the list?  Only technically impressive, failed technologies from the 1980s are allowed.  Bonus points if they are overpriced, sought-after by collectors, and considered "toys for the rich".  

Thursday, October 6, 2011

A Real Victory

It's small, but it's a start.  Apparently Huffington thinks the law is an ass because he was only arrested in a drug raid, and they only have him for a misdemeanor.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

A Chilling Thought from the Ancient World

From The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History by Colin McEvedy:

Not that the Germans had any thought of destroying the Empire: it had existed for so long that everyone assumed it would go on forever.  What the barbarian warlords wanted was imperial grants and commissions, lands for their followers and positions for themselves.

McEvedy is describing the Western Roman Empire in AD 408.  Rome was still culturally important and rich, but they had been relying on hired foreigners for so long that they had very few military men of their own.  It had gone out of fashion for young Romans to become warriors; Rome had plenty of gold to buy the temporary allegiance of barbarians.

The Germanic and Gaulish tribes to the north were used to being able to alternately work for and attack Rome; they had no real loyalty to Rome but had grown used to Roman institutions being rich and easily manipulated.  Visigoths sacked Rome in this period, not intending to hold (and feed) the city, but instead staying only for three days.  Their move was intended to show Rome that they were serious about their demands for ransom.

The Western Empire was not taken seriously as a political force after this point, though Rome was considered worth sacking several more times during the fifth century.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

SPJ SLAWBs

The Society of Professional Journalists established themselves as a pack of anti-white, anti-kafir bigots with this left-wing screed.  (Hat tip: Dennis Mangan.)

I'll leave it to Dennis to quote the thing.  Me?  I'll do what "journalists" do best: interpret.

Some key directives:

When noting that Muslims have been responsible for a huge amount of terrorism, pretend that there isn't a common reason (Sura 9:29, among other passages) for their violence.


When noting that Muslims have been responsible for a huge amount of terrorism, pretend that there weren't many many acts of historical aggression against non-Muslims (the conquest of Visigothic Spain, the near extermination of Buddhists in India, etc.), preceding recent acts of terrorism.


In fact, it is best just not to note that Muslims have been responsible for a huge amount of terrorism.


Ensure that white voices are drowned out by those of darker-skinned people, whose opinions about terrorism targeting white Americans are valid.  Opinions of the people targeted are not valid on their own.


When writing about terrorism, pretend that white supremacists and radical anti-abortionists have even approached Islam in scale and scope.  Most of your readers will lack a sense of the scale involved and have no basis to even begin questioning this deceit.  


Word combinations such as "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim extremist" are accurate and edifying because they link a whole religion to the violent activity demanded by that religion's holy book (Sura 9:29).  Since it is the duty of the dhimmi to cover up Islamic violence, avoid these word combinations.  


Avoid using terms such as "jihad" unless you are careful to obscure their greater meaning. The basic meaning of "jihad" is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to aggrandize oneself.  Since Islam is a religion of permanent warfare which has attained most of its power through violence, "jihad" is accurately used to describe violence.  Under no circumstances should any journalist stoop to this level of accuracy.


These are your countrymen, openly planning to silence you and replace your voice with that of people sworn to kill or enslave you (Sura 9:29).

Update your list of Stupid Leftist Anti-White Bigots to include:
Hagit Limor
Darcie Lunsford
John Ensslin
Kevin Z. Smith
Neil Alan Ralston
Bill McCloskey
Lauren Bartlett
Tara Puckey
Taylor Mirfendereski
George Daniels
Kym Fox
Luther Turmelle
Brian Eckert
Bill Oates
James Pilcher
Liz Hansen
Amanda Theisen
Kelsey Volkmann
Scott Cooper
Donald Meyers
Dana Neuts
Jodi Cleesattle
Sonny Albarado

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Revolt Against the Modern World: Where has Flavia gone?

modernitysucks.wordpress.com is no longer available.

The authors have deleted this blog.
[I hope you come back, Flavia.  If not, farewell.]

Monday, August 15, 2011

The Brain is the Soul - For the Secularist

The other day I had my mid-year review at my office.  After the main portion of the meeting, in which we talked about me, my performance and my goals, my boss asked if there was anything, anything at all, that I thought could increase the unit's efficiency.  Since it was a private meeting and she seemed generally curious, I said, No, there isn't, because a certain coworker of ours has been much quieter recently.  I said it with some pleasure because a few weeks earlier the story would have been different.

This coworker is 100% office nightmare stereotype.  Beer belly, stiletto heels, miniskirts, late 30s, is always talking either about how many hot guys she met at the club or how she is going to raise her children after she is married, etc.  She is quite loud when she does so, and of course quite loud when she is on the phone yelling at customers.  A few months ago a few of us complained to various managers and she obviously got the message.

My manager seemed to want to vent ever so slightly.  She said that this coworker had been like that for years, and that when it was first mentioned to her she responded with tremendous anger.  My manager stopped herself from going into too much detail and simply said she was glad, as was I, that the situation had improved.  Then she added, apropos of nothing, that Miss Noisypumps is the smartest person she's ever met.

Now of course I don't believe that, and looking back I don't think my manager does either.  Yet I don't think it was a lie, either.  It was more like a benediction.  It's pretty nasty to let on that you think someone's character is rotten, but there is nothing apparent about Miss Noisypumps' demeanor, work performance, or appearance that would redeem her.  My manager had to balance out our mutual recognition of Noisypumps' worthlessness with something that seemed substantial, yet couldn't be disproven.

As far as I know, no Christian ever seriously attempted to measure the human soul.  It wouldn't make any sense to do so.  Yet measuring brainpower is a pretty straightforward business of progressive matrices, reverse digit span, vocabulary, etc.  So why does the PC left say it can't be measured?

Or should I say, why does the secular PC left say intelligence can't be measured?  Put that way, the question is in the answer: secularists threw away the soul because they didn't know what it was used for.  Unfortunately, they also suffer from mind-body dualism, and seem to believe that your body is not your self but merely a servant of your self.  With the soul gone, the only thing left to be your self is your brain.

Measuring the brain is easy enough, but dead brains don't count.  It's what the brain does that is so important.  Therefore, the secular PC left, egalitarian to the core, refuses to measure intelligence, or even to admit that that is possible.

Egalitarians need brainpower to be immeasurable so that whenever they run into an overgrown, silicone-enriched female thing wobbling around in high heels yelling about how hard she parties, they can say, "That is a person too.  That person is valid and human and as legitimate as me and it would be wrong of me to push that person down a flight of stairs."

The alternative, for people who just can't figure out the soul, would be maturity and self-control.  "That bipedal creature is a waste of space.  The community would be better off if it were euthanized.  However, that is not my job."  No speculation, no pretty lies about cognition, no extraneous moral judgements, just a recognition of facts.  Alas, the PC left seems uninterested in maturity and self-control.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Factually Incorrect Humor

I prefer my jokes to be based on facts.  Here is one that isn't (and my humorless replies, suitable to the humorless joke that civilization became when it died).  (And another version.)


Your car is German.  (Mine is indeed an import; I had a Ford until it got totaled; if hunting season were longer someone might have bagged the doe that was waltzing on the freeway before I hit her.)

Your vodka is Russian.  (Can't stand the stuff.  The word "vodka" probably originated in Poland.)

Your pizza is Italian.  (Semantics.  Heavy-cheese low-veg pizzas are really an American thing, but leftover veg on flatbread is indeed Italian.)

Your kebab is Turkish.  (Uh-oh ... kebabs originate in Persia.)

Your democracy is Greek.  (The Greeks had a sensible democracy with a limited franchise.  Universal male suffrage is a Franco-American corruption.)

Your sauna is Finnish.  (Go Finland!)

Your coffee is Brazilian.  (Probably should have skipped this one.  Dozens of countries export coffee.)

Your movies are American.  (My movies are British.  I'm interested in neither vampires nor serial killers, thankyouverymuch.)

Your humor is Jewish.  (This is the truest item on the list.)

Your electronics are Chinese.  (Maybe, I usually see them credited to the Japanese.  The import innovations were all American.)

Your numbers -Arabic.  (Hindu, actually.  Oops, second time an Indo-Aryan invention has been assigned to someone else.)

Your letters -Latin.  (True.)

Your tea is Tamil.  (See "coffee", above.)

Your shirt is Indian.  (Oh.)

Your oil is Saudi Arabian.  (Not my fault, but true enough.)

And you complain that your neighbor is an immigrant?  (Hmm...

No...

I fled to an area with low crime and it just so happens that none of my neighbors are immigrants.  If I lived next to the charming Chinese family who runs the second-best restaurant in town, I doubt I would have any complaints.  If I had unpleasant immigrants for neighbors I wouldn't complain anyway since many employers would fire a white man for speaking his mind, and many immigrants would get violent with him.  I have a family to provide for and I can't do that while unemployed, in the hospital, or in prison fighting "hate crime" (self-defense) charges.

In case the person making up this joke didn't know it, kebabs, shirts, and saunas don't reproduce.  If they did reproduce, it's not entirely clear to me that the first generation of US-born kebabs, shirts, and saunas would commit crimes at rates several times higher than their parents.

The rate of kebab-perpetrated violence is negligibly low in any case.  Shirts and saunas, on the other hand, can be downright brutal.  See, I can be funny too!  It's just that my jokes don't make light of the physical and demographic persecution of the decent, ordinary descendants of a once-great, spacefaring, inventive, generous civilization by the Mexican mafia, Islamic extremists, Islamic moderates, and the like.)

Sunday, August 7, 2011

"They Don't Make that Kind of Music Any More!"

I've heard it a hundred times.  People wonder where classical music went, and a cynic tells them "that kind of music" is dead, killed by serialism.  Tonal, non-serial music, we are told, is too naïve, or perhaps too beautiful, to have survived modernism (read: World War I).  

Somewhere, in one of the darkest corners of the right end of the blogosophere, I ran into Richard T. Hill.  (I think it was in a tract someone wrote about how black metal is a conservative revolution in music.)  He is an eclectic musician.

Your idea of eclectic may be one of those ska musicians who does a little reggae on the side, or a modern jazz guy who does a little swing, or a doom metal head who dabbles in death metal too.  Richard T. Hill plays a guitar in a band and composes formal music for strings, winds, and piano.  It's no gimmick, either; this is no Guns and Roses backed by the London Snoot-Harmonic.  This is the real mccoy - melody, harmony, classical timbres, and form.

For this post, I'll review his String Quartet No. 1: Iberia.  Other reviews will follow.

Hill's treatment of melody is classic.  By that I mean it recalls exactly what I want to hear when I am listening to classical music - a melody that is not too sweet but not abstruse.  If you can imagine your bubblegum pop song tasting like bubblegum, and your university-approved pantonal serial thingumbob tasting like the pages of your nine-grade algebra book, Hill's melodies taste like a filet mignon in a Béarnaise sauce.  (This is what happens when you read music reviews by people who have no education in the subject - you get food analogies.)

The handling of mood is also classic and kept me coming back.  For some reason, when the mood becomes sad toward the end of the first section, it is always a little bit of a surprise, which engages me toward the piece as a whole rather than leaving me just coolly noting "That's a nice melody."  Unchanging mood is a huge turnoff and why I can't get into minimalism or serialism (if the mood changes it is in way that is too abstruse for me).  I feel like the same mood leads off the last section and then transforms.

The harmonies are not as easy to digest.  They show hints of modernism, a little dissonance here and there.  The effect is to lighten the piece somehow, not to make it comical, but to show that Hill isn't trying to imitate old-fashioned harmonic rules.  

Hill's use of pizzicato (he devotes one of the piece's four sections to it), is quite ambitious.  In my experience it is unusual for such extended use of this technique, which is used sparingly most of the time it is encountered.  The pizzicato conversation between Hill's strings continues, carrying the listener through the piece's least emotional ideas.  

Then of course we are treated to a tango which is the only revisitation of the original melody which was obvious to me.  It is classical music as it should be - a voluptuous melody is established and superseded until the music becomes unrecognizable.  The composers teases us with beautiful timbres in unfamiliar melodies which refuse to repeat what we so want to hear again - for a time.  When the sweetness returns we want to cheer, if only it were that kind of music.

Invent beauty.  Declare it boldly.  Develop it in several directions - don't be afraid to get cerebral.  Then bring back the simple beauty.  This form seems to have been forgotten by the hyperformalist composers of the academy.  Why even bother to write a nice melody if you're going to throw it away?  But of course "nice melody" is not the kind of thing people get MFAs in any more. 

Emotionally, Iberia reminds me of The Gathering's "In Motion" more than anything else - a pair of ambient / goth / metal songs that have nothing in common with Hill's composition in terms of instrumentation, rhythm, or any of that.  Why?  Because Anneke's voice is one the boldest statements of feminine beauty in music I've ever heard.  The violin in Hill's quartet is a glimpse of the same kind of beauty.

Listen to Hill at Reverb Nation.  (Oh, and you can listen to The Gathering at YouTube.)

Friday, August 5, 2011

The WTMJ News Team Tells the Truth

In a surprising instance of actual news coverage, WTMJ posted an uncensored news article covering black-on-white mob violence in Milwaukee.  It was picked up by Fox Nation.
[Violent black bigots] were looking in everybody's windshield as they were running by, seeing who was white and who was black.  Guarantee it....  I saw them grab this white kid who was probably 14 or 15 years old.  They just flung him into the road.  They just jumped on him and started beating him.
This is the first incidence of honest reporting of random anti-white violence perpetrated by black in a mainstream news source.  This is big.  Make no mistake.

Naturally, bloggers with more time and energy than I have already covered this.  Dennis has, and so has Ryu at M4 Monologue.  At American Renaissance, Joseph Kay wonders whether the mobs represent the end of the unspoken agreement between ruling-class leftists and underclass blacks, since the former are still ponying up other people's money and job opportunities to appease the latter, but the latter aren't playing nice any more.  Hat tips to you all.

I'd just like to make note of a silver lining (unprecedented media honesty) as well as the storm clouds (August is not over yet, nor is the depression).

Addendum: Donovan and Dudzik, two of Milwaukee's aldermen, have released a statement specifically naming African Americans as being the perpetrators of anti-white violence.  (Hat tip once again to AmRen, which is really doing sterling work.)  I expect the retaliation from the establishment left will be swift, but I'm no longer so sure it will be decisive.  No Arizona sheriffs have been assassinated, after all, and they have a whole lot tougher guys mad at them.

Also, Unamused posted on this.  I expect it will be less polite than Mangan's, maybe a smidgen more polite than Ryu's.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Monday, July 18, 2011

The Anglophones Are To Blame!

In an otherwise successful thread at Unamusement Park, I alleged that the Germans invented city bombing, mainly because the Germans invented city bombing.  As I expected, a commenter dismissed the August 6, 1914 raid on Liege as having been done with "firecrackers".  As to the next relevant war, the raid on Guernica was dismissed as "tactical bombings in support of an advancing army in the field".  1939 raids on Warsaw, Frampol, and Wieluń were dismissed likewise.

So "tactical bombing" can't be "city bombing" (presumably for the same reason that "quantitative easing" doesn't equal "intentional debasement of the currency").  All that matters, as it were, is "strategic" bombing, supposedly invented by the British in 1940.  (In reality it was invented in a previous World War, by Germans armed with "firecrackers".  It is also false to think that German raids were only with airships, or even that Zeppelins were always airships.  The Zeppelin plant also produced heavy airplanes designed for bombing, as did Gotha.)  But of course, I never asserted that the German invented strategic bombing or effective bombing.

So why move the goalposts?  Why does city bombing not matter while "strategic bombing" does?  Why does the German alliance with Stalin (1939-1941) not matter while the US-British alliance with that monster (1941-1945) does?  Why does Roosevelt reflect poorly on the United States, and Churchill reflect poorly on the UK, while Hitler only reflects poorly on "the Nazis"?

Or, more generally, why is that, whatever the subject, whatever the historical epoch, the British and/or Americans are bad guys?  Well, let's think: what do the UK and the USA have in common?  It could be English, which is a second-class language even in the most American part of the British Commonwealth.

Or could it be a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon attitude towards guilt?

I think it is a bit of both.  People will project guilt where it sticks, and refrain from blaming those who become are liable to become aggressive.  It's no surprise that we can't figure out how treat someone who can't take responsibility; all our other values are inverted as well.  We treat thin-skinned athlete types as "alpha males", so why shouldn't we marginalize and abject someone for daring to show remorse?

Still, I don't think the Anglo-blame habit is simply a function of a British or American mindset.  It is also a function of the tragically large number of people who speak and write English as a second language.  Anyone with an axe to grind from virtually any country can write a screed trying to make Anglophones feel bad about themselves.  If we reply in kind, we are replying a in language that our accusers view as a tool, not as the core of their ethnicity.  You simply can't insult someone in a second language as effectively as you can in their native language.

Of course, loads of native English-speakers reflect the "blame the Anglophones first" attitudes, but this is partly due to a third influence: tons of foreigners are in teaching positions in the United States at least (maybe also in the UK; I don't know).  Our universities are filled with people from country X who can tell you in detail how the USA mistreated country X and how as a consequence we owe them foreign aid.  Pretty much anyone from wherever can purport to know our countries better than we know them ourselves.  That, combined with home-grown Anglo-American political correctness, has over time corroded our self-image and our mental boundaries.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Optimism Applied to Child Behavior

One phenomenon I noticed again at my last get-together of young parents was the notion that optimism about the future behavior of a child is subtly taboo.  By the same token, pessimism is encouraged and shared.  Observing my boy's pleasant, quiet disposition, they assured me that he will be a holy terror when he can walk, adding of course that he will be worse when he is a teenager.

It wasn't notable for being unusual - I've been assured that having a son will make my life miserable since we announced the pregnancy.  People are pretty disappointed to find that he sleeps through the night, that he has no colic, etc.  What struck me as odd was that it happened in the same conversation as the obligatory mockery of a certain relative of one of the guests, who is "stockpiling weapons for doomsday, when Obama will take all the guns".  I.e., socio-political pessimism about the state of the economy, the prospects for gun control given the Hurricane Katrina example, etc., is silly wingnut speculation, but assertions that a given infant will have behavioral problems is rock-solid logic.

What I saw, really, was leftist social ethics, or rather, what leftists have in place of social ethics.  Lacking a firm hand, leftist mothers predict behavioral problems for all children so they don't have to do anything to prevent dangerous or inappropriate behavior other than constantly saying, "No!" and repeating the child's name.

Reduced behavioral standards are a self-fulfilling prophecy which allows all of us to let our children run rampant while none of us feels guilty for it.  Apparently it is okay for us to feel stressed by our children's behavior, but remorse is out of the question because it implies that a better lifestyle - a more ethical, more thoughtful lifestyle - is possible.  Raising children to be polite, engaged, and curious is a betrayal of the great sisterhood of harried mothers at their wits' end.

All going well, I predict the following conversation in eight years:

"What did you do with him?  I've never seen a boy that age shake an adults hand, entertain himself with books, ask to go to the zoo instead of wanting to stay home with the television.  Is he on something?"

"It's not what he's on, it what he's not on.  He's homeschooled and he isn't allowed commercial television."

"Oh no!  You can't do that!  He'll never develop any social skills!"

"You mean like shaking an adults hand and saying hello?  Not interrupting people?"

"Well ... ummm ... racism ... uhhh ... multicultural...."

I think I will enjoy that conversation.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Take a Stand Against Anarcho-Tyranny

Ban anonymous commenters!

This advice goes to all bloggers with a large commentariat: Dennis Mangan, OneSTDV, Anti-White Media, and especially Steve Sailer.  (Unamused and Jew Among You are still developing a following so they have a little more latitude.)

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Unamused Needs YOU

This post at Unamusement Park is the first direct-action plan I've seen on the right side of the blogsphere in some time.

Huns ... gangs of white-hating blacks ... whatever 

I couldn't find an image of Unamused in a peaked cap, so I decided to use Lord Kitchener instead.

It's all about distributing flyers highlighting this summer's wave of anti-Caucasoid violence.

Remember - the hottest days of summer have not yet arrived.

Now then, off you go, chop chop.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Meat on the Neocameralist Bones


I've been working on this for long enough.  Busy as I am with the new baby, this as good as it's going to get, at least in the short term.
As a longtime reader of Mencius Moldbug (I used to post there as Curve of Freedom), I found his posts on neocameralism and the patchwork to be very thought-provoking and useful.  The patchwork is an innovative, nondemocratic form of government and neocameralism is the philosophy underpinning it.  In addition to being a neocameralist, Moldbug is also a royalist.

Back when I had more time on my hands, I decided to flesh out Moldbug's proposal a little.  It is not my favored system of government but it is intriguing and it is much simpler than my own (the "Commonwealth" proposal from last year).  I hope he will comment and see if I have gotten the flavor of his idea right.  Note that it is I, not he, who has combined royalism (my strong Rex) and corporate governance (my Governing Companies, which he calls sovcorps).   I may eventually post something on a scenario for the future describing how we could conceivably achieve the neocameralist state.  Without further ado.
Overview
This  former United States is governed as a monarchy along anarcho-capitalist and neo-cameralist lines.  The country is partitioned into a patchwork of highly autonomous city-states called Freeholds with ownership-based taxation powers and powerful land forces; governance of each Freehold is by a common stock corporation with Royal charters.
The Monarchy
The crown is hereditary.  The Rex is commander-in-chief of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy, all nuclear weapons, and ground forces totaling approximately 10% of the country's army.  Royal ground forces include guards for airbases, naval bases, and Royal residences, border patrol, and highway patrol.
The Rex pays for all Royal expenses out of pocket, and pockets what he does not spend.  He has the right to collect Tribute from all Freeholds, a self-assessed property tax with the percentage rate set by the Rex and the Assembly.  Though he has no power to abrogate property rights, he has the right to partition each Freehold into the parcels Governing Companies assess and pay tribute upon.  This is to prevent enclaves, i.e., he uses his power to make sure each parcel borders either the ocean, a foreign country, or land belonging to another Freehold.
The Royal Courts are chosen as follows.  Judges of District Courts are chosen by competitive examination.  The examination is created by a council appointed by the higher courts.  Judges of Appellate Courts are chosen from among District Judges by all members of the Assembly except those whose jurisdiction overlaps with that of the Appellate Court with the vacancy to be filled.  Justices of the Supreme Court are chosen by the Rex from among all Appellate Judges.  They are chiefly courts of equity dealing with jurisdictional disputes and pollution, though military cases can be referred to higher Royal Courts.  No judge or justice can be removed except by conviction of a felony or several misdemeanors.
The Rex has sole power to appoint diplomats to foreign nations and to make all bilateral treaties.
Major freeways are Royal Highways and are owned and maintained by the Rex out of pocket.  No Governing Company is permitted to interfere with their usage.  Furthermore, travel in the air, on the oceans, and on major rivers is a Royal matter not to be interfered with by any Governing Company.  In addition to Tribute, the Rex may also collect revenue through tariffs, highway, and port user fees, at rates proposed by the Rex and agreed to by the Assembly.
The tribute is intermediate between a rent and a tax.  There is a uniform percentage rate, countrywide, that each Freehold owes on the assessed value of each of their parcels.  Each Freehold assesses the value of each of their parcels, and each assessment is a binding sales contract to any Royally-chartered corporation.
The Assembly
The Assembly consists of a representative of each Governing Company.  It has the power to approve or block changes in the percentage rate on which Tribute is applied, as well as the rates for Royal user fees and tariffs.  Sole power to recommend changes in these rates lies with the Rex.  It has the power to determine the penalties for failure to pay the Royal Tribute and for violating the constitution.  It has the power to ratify or block all multilateral treaties.  It has the power to approve or block appointments of all diplomats to multilateral organizations.  Voting in the Assembly (on all matters save the election of Judges of Appellate Courts) is weighted.  Each Governing Company controls a number of votes equal to the square root of the most recent Royal Tribute paid by that Freehold (provided it was paid in full and on time).  Freeholds in arrears on their tribute have a voice but no vote.  
Royal Charters and the Governing Companies
Any publicly-traded corporation registered in the country can apply for a Royal Charter.  There are several restrictions on Governing Companies.  They must be organized on common-stock basis, not as coöperatives or worker-managed collectives.  No Governing Company may own stock in any other Governing Company, either directly or via corporate intermediaries.  Residents of a Freehold cannot own stock in the corporation that governs it.  All Assembly representatives must be either appointed by the board of directors or chosen on the same basis as the board of directors is chosen; they cannot be chosen by the corporation's employees or customers.
No Governing Company can be a information provider, i.e. a school, broadcaster, publisher, or internet service provider.  That is, no security corporation can publish a general news periodical or anything in broadsheet or tabloid format, broadcast television or AM/FM radio signals, or provide education or internet service to general consumers.  To do so is a violation of their royal charter.  No Governing Company can own stock in, lend money to, or contract major security duties to an information provider.  (Major security services include the power to make arrests or operate armed vehicles.)  No information provider can own stock in a Governing Company (they must divest within one month of a corporation's receipt of a Royal Charter).
(Security corporations can use 2-way radios, publish irregular news releases on government topics, train adults they intend to hire, and own routers and cables for their own use.  Corporations extending beyond this into gray areas do so at the peril of incurring royal wrath.)
If a corporation meets the criteria above, it is granted a Royal Charter, and can purchase one or more tax parcels.  The corporation becomes a Governing Company when it buys land, and territory thus purchased becomes the Governing Company's Freehold.
The Freeholds
All the adjacent tax parcels owned by a Governing Company are called a Freehold.  If this Freehold includes any territory within the city limits of one of the 50 largest cities in the United States circa 2010, the Freehold is called a Free City.  (For these purposes, the "largest cities" are determined looking strictly at population within city limits.)  A Free City is limited in size to 1200 square miles (equivalent to the smallest state, Rhode Island).
If the Freehold does not include any big-city territory as defined above, it is called a Province and is limited in population to 500,000 (equivalent to least populous states, circa 2000). 
The right to govern is secured by the payment to the Rex of an annual tribute.  The government of a Freehold has extensive powers of governance therein.  There are rules and guidelines on the behavior of Governing Companies in the country's Constitution:
A Governing Company should not exile criminals to other Freeholds without compensation.
A Governing Company is forbidden to take any action to prevent the emigration of anyone it has not imprisoned.
A Governing Company is forbidden to tax goods being transported across (rather than into or out of) its Freeholds.  A Governing Company is forbidden to collect taxes from travelers on Royal Highways.
A Governing Company is forbidden to restrict spoken or written communication or religious worship.  A Governing Company should not allow political parties.
A Governing Company is forbidden to operate any warships or warplanes.  A Governing Company should not seek to develop or maintain an army larger than that of the Rex, but should have an effective and reliable force of moderate size for military, police, and civil defense duties.  (Warship: Armed watercraft with overnight accommodations for crew members, or turbine engines.  Warplane: Armed fixed-wing aircraft.  Armed spacecraft are also forbidden to Governing Companies.)
A Governing Company is forbidden to own any weapons of mass destruction.
A GC's headquarters must not be in any of the Freeholds it governs, and its board meetings may likewise not take place in any of its Freeholds.  When a corporation buys a tax parcel, all stockholders with a residence there have six months to divest or sell their homes.
No GC can own more than three Freeholds, whether they be any combination of Provinces or Free Cities.  No two of a GC's Freeholds can be adjacent.
Governing Companies can devolve powers, at their leisure, to local councils.  Any local council with a jurisdiction of 1000 or fewer families can be constituted on any basis the GC desires; any local council with a larger jurisdiction must be elected by a weighted franchise based on fees paid to the GC.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Guy Cole and Martha Daughtrey Hate White People

Two Federal circuit judges affirmed the second-class status of white people on July 1st.  (Hat tip to Dennis Mangan.)  The ruling, which struck down an anti-discrimination law passed by Michigan's voters in 2006, was supported by both of the judges appointed by President Clinton and opposed by Julia Smith Gibbons, who was appointed to the appellate court by George W. Bush.

The judges made the move to explicitly allow both sexual and racial discrimination in admissions to public universities, as well as in hiring civil servants.  No white males were among the judges who made this decision.  (In contrast, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed at a time when Congress was overwhelmingly white and 97% male, explicitly forbade discrimination by race and gender.)

Cole and Daughtrey have made their move at a time when it is clear that gender discrimination will hurt only males, while racial discrimination will hurt whites and Asians.  For many decades, orthodoxy in the United States has held that any support of discrimination against a group is proof of hatred of that group.

Michigan's attorney general has stated that he will appeal the ruling.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

How to View the Past

This came to me in an epiphany the other day.  I'm sure this is not original wisdom, but I'm not sure who I'm borrowing from so I'll gobble up all the credit for myself.

The past is not part of a "timeline".  Forget about "timelines".  The past is an instruction manual to the present and future.  Conceiving of the past as on the same line with the future means you are lumping what you can change in with what you cannot, like whiling away your time before an exam by wishing for a bigger brain instead of studying.

If you wish for a time machine to go back and change the past, you are wishing for the facts in your instruction manual to be deleted and replaced by fantasies.  This is a natural tendency.  It is childish rather than evil.  Maturity means focussing on learning and responsibility.  Responsibility is the reality of freedom; superpowers are the fantasy.

This is a discipline I in particular need since I am an incorrigible dreamer.  My fondest dream is the First World War never happened.  The dream is beautiful but ultimately it is a burden.