Saturday, July 23, 2011

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Trauma and my Little JQ

A while ago I asked my fellow rightists what role, if any, trauma played in their political development.  Without meaning to, both Jew Among You and Mucius Scaevola both answered my question, with heart-wrenching personal accounts of the violence that they were exposed to as adolescents, violence that leftist theory says can't really happen.

Why?  Because both groups of perpetrators were among the left's favored groups.  In J.A.Y.'s case, it was a group of blacks who decided to beat the hell out of him for the crime of GTSWW (going to school while white).  In MS's case it was sexual assault by a pair of homosexual male acquaintances.  Both of their tales are moving; actually, both bring me to the brink of rage.

I too experienced trauma at the hands of a protected minority.  In my case the trauma was all mental - the physical attacks I suffered were too minor to be considered trauma.  Rather, as a 12-year-old I witnessed several sexual assaults on girls my age by boys in my school.  Boys tore at girls' clothing, kicked girls in the crotch, groped breasts, dry humped.  I could scarcely believe what I was seeing and I have no clear idea  of how I reacted.  I felt like some sort of hovering, trembling, worthless camera absorbing it all.

As far as I know, none of the girls was penetrated but the attacks hit me as trauma.  For years afterwards I couldn't think of the events without the usual PTSD symptoms - elevated heart rate and respiration, anger, forgetting where I was, etc.  How much of my reaction stemmed from an unsatisfied need for justice as opposed to buried fears for my own life and safety, I do not know.

What emerged years later came from my consideration of the demographics involved.  Two of the perpetrating boys were Jewish and one was black or part black.  All the victims were white gentiles.  (My class had a lot of Jewish girls as well but I never saw any of them being assaulted.)  One of the Jewish boys was the son of an important member of the school's administration; the other was the scion of an important business family.

It goes without saying that the black boy was protected from discipline by pro-black bias.  The question I have wrestled with - my own little "Jewish Question", if you will, is whether the other perps were protected by their ethnicity or their individual circumstances.  I only became aware of the idea of loxism several years later, after I was done with my education.

I have blown the question quite out of proportion.  It doesn't really matter if the racist leftists who ran my school on a "boys will be boys" basis were also hyperethnocentrically Jewish.  (Many of them were Jewish, in any case.)  On the other hand, I don't believe my case is 100% unique.  Jews form gangs like anyone else, and can be ethnocentric like anyone else.  Given the overwhelmingly leftist ideology of every Jew I've discussed politics with in real life, someone with my experiences could be forgiven for thinking Jews are out to get us.

This underscores the importance of bloggers like J.A.Y. and Latte Island (who identify as Jews) and Mencius Moldbug and Unamused (who note that they have some Ashkenazi ancestry).  Rightist Jewish bloggers do not form a large group, but neither did the Jews who kicked me, threatened me, spread rumors about me ... and tried to tear off the clothes of my female coëthnics.

Jews have been infected by the same cultural-Marxist virus that so many white gentiles have.  I'll not rehash the names of the Jews or gentiles who were instrumental in creating and spreading the virus.  It's not a contest.  J.A.Y. and Unamused have done more to directly help white people than any other pseudonymous person I know, and that is that.

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.