Friday, March 19, 2010 105 Comments

The true election: a practical option for real political change

Sometimes people ask me: are we, in fact, doomed? Is history over - as all recognized authorities assure us?

I respond: well, they would, wouldn't they? UR is no fan of recognized authorities. We're not here for your official reality. No - wounded we hung, pierced by a spear, pledged to Odhinn - not for any government truth. Here at UR, we sacrifice ourselves, we hang nine long nights on that cold, cold gallows, for the real thing alone, for reason unmixed, for reality itself. And when we find it we fall down, we crumple, we are thrown to our knees, we abase ourselves utterly, we cry like little girls.

But before your golden calf, lords of Egypt, we have nothing but a little girl's silver laughter. Sue us! Shoot us in the police-station bathroom! When all weapons are gone, all magic spears are lost, all swords are rusted through, truth and laughter remain. You are human. You cannot resist a little girl. Your weakness, which will be your downfall, is just that: your humanity.

So. Reality. In reality? In reality? In reality - yes. Of course, in reality, there are options. Let me tell you about one. I call it the true election. It's really a very simple plan.

And not, of course, a quick one. Honestly, I'd be amazed if anyone tries anything like it, any time before I'm an old man. The true election can succeed anywhere and at any time - but it has to be ready to work. And it does not work itself - you have to be ready to work it.

So it's not an Internet virus. Or at least, not just an Internet virus. Since neither of the above constraints is anywhere near satisfied anywhere, no true election can occur any time soon. So, if it frightens you, there is no need to worry! Ha ha. (In truth, I sometimes scare myself.)

First, I must assure you, there is no danger of a military coup. Ie, no danger of an American coup. The Pakistani coup is never to be counted out; in Turkey, all the TV stations have a special tape they play when there's a coup; and that pioneer of the form, Haiti, first nation of the Third World, is always a hotbed of innovation in advanced civil-military relations. America, however, is entirely exempt from this danger.

Or intractable, of course, to this cure. At least in our own day and age. And with what age can we be concerned? One may act for all ages, for the entire future; many purport to; some do. But all act only in their own. For us, in our own age, a military coup is impossible. For better or worse.

Not that it's at all impossible to argue for a coup in America. (If you disagree, read more UR.) However, any such argument has an inevitable quality of unreality, like suggesting that orange aliens from Titans should float down and repair Washington. Well, sure. In fact, I believe they should. But in fact, they won't.

No, really. I'd have little hesitation in preferring the interstellar colonial domination of arbitrary space aliens, sight unseen, to USG 4 in any present or future revision. Especially the latter. With space aliens - it's a gamble, I admit. They could be carnivorous. But a bit of a Pascal's bet, I fear. So how much rather would I bet on the Marines? Will the Marines feed on my living flesh?

Alas, space aliens are more likely. In historical time, the entire United States is well on its way to turning into Detroit. And what will Detroit turn into - in another forty years? Detroit squared, I have no doubt. And when America is Detroit squared, Detroit is Detroit cubed, and the Marine Corps wears full ballet attire and deploys no weapon unsuitable for a kindergartener, its personnel will unanimously and dutifully obey whatever beyond-ridiculous, idiotic, bureaucratic orders they may receive from the raving, zombie-ridden flanks of the Potomac. What less should we expect? It is always the good captain who goes down with his ship, and for no idle reason.

Or, at least: before America is bad enough to have a coup, she will have to be a bad girl indeed. As a student of history, I can tell you: she has only just started on this process. No - in America, the Devil has made few strides indeed! Rather, the rest of the world mainly has he plowed. The coups will be there, and not here. They are (a) necessary and (b) none of your business.

As Burke said: there is a lot of ruin in a nation. There is certainly a lot less ruin left in England, than in Burke's day! But ruin aplenty yet remains to her, and there is even more in America. Even in California.

If you had told an Englishman of Carlyle's day that in 2010, California itself is bankrupt, he would simply not have believed you. For our state, of course, in the 19th century was a metonym for wealth itself - an almost literal El Dorado. If the San Francisco city fathers of 1910 could see their city now, they would pray for another earthquake to finish it. But Carlyle, among very few (Froude is another) both could and would say: "I told you so."

When you read old books, are you reading the people who were right, or the people who were wrong? The people who told the truth, or those who lied? If the latter, step up to nothing at all. Better not to read history at all, than to read it uncritically. Ignorance of the past is a heinous and shameful thing, but I prefer it a thousand times to misinterpretation of the past. This is always a crime; that is, its systematic perpetuation is always attributable to some unsavory, depressing and mundane motive, which will one day be universally acknowledged.

California is ruined. Not by the absolute standards of history; just by the standards of present Californians. As a present Californian, I feel these standards are enough. I feel they are entirely legitimate. I know that, if present trends continue, California will not look like Somalia for a very long time - not personal time, but historical time. There are even permanent geographic differences. For instance, though both are coastal, their climates are quite different.

But suffice it to emerge that over the last 50 years, California has gotten much more like Somalia. By which I mean, of course, Somalia today. Somalia has gotten much more like Somalia over the last 50 years, too! Perhaps these phenomena are related. Perhaps they will continue perhaps, for another 150 years.

Who can say that in 2260, Palo Alto will not see its traffic-jams of gun-mounted technicals? Because frankly, if the last 50 years are smoothed to a line and that line is extrapolated out to four times its length - I see technicals.

Which may in fact be operated by genuine Somalis. Just as champagne isn't really champagne unless it's from Champagne, a technical isn't really a real technical without a real Somali behind the .50-cal. But, well, we're working on that! Ohio, for instance, is full of Somalis. Proving the irresistible power of geography over culture - never mind DNA - they are assimilating perfectly. They look funny, but they act just like other Ohioans. Many, for instance, have become diehard Buckeyes fans; most are Republicans; the very bowling alleys are packed with Somalis.

Not. But, okay, sure - we're working on a lot of things. In the long run, any dystopia, any utopia, is realistic. By 2260, a lot of things can happen. Some, however, are making better progress than others. Which will America see first? Useful nuclear fusion? Authentic Somali technicals? Your guess, dear reader, is as good as mine.

So, yes: America is not ready for an actual coup. It is nowhere near ready. And hopefully it will never be anywhere near ready, for there will be no technicals - authentic or otherwise. I will restrict myself to saying that, once we see technicals, I hope it will act. But there is a lot of ruin in America, and I for one would like to see it stay there. As a student of history, and specifically of the 20th century, I can say: I don't need to see it.

So the true election is not a coup. It's a coup alternative. It's something you do, so that you don't have to have a coup. That said, if successful it achieves the same result: peaceful regime change. A successful coup is, of course, a bloodless coup. An unsuccessful coup can be quite nasty. In an unsuccessful true election, nothing happens at all.

And if the plan is successful, the result is: a reset. A reboot. A reinstall. Out with USG 4; in with USG 5. Out with the present government, which has been proven incompetent; out with the Constitution, or what these days goes by its name (if you want to disturb a supporter of USG 4, ask him to explain the relationship between the Constitution and constitutional law); in with... something else. Something new.

Yes, Virginia, the world is none too old for new things! And if you don't like it, you can always vote for the present government. That's what makes it an election.

Military intervention precluded, there is really only one practical path to genuine and permanent change. Genuine and permanent change can only be produced by the unconditional and irreversible abolition of democracy. Genuine change, permanent or otherwise, can only be produced through the application of democracy.

Therefore, to produce real change, apply the methods, practices and standards of democracy to abolish democracy. This is both difficult and dangerous. But nothing easier or safer will be successful. Anyone who wants to change the government, but is not working toward a true election, is basically wasting his or her time.

As a glance at history will show you, there is nothing even slightly contradictory or impractical about this project. Not only can democracy be overcome by democracy, democracy can be overcome only by democracy. Indeed, it can only be overcome by extreme democracy.

That is: democracy so complete that it sweeps away all nondemocratic political authorities, placing all decisions directly in the hands of the People. Extreme democracy is the democracy of the Committee of Public Safety; democracy without republicanism, in the patois of the civics teacher; democracy above judges, above courts, above law, above everything. In a word: sovereign democracy.

Now, a sovereign people, choosing to act collectively in this majorly bad-ass manner, is not fscking around. Sovereign democracy is not "American Idol" or "The West Wing." Sovereign democracy is the real thing: raw, unconditional authority. Power in the true historical sense. The people become the People.

And if the People want O.J. Simpson hanged, the People have him hanged. If the People want the lower Potomac watershed restored completely to its pre-Columbian condition as a natural wetland and major blue-crab nursery, the People have the bulldozers, the money and the power to get it done. You don't put on the Ring of Sauron and then go to a fscking disco. You don't use your new Sith powers to pick up chicks in a goth bar. If the People recover their sovereignty, it's because they intend to use it. They might not use it wisely, but they'll certainly use the holy fscking Jesus out of it.

Therefore, to exercise their new sovereign power as effectively as possible, the People do the obvious thing. They designate a single individual to act as their agent. They elect a dictator. The democracy of the Jacobins is also the democracy of Napoleon III, of Cromwell, of Hitler.

The results? They depend, obviously, on the dictator. The People are sovereign. If the People, via the dictator who is their agent, choose to invade Poland and massacre the Jews, the People invade Poland and massacre the Jews. That's what sovereignty means. It does not strike me that Americans will invade Poland and massacre the Jews. But people change. The Americans are people. Therefore, better to act sooner, rather than later.

If you have the right to vote, you have the right to elect a dictator (a perfectly respectable Roman title). Otherwise, you don't really have the right to vote at all. You're not actually participating in the circle of power. You're just calling in to American Idol. If you want to actually act politically, the first thing to do is to obtain actual political power. In the present state of USG 4, and in any conceivable future state, this can only be done by this mysterious device of my own invention: the true election.

The pure, wild democracy of the true election is the dioxygen difluoride of republics - the universal solvent and reagent, capable of anything so long as it holds the mob in thrall. It was last seen in this country 75 years ago, in the reign of FDR. FDR was not actually elected in a true election, and nor was America's only other dictator, Lincoln. But both governed as if they were.

Yes. FDR (like Lincoln) was a dictator. He governed America more or less personally by decree. Obviously, many people worked for USG in FDR's time; but, as with a normal corporate CEO, none could flout his will and survive professionally. FDR was not quite in charge of the courts; Lincoln could disregard the judicial process, but FDR couldn't. However, these exceptions should be seen as minor details in an overall pattern of general personal government.

Those who hanker for a New Deal 2.0 should remember that FDR invoked a permanent state of emergency in 1933, just like Hitler. And just like Hitler, he ruled for life. For the next 12 years, he and his minions governed America by whim, like Dick Cheney cubed. It's true that FDR found himself constrained by the Supreme Court. It's not (entirely) true that when he fought the Court, he lost. And there was certainly no one else in America who could contend with him!

(Nor was FDR, as commonly asserted, a "traitor to his class" - anything but it. FDR's beliefs, or at least his speeches (in one so seldom praised for candor, the inference of any actual conviction is at best an exercise of imagination) can indeed be studied as almost perfect reflections of the intellectual fashions of America's apex upper class, the socialite-socialist aristocracy. These fashions have changed somewhat since 1933, but not that much.)

FDR could not, it's true, order someone arrested or shot for no reason at all. At least, not so far as I know. We still have a lot to learn about this era. FDR did not have the powers of Lincoln, who could have anyone arrested, and did - but not shot. Lincoln was no Lenin or Hitler. For the purpose of managing the normal operations of government, however, FDR, Lincoln, Lenin, Hitler, Henry VIII, Cromwell and Napoleon exercised more or less the same level of authority: personal sovereignty.

So this remedy, hardly new to history, is not even new to us. Rather, America has taken the Dictator Pill in the lives of those now living - 75 years ago. And 75 years before that. And its pet historians, though the grant-fed dogs they are, celebrate these episodes as marvelous renewals. Does it compute? Does any of this crap compute? No, gentlemen, we will have the truth!

FDR, personally, was not much of an administrator. FDR was a charming hereditary socialite and a fine political actor. As an administrator, he gets a D for aptitude, a C for effort, and a D for results. (As an actor, his performances turn the stomach today. Try listening to an FDR speech, or worse - watching a propaganda newsreel. This incredible, heavy-handed, flagrantly mendacious schmaltz was pure dynamite for the unsophisticated radio listener of the '30s.)

But in his entourage, FDR had some of the most talented administrators in the history of the world, and those administrators had more or less full executive authority. For instance, if anyone in the lives of those now living has held the job of "CEO of USG," that would be Harry Hopkins. Colonel House dreamed the dream - Harry Hopkins lived it.

There is no Harry Hopkins in Washington today. There is no Colonel House, either. There is no one even remotely like these people; there is no job remotely like their jobs. All the royal powers of the New Deal have been sliced into micron-thick wafers and distributed around ten or fifteen office buildings. These powers have not gone away - quite the contrary. They have, of course, expanded. But they have also become entirely impersonal. (In many cases, they have ended up in the hands of the judiciary - once FDR's worst enemy.)

The change is for the worse in a thousand different ways, but perhaps the worst is that it eradicates any conceivable responsibility for bad results. Thus 65 years after the death of FDR, post-New Deal Washington displays all the vices of the real New Deal, and none of its virtues. This will not change. This clock does not roll back. There is no fountain of youth for the State. A Brezhnev does not become a Lenin. Fish soup does not become an aquarium. Etc.

Bismarck said: God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States. In the 20th century we saw one great manifestation of God's providence: America made it to Brezhnev without going through Lenin or Stalin. But after Brezhnev, what's next? More Brezhnev, and nothing else. Chernenko, you might say. Don't tell anyone I told you so, but God's providence seems to be on the wane. At least as it comes to America. Before it goes away entirely, perhaps we should make some collective effort to actually deserve it.

The basic grim truth that Americans need to face up to is that American successes and victories in the 19th and 20th centuries did not happen because of America's unique political system. They happened despite America's unique political system. America became great not because American democracy was great, but because America was a great people in a great place. As such, it was uniquely resistant to the poison of democracy, and alone survived its own disease. Now that the bloom is off the continent's youth, we can see how well American democracy works in a normal country. Others have experienced this disappointment; now, it is our turn.

The paradox is that to act collectively on this realization, we must release the power of pure democracy - which, in a democracy, can do anything. Up to and including terminating democracy. Power can relinquish power; the Ring can destroy the Ring. Indeed, gentlemen, there is no other good use for the Ring!

Many people realize this - almost. They are called libertarians. A libertarian is someone who does not want his agent, the State, to exercise power. He feels the nobility of resignation. There is only one problem with our libertarian: he does not realize that sovereignty cannot be destroyed, but only transferred. Natura abhorret a vacuo. He cannot resign his democratic office until he resigns it - completely - to someone. Preferably not the wrong someone.

When he bridges this great mind-gap, he makes his final escape from the Computer, completes the Carlylean metamorphosis and emerges as a true imperialist butterfly. Watch it happen here. Note that "The Devil" is the chairman of the LPUK:
What is it, to be free? Free to do what one wants? Or free to walk down the street without fearing for one's life? Surely if one permits the former that necessarily puts the latter in jeopardy? Which freedom is more desirable?

The Devil at The Devil's Kitchen has me wondering about freedom. From what I can gather, he argues for freedom from the state. Being a lefty kind of girl, I've never questioned the existence of the state before. Being a lefty kind of girl, I grew up believing the state takes money off its citizens in order to redistribute it. It helps the poor to be less poor. It forces the rich to care about those who are less fortunate. It provides free health care and education for all. It enforces rules to ensure its citizens are kind to each other, look after each other, and do upon others as they would do upon themselves. Being a lefty kind of girl, I believed the right-wingers to be evil monsters and the left-wingers to be righteous pursuers of justice.

Then I became a teacher.

Now all I can see is the great harm done to my children by the welfare state. I see young women encouraged to have children at an early age by the state that dangles pseudo-gifts in front of their eyes. I see most children take their education for granted, or indeed reject it entirely because they haven't had to pay for it. I see parents take little interest in their child's education because they'll have an education, no matter what. I see both children and parents abuse books, pencils, or laptops because they have been given to them. I see property defaced over and over, because it belongs to no one. I see my colleagues abused day after day by children who have no sense of gratitude.

My children are no longer free to have motivation. They are no longer free to have ambition. They are no longer free to have a sense of pride, or indeed shame. Gone is the freedom of making plans for the future, or saving for a rainy day. Gone is the idea of building up a bank of skills to make something of oneself. Gone is the idea of being responsible for a life, for one's own life, and for one's family.

But if there were no state, who would build the roads? Who would pick up the rubbish? Who would provide the police who keep me safe when walking down the street?

My children do not have the freedom to do what they want, as I think The Devil would like for himself. They are children. And we take their freedom, with the hope that this will give them greater freedoms later in life. My children are too young to know what is good for them. I don't ask them to do the right thing. I tell them. I tell them to do X in the same way that the state tells us to do Y.

Being a lefty kind of girl, I don't mind being told what to do by the state. I only mind when the state's orders cause harm. My issue with the state is not with its existence. My issue with the state is that it takes away any meaningful freedom from my children. It leaves my children with the freedom to go to prison, work at McDonald's, or have a child. The state robs my children of their lives. And being a lefty kind of girl who pursues righteousness and justice, I hate the state for killing my children.
Alas, there is no present political option for Miss Snuffleupagus. (Read some more of this incredible blog while it's still up - for instance, this or this.) There is no Imperialist Party. At least, not yet. But as a student of history, I can tell you: sanity, though it can disappear almost entirely for centuries, can never be counted out. Truth and laughter!

As a dramatic act of catharsis and termination, American democracy can only be properly decommissioned by the American voter himself. As a democratic citizen, to give up on democratic politics is to say: I relinquish my powers, I resign from office, I surrender my thinly-sliced marshal's baton. I reject this system of government, which has failed. I will no longer serve as its part-time officer. Therefore, I will abstain from voting, until I can vote for a complete transition of authority.

This act of sovereign resignation, however thinly sliced or even entirely forged, is a noble act. It is not at all an act of submission - ie, to the Emperor. Rather, because the democratic voter in a true election establishes both Empire and Emperor, yet concedes her own powers forever, voting for the Emperor is an act of both dominance and self-denial. Among advanced civilizations worldwide, this unusual combination is is characteristic of the historical ideals and principles of nobility. As such many generations have seen it in the stories of Cincinnatus, the Self-Denying Ordinance, the Newburgh Conspiracy, etc, etc.

Surely you're familiar with these episodes. Or not. Alas, nobility is not much studied in the classrooms of USG 4. But its converse, here, will serve our purpose just as well. The problem of democratic de-democratization has its legendary analogue in the surely-apocryphal story of the monkey-hand trap, from which the monkey can only escape by letting go of the banana.

To escape from late, Brezhnevized democracy and advance into history, which contrary to popular belief is not even slightly over, the American voter has one and only one collective problem to solve: letting go of the banana. He can obtain good government by using his democratic power to cancel itself, and replacing democracy with Empire. And in no other way.

As a collective decision, letting go of the banana is so difficult, and so obviously in retrospect redolent of the purest, noblest, and most historic motives, that it will be instantly unsurpassed in the epic drama of history. Like the victory of Augustus, it will usher in a new imperial age of social, economic and political repair and restoration. Not just the capital city, but the entire country, is drastically in need of renovation. Remodeling the burnt, cockroach-ridden wreck of democracy is no easy task. The Emperor, however, is up to it.

If American voters can end democracy in a true election, whether locally in a single state or at the Federal level, the act will instantly and automatically be imitated by every democratic nation in the world. In a flash of golden light, not at all unlike the fall of communism, Empire will break out everywhere. The wave that once so overwhelmed will hesitate, fall and roll back. Again, as democracy ends in America, the world will see military coups everywhere. (Unlike democracy in America, democracy elsewhere is - again - none of your business.)

But the fall of democracy is bigger than the fall of communism. Much bigger. Before communism fell, hardly anyone in a communist country could imagine the end of communism. After it fell, no one could possibly imagine its restoration. When the idol falls, it smashes. Gilt clay, marbled brick, show their guts for what they were. Who worships clay? Clay, in shards?

So once this feat is done, properly done, it is done entirely and for good. For those who say it cannot be done - no empire is eternal, not even yours. For those who say it should not, consider the matter again! If I cannot change your mind, time will. The arrow points downward. History, which is not at all over, holds seven thousand hells beyond your dreams or even mine. "Enormous Megatherions, ugly as were ever born of mud." Somalia! Somalia! Somalia is coming to America. Slowly and certainly, this way or that way, Somalia is coming. Extrapolate the curve. I mean, you do know how to extrapolate curves. You can extrapolate any of a dozen.

But how can it be done? How can we release the powers of pure democracy, to terminate USG 4 and instantiate USG 5, firing the electorate and installing the Emperor? Oh, it's actually quite simple. Again, to start the restoration process in a nation whose fundamental constitution is the principle of popular sovereignty, all you need is a true election.

Let us now unveil this mysterious, yet shockingly simple, plan.

Why is a true election called a true election? Because after a true election, the election's winner (person or party) actually receives complete control of the government.

I know! It's shocking! Dear reader, you can scroll up if you like, and check if I said my plan wasn't shocking. No - this is a shocking plan. You should be shocked. Dogs and cats live together; UR endorses pure democracy.

By unconditional control of the government, of course, I mean absolute sovereignty. If it's not clear to you quite what this means in practice, it will be. You can also read Filmer. I'm a big Filmer fan. And there's always Hobbes, of course. And my own idol, Carlyle.

Now, true elections are not regularly held in America, or in any country. Rather, when you elect a President, you elect a man or woman who will direct a specific agency of government, the White House. What are the actual powers of the White House? The answer is not at all simple. But the answer is certainly not absolute sovereignty. Therefore, an ordinary Presidential election is anything but a true election.

How do you turn an ordinary election into a true election? Quite easily. To create a true election, find an election for some office that could legitimately exercise sovereignty (ie, not dogcatcher, School Board, etc), and place on this ballot a candidate or party who have made the unilateral declaration that, if elected, they will consider their election a true election. If you don't like it - don't vote for the candidate.

We'll call this person the true candidate. Let's assume, just for fun, that she's a woman. If elected, through the magic of popular sovereignty (not to mention the practical asset of almost unanimous grassroots support in the security forces), she will simply assume the emergency powers which the voters have granted them, and exercise them. Since the election is a true election, these are the powers of Augustus - the power of imperium.

And whatever her elected title, her actual duties have only one true name - Empress. Or Queen. Or, of course, CEO. In the 21st century, the English vocabularies of royalism versus imperialism are both effectively equivalent; as opposed to mere monarchism, which refers to the present, symbolic monarchies; they are clear and honest assertions of unconditional executive authority. Equivalent executive authority exists today in the private, corporate sphere, whose bland doxology is far more likely to achieve adoption. But ya can't say I didn't try.

Thus, our true candidate assumes the imperium by the following obvious strategy. She declares that though her name appears on the ballot for Governor of California, a largely titular and legislative position with little meaningful executive authority, the voters of California voters can use this election to communicate their general dissatisfaction with the present government of the state, and their desire for a complete change of regime.

Therefore, if you go to the ballot box on Tuesday and vote for the true candidate, you agree that you are voting to (a) resume your popular sovereignty, and (b) exercise that sovereignty by electing said true candidate to occupy the new office of True Governor of California, for simplicity shortened to Governor, with absolute personal authority - the executive powers of a sovereign CEO. Or, of course, Empress. This delegation of sovereignty is not permanent, but can be retracted in a second true election, which will be held in four years exactly as scheduled.

Obviously, if such votes are in the majority, the voters will expect them to be honored. There is a bit of the Jedi mind-trick to all this, but not much. It's democracy, after all.

To vote for the true candidate is to say: I have no confidence in the present government. I therefore vote to resume the authority of the people, accepted implicitly in all constitutional systems, and transfer complete control of the government for a limited time period to you, my true candidate - in whom I do have confidence.

If you win the election, true candidate, I delegate my entire slice of sovereignty to you. I expect you to demand and assume this personal authority, governing in general accordance with the detailed program you have set out, but overriding all other institutions and authorities by your own personal decisions.

Ideally, the true election is an election for an existing position of nominal executive sovereignty. For instance, if a candidate runs for President on the platform just described, and wins, the mandate is clear. The requested authority is almost certain to be uncontested.

Heck - FDR, though democratically elected, was elected on a platform which promised almost the exact opposite of the policies on which he governed. He assumed personal sovereignty without anything remotely like a democratic mandate. (He just had a rubber-stamp majority in both houses of Congress - a perfectly practical way to run a one-party state ) If a true election actually mandates the imperial scepter, the evidence of consent is overwhelming. And will overwhelm.

But history is not over, and nor will ever be; no border is final; no empire, not even the empire of democracy, is forever. Thus a true election can occur not only in an existing sovereign, but in any plausible one. Victory in this case constitutes a popular declaration of secession. If the new sovereign is not independent, the new sovereign is not sovereign. (Indeed, a true election is probably the only way in which a state, province, or even a city can secede.)

So, for instance, suppose California elects a true candidate in a true election. What is her first act as True Governor? It can only be to: declare the independence of California, institute a state of emergency, and order the state security forces to secure all borders and military installations. (In case you hadn't noticed, Abraham Lincoln is no longer in the White House.)

Can she do this stuff? Of course she can do this stuff! She's the True Governor. If she wants someone shot, the CHP will drag him out and shoot him. That's what absolute sovereignty means. (That's why you should be careful who you vote for in a true election.)

But will the CHP obey her? That, of course, depends on what she plans to do. For example, if a major plank in her campaign platform is the annihilation of the Jews, no. I don't think the CHP will obey her. Regardless of how many votes she gets for her annihilation-of-the-Jews platform. However, if her platform is not the annihilation of the Jews, but rather the restoration of adult supervision to Sacramento and sound government to California, I suspect the matter will be otherwise. And really, could she win on any other basis?

Having achieved that philosopher's stone of history, the true imperium, personal government of California, our Governor faces her next problem: keeping the new Ring she has forged. Being a pearl of great price, imperium demands a castle of great strength.

FDR had no trouble with this stage. But FDR, I'm sorry to have to tell you, was, um - well - FDR was, um, evil. Not as evil as some; but more evil than many. The Governor, who is not evil, has achieved personal authority by non-evil methods. Indeed none other could have worked. Now that she is True Governor, both ways are open to her. Choose the right true candidate, and she will choose the path of righteousness! Choose the wrong one, and...

First, democracy cannot be undone in a single true election. No electorate can be convinced to elect a dictator-for-life - not by any honest method. And probably not by any dishonest one. The True Governor's sovereignty is absolute, but it isn't permanent. Again, she is no more than the agent of the sovereign people of California - who have tied themselves to the mast for four years, by agreeing not to have another true election until the Governor's term is up.

Rather, by electing the Governor, the citizens of California have merely chosen to test the hypothesis that democracy is the cause of all their polity's ills. The Governor is not elected for life. Quite the contrary - she is elected for the normal term of office. Moreover, she will not run for re-election. Modern dictatorship, 20th-century-style, is the farthest thing from her regime. She is a dictator only in the classical sense of the word.

So, when the Governor's term expires four years later, the New California conducts a two-stage election. In the first stage, the Governor offers Californians a new, post-democratic constitution designed to secure the permanent benefits of stable and effective imperial domination. If they (foolishly) reject this new, golden Empire of California, she offers them two choices.

One, she can select a new True Governor to continue the New California on a trial basis for another four years. This decision can be renewed indefinitely. The interim regime, while not permanent and not permanently stable (it is, after all, a democracy), can go on as long as it wants. It is the tool of the People; it is the People who are sovereign. Until they finally resign.

Two, she can restore the old political system of California - precisely as it was, even down to the individual judges and politicians. If the People of California want Jerry Brown and Stephen Reinhardt back, perhaps they deserve Jerry Brown and Stephen Reinhardt back. For the Lord works in mysterious ways, and collective punishment is not at all outside His philosophy.

And this is the structure of the plan: the true election. Convinced as I am of this strategy, I cannot imagine how regime change can be performed without it. Nor can I imagine how our present government can, without regime change, be repaired.

So this transition plan from democracy to Empire, our very own Augustan renewal, requires victory in two elections, both true in that victory rewards the winner with uncompromised imperium. Of course, the present voters of California (and everywhere else) have a complete spiritual dedication to their present rulers, and to democracy itself. Both these elections will be extremely hard to win. If either is lost, the entire transition fails.

The true election is immeasurably superior to all other plans for restoring good government in America, however. This is because if it succeeds, it will actually work. Making it succeed is, of course, far more difficult in principle than winning a normal election for the same position. Which is already extremely difficult. So why try?

Because difficult and impossible are very different things. Actually, I find it really quite amazing that anyone shows up at elections for the present system of government, or cares about it at all. To anyone who knows anything about Washington, the prospect of achieving any actual result by this means is nothing short of hilarious. Everything in Washington is designed to resist hostile political interference. Indeed, it is nourished by hostile political interference! When you try to defeat Democrats by electing Republicans, you're trying to drown a fish.

It is with Democratic actors in the show, as at present, that Washington languishes and looks weak. Conclusion: if a true election is not yet possible, do your best to keep the Democrats in office. They look dangerous and to some extent they are, but they are an old, old, dog. Their bark is a lot worse than their bite, and there's not even much left of the bark.

Therefore, a simple personal strategy that anyone who wants real political change can follow is this: begin an unconditional and permanent boycott of all normal, ie non-true, elections. Don't vote until you have a true election to vote in. Whoever or whatever is on the paper, you're just voting yes to Washington as it is today.

This strategy adopted, the question thus becomes: how does the true candidate win the first and second true elections? We'll look at the answer in the next UR post.


Blogger nazgulnarsil said...

monkey's do not let go of bananas.

March 19, 2010 at 5:18 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

How does this path distinguish itself from the Hitler path (i.e., fascism), the road that you've said on many occasions is closed to us?

March 19, 2010 at 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Steve Johnson said...


We have to not elect Hitler. It helps if the situation doesn't get as bad as it did before the election of Hitler.

The longer the polity waits to have a true election the greater the odds of a Hitler winning.


The "ruin in a nation" quote was from Adam Smith, not Burke. Since your knowledge of history is so much greater than mine I wonder if there was a reason for misidentifying the source.

March 19, 2010 at 8:11 PM  
Blogger jsabotta said...

March 19, 2010 at 11:30 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

This post features an unusually high amount of babble, even for Mencius. I guess it's hard to keep a straight-face and legal blood-alcohol level when recommending a course of action with such a stunning track-record of failure.

Confusing Burke with Smith (who were at least contemporaries who tended to agree on most matters) isn't that surprising. He confused Frederick William I, Elector of Brandenburg with Frederick the Great not too long ago.

I'll write a real response tomorrow.

March 20, 2010 at 12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imperium is confusing. On one hand, it's supposed to mean absolute power. On the other hand, it can't be used in such a way that it pisses people off too much (eg, to kill the jews, etc) - so the power isn't actually so absolute. Can anyone come up with a better definition?

March 20, 2010 at 12:45 AM  
Blogger AMcGuinn said...

I was a bit afraid we would end up here. After all that original analysis, we end up with, oh yeah, a populist dictatorship.

The reasoning is OK as far as it goes, but it skips too much. Our true candidate pops up out of nowhere and wins a true election. I don't think so. First the true candidate needs a movement, and a party. The true candidate depends on her party. The true candidate must maintain her authority over her party - by rewarding her supporters and handicapping her rivals. Is there another way? Now would be a good time to reveal it.

All I can suggest is that the takeover must come as a sudden shock, depending on no party-building or politics. The True Election, if it occurs, must be no more than popular recognition of the fait accompli. It's not obvious that in circumstances meeting those requirements (if we can think of any) the election would even be necessary.

March 20, 2010 at 5:06 AM  
Blogger AMcGuinn said...

Furthermore, the idea of absolute sovereignty for a limited time is incoherent. Who administers the next election? What rules govern the campaign?

March 20, 2010 at 5:11 AM  
Blogger sykes.1 said...

You are too optimistic.

We already have the Somalis here in Ohio and elsewhere, and the Mexican drug lords already have the technicals and the Ma Deuces.

All that is needed is a link-up

March 20, 2010 at 6:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These Somalis look pretty assimilated to me.

It takes a peculiar lack of futuristic imagination to think about CA 250 years in the future and not see anything stranger or more disturbing than Somalis with machine guns. I imagine by that time we will have an impressively shiny technofuture where we are customizing the genes of our offspring, or have reverted back into an agrarian peasantry. The machine guns will either have all turned to rust or ave been replaced with nanobots swarms.

I stopped reading about a hundred paragraphs in. Jesus, learn to write concisely if you want to influence anybody who values their time.

March 20, 2010 at 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of Imperium...

UR readers should take some time to acquaint themselves with the writings of Francis Parker Yockey, one of the least known but most incisive American thinkers.

Francis Parker Yockey collection:

I would recommend starting with the 'America' section of IMPERIM (1948).

Here's a link to the full contents of IMPERIUM.'

The chapter on America opens with a quote from Carlyle, btw.

“America’s battle is yet to fight; and we, sorrowful though nothing doubting, will wish her strength for it. New Spiritual Pythons, plenty of them, enormous Megatherions, as ugly as were ever born of mud, loom huge and hideous out of the twilight Future on America; and she will have her own agony, and her own victory, but on other terms than she is yet quite aware of.”

— Carlyle

“Will the intellectually primitive upper class, obsessed as it is with the thought of money, reveal all at once, in face of this danger, dormant moral forces that will lead to the real construction of a State and to spiritual preparedness to sacrifice possessions and blood to it, instead of regarding war as a means of gaining wealth, as hitherto?”

— Spengler

From wikipedia,

"...His parents were anglophiles who raised him to appreciate European high culture. Subsequently, Yockey was introduced to classical music through his mother, who studied at the Chicago Musical College. He proved to have a prodigious talent for the piano and developed his repertoire to include Liszt, Beethoven, Chopin, and Haydn. Yockey also said that his ideas about race were initially the result of a car accident he was in as a youth, in which he was subsequently assaulted by several African Americans. He lost his front teeth as a result of the incident, and wore dentures for the rest of his life.

He flirted with Marxism briefly in his youth, but later became a devotee of the elitist and anti-materialist Oswald Spengler after reading Spengler's seminal text, Der Untergang des Abendlandes (The Decline of the West), in 1934. He was also heavily influenced by the ideas of the German legal scholar Carl Schmitt. Unlike Spengler, however, who regarded the Nazis as too bourgeois, and disagreed with their anti-Semitism and strictly biological view of race, Yockey came to believe in German National Socialism, and supported various Fascist and neo-Fascist causes for the rest of his life, including anti-Semitism (although, like Spengler, he too rejected the purely biological view of race). He was also very interested in the concept of geopolitics as expressed by Karl Haushofer.

While still a university student in the late 1930s, Yockey had his first political essay published in Social Justice, a periodical distributed under the auspices of Fr. Charles Coughlin, the so-called "radio priest," who at the time was widely known for his sympathetic view of the anti-Bolshevist policies associated with Adolf Hitler's Germany, Benito Mussolini's Italy, and Francisco Franco's Spain.

Yockey attended at least seven universities. He studied for two years (1934-36) as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan, and then transferred to Georgetown's School of Foreign Service. He apparently completed his undergraduate degree at the University of Arizona. He continued on to study law, and graduated cum laude from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1941."

March 20, 2010 at 7:20 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

This post features an unusually high amount of babble, even for Mencius. - TGGP

BTW, do you still think he's pro-Islam?

Imperium is confusing. On one hand, it's supposed to mean absolute power. On the other hand, it can't be used in such a way that it pisses people off too much (eg, to kill the jews, etc) - so the power isn't actually so absolute. Can anyone come up with a better definition?

Perhaps, but see below. (And Moldbug won't like it, or wouldn't, if he read it.)

First the true candidate needs a movement, and a party. The true candidate depends on her party. The true candidate must maintain her authority over her party - by rewarding her supporters and handicapping her rivals. Is there another way? Now would be a good time to reveal it.... Furthermore, the idea of absolute sovereignty for a limited time is incoherent. - AMcGuinn

The other way is, don't assemble a party of supporters who need the usual kinds of rewards. You're right, Moldbug skipped too much, and I'm trading riffs for him because his thinking interests me, not because I'm much of a neocameralist (or an Austrian, or an anti-Protestant, or any of that stuff).

Okay, the body of supporters is key. For whatever reason, we don't get a military coup (which for a long time I thought was the only solution he thought plausible). What we get instead, is a civic union of reactionary activists. He has hinted at the ingredients from time to time - airline pilots, policemen, hedge fund managers, and a variety of engineers. A couple of colonels couldn't hurt.

Moldbug has only supplied the historical reading and the vaguest template for change. Some other bloke introduces the elements to another; someone else does the administration; someone else supplies the secret mansion; someone else contacts the Prince of Lichtenstein. The point is, tons of powerful reactionaries have to sign onto the plan in detail, ahead of time. If the Governor / Empress / whoever decides not to give up absolute power....

The deal with absolute power is, there is no such thing unless armed men back you up in it, generally because of their attachment to your personality. Yet in Moldbug's framework, the ideas are more important than the leader. The leader is more like a US Trustee, chosen for skill and reliability, not charisma. The movement chooses the leader, not the other way around.

Why don't the followers need to be rewarded conventionally, i.e. with patronage and subsidies? Because the idea of subsidies disgusts them, and because they all are either already in public-sector jobs (the CHP in his example) or because they like being web designers, HVAC engineers, crop dusters, whatever. They are in it for ideological reasons from the outset, and their main ideology is Moldbuggian anacap, or neocameralism.

The body of supporters needs to be united around a goal and a vision. They are needed to guard the Empress against ACORN volunteers, Dutch animal rights activists, poets laureate of New Jersey, etc. If she steps out of line and goes all Nero, the reactionary civic union disposes of her.

The reason Moldbug wouldn't like my riffs is that I'm basically describing the winning side in the English Civil War. He's supposed to prefer the Cavaliers, for like a jillion reasons. I'm not saying Cromwell fits the "not excessively violent" criterion, but he did refuse the crown.

Anyway, the question in not whether the aforementioned scenario is plausible, just whether it is any less plausible than any other civilization-saving scenario.

March 20, 2010 at 8:53 PM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

@B Lode

If she steps out of line and goes all Nero, the reactionary civic union disposes of her.

That's not how dictatorship works. Dictatorship places all trust and responsibility in one individual. I (and I think MM) believe that this works better because at least said dictator has the correct incentives. Given rationality and competence (hard but not impossible), the dictator can do quite well.

What you have is an oligarchy. What's worse: you have an oligarchy with unclear separation of rights. This is exactly the problem with our current system. Why will the reactionary civic union not split off into factions which screw over the collective to help themselves. I am sure the airline pilots will have no problem convincing themselves that there should be more airports. The cops will have no problem convincing themselves that they should have more pensions. You say that these people don't like patronage. However, historically, nobody has. The solution has always been: pretend that it's not patronage and then everything is fine.

If the reactionary civil union can remove the Empress, she isn't much of an Empress.

IMO, an Emperor (/Empress) doesn't deserve the name unless it takes (at minimum) a well-coordinated effort of a well-armed and well-trained military force of at least five percent of said ruler's population to dislodge him. There have been many emperors in history for which, it would take considerably more.

This entire post does seem rather weak. For some reason, MM continues to refuse the obvious and likely solution of outside military might.

March 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Off-topic: I recently put up some hard-to-find (at least on the net) essays by Frank Knight up at my personal site. I'm not a fan of the anti-reductionist, literary & evidence-free style which reminds me somewhat of Mencius. Those who do like that sort of thing should check it out. Also, I was referring to myself rather than Pals as a convinced libertarian in a previous thread, but forgot the "I" in "I was".

"I'd have little hesitation in preferring the interstellar colonial domination of arbitrary space aliens, sight unseen, to USG 4 in any present or future revision"
Taking the outside-view, most species have not benefitted from the arrival of humanity (though a few, such as cockroaches, have fared spectacularly). Even restricting things to human governance, Mencius has not chosen to flee from Plainland (or even San Fran Freaking Cisco!) as fast as his nerdy legs can carry him.

"In historical time, the entire United States is well on its way to turning into Detroit"
An extreme and unsupported assertion. I presume crime is his most important indicator, but that is down. I actually emailed Mencius this a little while ago, but he seems distinctly uninterested in info about actual crime rates. It's not just marginally better than the days of crack wars, it's at Leave it to Beaver levels in Los Angeles, Mexifornia. As for the future of Detroit, the replacement of Kwame Kilpatrick with David Bing and the recognition that large areas will simple have to be abandoned strike me as relative improvements, which is not to say I predict a bright future for the place.

It's funny that Mencius talks about how unthinkable California's trouble would be in the 19th century when nine states defaulted on their debt back then. And he prides himself on his knowledge of the 19th century!

I can't resist linking to this whenever someone brings up Somalia.

If the Constitution wasn't able to guarantee that it would continue to be obeyed, how can you assure that democracy will be permanently/irreversibly abolished?

"the People do the obvious thing. They designate a single individual to act as their agent."
That is not at all the obvious thing. Read Larry Bartel's "Tumbling Down into a Democratical Republick", which I think many hear will enjoy. In America, for a long time the "obvious thing" is that representative agents are all despicable and that the cure for flawed democracy is "more democracy", however many times that fails.

Gene Healy's "The Cult of the Presidency" is recommended reading on the changing powers of the executive branch, with both Lincoln & FDR making notable appearances. Neither of them actually had genuine dictatorial power: both had decisions overruled by the Supreme Court, and when FDR attempted to pack SCOTUS Congress stood up to him. In the later part of his presidency a coalition of Republicans & southern Democrats held power.

March 20, 2010 at 10:17 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

MM has before tried to portray the old patrician class of America as liberal, with n/a of r/h/e notes debunking his claims. I'll cite him again here. "Old Money" is to the right of "New Money". Many prominent old money families opposed FDR (particularly in the traditionally Republican northeast), while his base of support was poor southerners & immigrants. It was their children who became liberals. Flenser was repeating many of the same things as MM on my site a little while back, and again n/a was a good source for debunkings.

"none of its virtues"
There are none to be had.

"sovereignty cannot be destroyed, but only transferred"
Somalia ceased to have a government, I'd say that counts as destroyed sovereignty.

"Watch it happen here"
The person in question was never a libertarian and hasn't become a Carlylean but remains a professed lefty.

"advance into history"
The very phrase smacks of historicism, which you have rightly condemned.

Did Augustus really usher in an age of repair & restoration? His refusal to acknowledge the end of the Republic is the sort of political dishonesty Mencius usually deplores.

This "flash of golden light" business is the sort of nonsense you'd usually make fun of in liberals. Democracy has been replaced by dictatorship any number of times before, to little effect. Your solipsism expanded just enough to include America only serves to reveal your ignorance.

"After it fell, no one could possibly imagine its restoration"
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party remained the second largest, as I mentioned before.

"Extrapolate the curve"
So far you have referred us to no numbers to extrapolate, perhaps because you can't find any to support your case that wouldn't be laughed at.

"place on this ballot a candidate or party who have made the unilateral declaration"
You are talking about changing personnel, which is just the sort of pointless thing you condemn above. That does not suffice to change the actual structure of governance, and if elected the new official will presumably be stymied.

"not to mention the practical asset of almost unanimous grassroots support in the security forces"
Who is to say that will be had? Obama received the most donations from the military, followed by Ron Paul, but I would hardly characterize it as "unanimous".

"This delegation of sovereignty is not permanent, but can be retracted in a second true election, which will be held in four years exactly as scheduled."
I suspect that the holder of absolute power might use said power to prevent any possibility that they be removed. Rather than an integer number of years, how about restricting it to a relevant issue requiring such authority? Pirate captains had such authority during battles, otherwise the quartermaster checked the captain's powers.

March 20, 2010 at 10:19 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

"Indeed, a true election is probably the only way in which a state, province, or even a city can secede"
Singapore seceded through a coalition of nationalists & communists. The secession of the United States was not based on elections either. Where is your evidence of secession through true election?

Stefan Molyneux argues here (as an explanation for why he didn't jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon) that even if we elected somebody promising to make such radical changes, it wouldn't go through. I think part of the problem here is the belief that there is such a thing as popular will which can give a mandate to a presidency. As we've known since Converse, there is no popular will and the masses cannot comprehend political ideas sufficienty to approve of them in the first place. Obama failed to accomplish much, which shouldn't be surprising since his popularity was as meaningless as Boulanger's before him.

"The Governor, who is not evil, has achieved personal authority by non-evil methods. Indeed none other could have worked."
This makes no sense. Pretty much all such "true candidates" are FDR-evil. And FDR achieved power upon being elected when there was extreme dissatisfaction with the status quo (this wouldn't work as well for the right, unless it was the secession of an area where these ideas are dominant, for the reasons Molyneux discusses), just as you surmise for your "true candidate".

"Choose the right true candidate"
Something that has never happened.

"Nor can I imagine how our present government can, without regime change, be repaired."
If we're talking about the percentage of GDP going to government, Canada has been impressive in its reductions. Sweden has also been shifting rightward for some time. It might be necessary to bribe some interest groups to accomplish such reductions.

"This is because if it succeeds, it will actually work."
Sounds like a fairly empty tautology. If you define "succeed" and "work" in any non-trivial sense, you have not proven your case.

"Actually, I find it really quite amazing that anyone shows up at elections for the present system of government, or cares about it at all."
Perhaps that reveals a shortcoming in your implicit model of politics. Think like reality until you aren't surprised.

B Lode:
It was a tongue-in-cheek Straussian interpretation. The real question should be "Why isn't he pro-Islam", since it best fulfills his goal of resisting liberalism.

Speaking of Cromwell, Carlyle was a big fan of him.

March 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM  
Blogger newt0311 said...


A minor quibble:

"Watch it happen here"
The person in question was never a libertarian and hasn't become a Carlylean but remains a professed lefty.

Did you read the same blog that I did?

Try this entry:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

March 20, 2010 at 10:38 PM  
Blogger Studd Beefpile said...

Color me unimpressed with a modern Acerbo law. That MM doesn't even mention it is odd, considering how much of a deal Flynn makes of it in As We Go Marching, a work MM is quite fond of.

March 20, 2010 at 11:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One problem with true elections is the implementation of the election. It seems like there would be large incentives for "compromises" in the design of the election process itself, like B Lode's, that would sully the benefit.

More importantly, wouldn't term limits create an incentive for short term thinking on the part of the dictator? I thought one of the reasons absolute sovereignty was preferable was because a long time horizon is rewarded under monarchical ownership. The empress wouldn't be able to make painful decisions, because then her term wouldn't be renewed, and under a state of decay advanced enough to warrant this sort of election, practically any decision she'd be called upon to make would be painful.

Besides, the propaganda factories will always be staffed by benefactors of the status quo. Why would they ever advance such ideas?

Resurrecting the monarchy, however preferable one would be to our present state of affairs, doesn't seem possible. The old monarchies were genuine cultural and social institutions, rooted in history. A sort of "proposition dictatorship," voted in by the people, couldn't possibly replicate that.

Europe's future looks like race war, not monarchy. America's future, I cannot imagine.

March 20, 2010 at 11:10 PM  
Blogger nazgulnarsil said...

I was kind of curious if spengler or his disciples would ever be brought up. MM shares a lot in common with these types of, as TGGP well puts it, "the anti-reductionist, literary & evidence-free style" of cramming historical tidbits into a framework.

of course this isn't the first time such has come up, as can be seen in one of MM's exchanges here:

March 21, 2010 at 12:03 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

I don't have a problem with "technicals" because they're all unruly and stuff. I have a problem with them because they are Somali. No offense to Somalis, but as such, they are too different from me by temperament, religion, custom, and physical appearance. So if they gotta do their anarchic stuff, I'd rather they do in in the Horn of Africa, and not in my habitat.

Now, should "technicals" be part of our future, and they looked like I do (and Mencius, and UR readership), then I'd say "so be it." My children, Mencius' children, and UR readers' children woudl hopefully adjust to the new reality and do OK therein.

Sure, those technicals would be unruly and badass, but in their downtime they'd throw the football around. Listen to rock or country. And sire girls who'd be nice to look at when they grow up.

SO it's not the spectre of the technicals that makes for a dystopian future. It's the spectre of said technicals being "their guys", and not "our guys."

March 21, 2010 at 5:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess it's not only the future about which you folks have a rather limited imagination.

March 21, 2010 at 10:44 AM  
Blogger B Lode said...

If the reactionary civil union can remove the Empress, she isn't much of an Empress.


I have often that absolute personal authority can only extend to a village of about 100 people. With 200 people, the biggest five guys are going to be able to beat you up. (I made up those numbers, shamlessly!) In the modern world, you could be an autocrat in a large village if you were the only one who had the keys to the only robotic tank.

The point is, there are no autocracies, no dictatorship. Everything is a military oligarchy. I see no exceptions.

But then again, that is all only true using my own personal posited definitions - other definitions posited by you are also legitimate.

March 21, 2010 at 11:17 AM  
Blogger B Lode said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 21, 2010 at 11:18 AM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

@B Lode,

That's why I attached my standard of a good emperor as reference.

March 21, 2010 at 11:23 AM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

Correction: an actual Emperor. good or not is a separate matter.

March 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM  
Blogger B Lode said...

Are you referring to:
IMO, an Emperor (/Empress) doesn't deserve the name unless it takes (at minimum) a well-coordinated effort of a well-armed and well-trained military force of at least five percent of said ruler's population to dislodge him. There have been many emperors in history for which, it would take considerably more.
It seems like any emperor could be killed by his bodyguards, unless there is some very unusual mechanism to prevent this. I don't know what that would be.

Moldbug is generating fairly implausible scenarios because all the plausible ones are so depressing. I don't think True Election is plausible either, but it's not much worse than my constitutional amendments, disenfranchising civil servants, government contractors, and welfare recipients, etc.

March 21, 2010 at 5:08 PM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

@B Lode

Fine. Barring assassination by anybody who is in close personal proximity to said emperor in daily life (based on the assumption that said emperor would not be so stupid so as to hire his enemies/random unstable individuals to guard his person).

March 21, 2010 at 5:24 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

I guess I can't figure out why a dictatorship is preferable to an oligarchy anyway. If, prior to the true election / coup / whatever, the civic union has chosen its members properly, it seems like they could filter out undesirables as well as anybody.

Then they could work out a pre-existing structure that punished and/or minimized rent-seeking, special pleading, subsidy seeking, etc.

For me, Moldbug is an interesting curiosity. It's odd that he hasn't mentioned the patchwork at all in this. I would think he'd have spent a few words talking about how the Empress would be best off taking bidders from among security firms and putting the best/highest in charge of certain areas, with a few caveats like their stockholders couldn't live in those areas, etc.

Regardless, I'll stick with more moderate solutions, like repealing the 16th, etc.

March 21, 2010 at 8:38 PM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

@B Lode

I guess I can't figure out why a dictatorship is preferable to an oligarchy anyway. If, prior to the true election / coup / whatever, the civic union has chosen its members properly, it seems like they could filter out undesirables as well as anybody.

Incentives. A dictator has the right incentives. A member of an oligarchy does not.

Then they could work out a pre-existing structure that punished and/or minimized rent-seeking, special pleading, subsidy seeking, etc.

This is where all the discussion is. I personally don't think that it can really be done effectively (or that even if it can be done, just splitting the domain into multiple dictatorships is more efficient). MM thinks it can be done using sovereign shares. Nick Szabo thinks that it has already been done with the system of political property rights of pre-modern Great Britain, etc etc etc...

For me, Moldbug is an interesting curiosity. It's odd that he hasn't mentioned the patchwork at all in this.

Because the two are orthogonal. This post is about how to get away from the current system. Patchwork is what to end up at.

Regardless, I'll stick with more moderate solutions, like repealing the 16th, etc.

More moderate solutions will just be reversed after some time. The 16th amendment (along with the insane block of SCOTUS precedents written in its name) is just a symptom. We wish to solve the core disease.

March 21, 2010 at 8:50 PM  
Anonymous free_range said...

I was kind of curious if spengler or his disciples would ever be brought up.

I've been wondering about this too. I'm inclined to treat Moldbug's system as a phenomenon to be explained by Spengler's rather than the other way around, but it's a fun exercise either way. (For those playing along at home, be aware that there are two Spenglers; don't confuse the pseudonymous Asia Times columnist, our contemporary, with the Weimar-era macrohistorian who wrote The Decline of the West.)

I find it very useful to read MM alongside John J. Reilly, a similarly polymathic commentator with an interest in Spengler's theory of historical cycles. His book Spengler's Future, particularly the chapters dealing with the terminal crisis of modernity (1, 2, 3), should be on the reading list of anyone trying to predict or imagine what comes after democratic modernity.

March 21, 2010 at 8:58 PM  
Anonymous free_range said...

(A precis of Reilly's interpretation of Spengler, for those who don't have the time or inclination for the full version, is here.)

March 21, 2010 at 9:00 PM  
Blogger Dregs of the Ancients said...

MM has spilled many pixels explaining why those we vote in actually wield little power, and how it is the unelected bureaucracy that exerts real control of the state. He has even created various tongue-in-cheek taxonomies (e.g. the “stators” vs. “rotors” of in his 8/19/07 post Rotary Management) to explain this state of affairs. It was all quite enlightening and convincing (although for a reality check on whether elections don’t matter, cf. “health care reform” and “Iraq war”).

If there is truth to the description of a bureaucracy-run USG, that only makes the argument for the efficacy of a True Election much less convincing, at least if the True Election is to be unaccompanied by significant levels of bloodshed. There are at least three large constituencies who would put up major road blocks (including violence; cf. AmRen’s aborted 2010 conference) against the seizing of True Sovereignty following a True Election: 1. said bureaucracy, who like their jobs; 2. the SPWL / NYT contingent and other tacit supporters of said bureaucracy; and 3. said bureaucracy’s proxies and minions, i.e. (to use another Moldbugism) the Dalit caste, that will definitely not take an unfavorable True Election result lying down.

In other words, having made a very strong case that being elected POTUS only allows one to realize how little power resides in the office, MM has undermined his argument that a True Election would in and of itself be sufficient to get the job done. Instead, to counter the inevitable violent backlash from constituencies 1-3 above, counter-violence (or pre-emptive violence) by the State would be just as inevitable in order for True Sovereignty to be claimed and stable order to be established (政善治). As a not insignificant portion of the state-controlled-violence apparatus (US military, police forces including their unions, etc.) particularly on the local level is arguably Dalit-sympathetic, they may well go over to the other side, i.e. we are talking about a civil war.

Does MM believe that the results of the True Election would be other than violent / civil war given where the US is today, or is it a given that it would be? I’m not saying he has to prefer one or the other; just trying to see if we agree on the likely outcome.

March 21, 2010 at 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Steve Johnson said...

Dregs of the Ancients,

Another of MM's theories is that the Cathedral is exhausted and demoralized. The only thing that keeps them going is outrage at the existence of the fake opposition.

From this post: "Everything in Washington is designed to resist hostile political interference. Indeed, it is nourished by hostile political interference! When you try to defeat Democrats by electing Republicans, you're trying to drown a fish.

It is with Democratic actors in the show, as at present, that Washington languishes and looks weak."

Republicans in office energize the Cathedral. A true election is a different matter. The thinking within the bureaucracy and Cathedral goes from "well, we suck at ruling but at least we're not taking orders from those Republican bastards!" to "Eh, looks like this horrible job is someone else's problem now."

Having a single point of opposition to the state is immensely useful because the state can actually surrender to someone. Examples about from the 20th century (most recently the fall of the Soviet Union where everyone just gave up and went home).

As far as the Dalits go, they're nothing. The only reason they're threatening is that they're protected by Brahmans. The Dalits are too dumb to surrender (and too disorganized) but they know which way the wind blows and when it's obvious that the handcuffs are off of law enforcement the Dalit rebellion will be over really quickly.

March 22, 2010 at 4:14 AM  
Blogger 天才 said...


March 22, 2010 at 6:36 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

I'm not saying you're all wet, newt0311, but can you describe an option for political change that meets your criteria?

March 22, 2010 at 6:45 PM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

@B Lode,

Yes, outside military forces or gradual change over a very long time period. Neither can really be planned but both have a track record of working. A military coup is also possible but they don't have such a great track record.

March 22, 2010 at 6:47 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

While I was shuffling papers today, I was thinking about how I would pick my praetorian guard if I were the Emperor, and how I would regulate them.

In the style of the Praetorian Guard, I would let no other military units near my capital.

I would pick special forces types for my guard. SF tend to be pretty smart, so they could presumably understand political theory and economics. There would be a ban on two siblings serving at the same time, at an excessive number of cousins serving at the same time, and an excessive number of co-ethnics from the same neighborhood serving at the same time. Beyond that, applicants would be chosen on background checks and objective merit alone.

They would be indoctrinated in what the goals are so my successor would be forced to carry out my goals. (The goals are off-topic; suffice to say that they are good reactionary goals.) My guardsmen would have to write essays on why my ideas are so great, etc. (Ordinary citizens wouldn't, because I'm so great and tolerant, etc.) Applicants would be allowed to opt out ideologically, and people who couldn't write the essays convincingly would be pushed out politely and sent to work alongside Paul Blart.

Each would agree to a single ten-year term in the guard. After that, their contracts would ban them for life from serving in government, in government affairs departments of private businesses, or from owning stock in security companies. They would also be banned from working for any employer with an excessive number of praetorian guard veterans.

While in the guard they would have tons of prestige, cool uniforms, etc. They would be more heavily armed than the Secret Service, and have a different job than Army Rangers. Something like that.

Only the ones closest to me physically would be hand-picked, but they would rotate as well. The rest would be tasked with directing the traffic in the capital, arresting rent-seekers, training, parades, etc.

Beyond that, security would be provided a separate border patrol plus the security firms that would form most of the city-state governments (Patchwork style).

March 22, 2010 at 7:21 PM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

@B Lode,

It seems like you are trying to do entirely too much with the praetorian guard. Instead of making them a military force, make them a bodyguard force. That way, if they ever try to rebel, they can be crushed by the real military. Coupled with a very well defined chain of succession (so that they can't seize the throne), they will effectively keep them in line.

The problem of military rebellion is over stated as the other divisions can always be brought in quickly.

The problem with making the praetorian guard a military force is that this enables them to actually occupy the capital at which, whatever succession structure was designed falls apart quickly. With a working succession chain, the praetorian guard has little incentive to actually stage a rebellion.

The continuous ideological indoctrination seems like a bit much. It could be what puts the idea of rebelling in their head in the first place. Continuous rotation (at least of the lower ranks) is a good idea. However, I would keep them in the larger military infrastructure and even let them advance further. It gives them a further incentive to play nice -- money and influence are far more predictable and reliable than religious indoctrination.

March 22, 2010 at 7:45 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

Those are good points.

What I was describing as praetorian or imperial guard is really more of an army in general. Only a fraction of it would be doing bodyguard stuff.

I also completely agree about very clear lines of succession, probably with absolute primogeniture or something equally simple.

March 22, 2010 at 8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think as American power recedes over Europe over the coming 2-3 decades, coinciding with the Islamo-African invasion, Europe will reassert itself, win, and develop from there without much cultural distortion of the type that plagues America. Europe is just emerging now from the domination by American and Soviet superpowers, both of which were substantially shaped and defined by culturally alien ruling strata. Europe is still alive, and will have to deal independently with the challenges of the 21st century and the multiracial mess imposed on it by the influence of American political and cultural domination since 1945.

America has its own battle to fight, which looks much bleaker. As a completely pwned colony it has none of the powers of resistance Europe showed during its history, in expelling harmful cultural aliens from its midst. America was a european colony with a spiritual link to Europe, up until about 1933. Now it's purely a colony of Hollywood. All of mencius' ranting and raving about the american protestant class and it's flaws are more or less meaningless, since they haven't had the power for almost a century in the most important culture-shaping institutions. The other 85% of America's population do the voting, and the Hollywood caste shapes and creates the culture and political language and symbols.

Read about culture distortion...
Read about America

March 22, 2010 at 8:44 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

All of mencius' ranting and raving about the american protestant class and it's flaws are more or less meaningless, since they haven't had the power for almost a century in the most important culture-shaping institutions.

How are the WASPs powerless? 2 of the last 4 presidents were WASPs who can trace their lineage straight to the Mayflower, and a shitload of good that did for America.

The liberal Supreme Court between 1969 and 1994 was Episcopalian dominated and had no Jews at all sitting as Justices.

Contra WN claims that the Jews herded the American WASP establishment into concentration camps and that the survivors are all powerless minorities, there are still many powerful WASP families in the Northeast such as the Rockefeller family, the Forbes family, the Hearst family, the Chafees, etc.

It's not true that WASPs have no power or are absent from American life.

March 22, 2010 at 9:15 PM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

@B Lode,

Primogeniture is a tried and tested method of succession and will work well for quite some time.

My personal favorite is the system utilized by the Roman Catholic Church (successful for over two thousand years!). The king can choose a set of a few tens of individuals to serve as bishops of the realm. While the sovereign is in place, this status confers them no authority (though they may (probably will) occupy positions of considerable influence). Once the king dies, they get together, choose a new king, and go back to having no power. Only the king can add or subtract from their numbers. We could even secure this cryptographically.

A hybrid could be made where the king selects the next few people in line and the bishops are a contingency plan.

History seems to indicate that this conscious judgment from humans tends to work better over very long time frames than genetics. With that said, I have seen some very good arguments for primogeniture. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn has a good one in his book Liberty or Equality.

March 22, 2010 at 9:17 PM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

free_range said:

"I'm inclined to treat Moldbug's system as a phenomenon to be explained by Spengler's rather than the other way around, but it's a fun exercise either way."

That is an interesting statement but I'm not sure I'm parsing it correctly. When you say "X's system is a phenomenon to be explained by Y's system", does that mean you think that Y's system describes how the world actually works, whereas X's system is just a cultural phenomenon, a symptom of the zeitgeist?

March 22, 2010 at 11:57 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

"It's not just marginally better than the days of crack wars, it's at Leave it to Beaver levels in Los Angeles, Mexifornia."

I can't speak for California, but I have a hard time believing that criminality has declined that much. I teach at a high school that is more than 90% black and hispanic. One of my students was beaten to death in a gang fight just this past Friday. Retaliation is a matter of when, not if. Kids openly talk about their gangs, draw gang insignias on their classwork, and really do believe, as MM has pointed out, that they are the noble resistance to an unjust society. If measured crime is down, it is probably due to lax enforcement, lack of reporting, and most likely, the complete domination of territory by a particular gang or coalition of gangs. I absolutely refuse to believe that this is a normal state of affairs, or that we should be pleased with the current levels of criminality in our blighted areas.

March 23, 2010 at 5:04 AM  
Blogger DR said...

"If measured crime is down, it is probably due to lax enforcement, lack of reporting, and most likely, the complete domination of territory by a particular gang or coalition of gangs."

Lax enforcement/lack of reporting? Considering that these are homicide rates it's pretty hard to hide or ignore the bodies. And as for the complete domination of gangs, why bemoan that state of affairs? It's a perfectly Roman solution, pick a local tribe and let them keep the local population in line. Certainly it's a vast improvement over the crack wars when anarchy raged in the ghetto streets. Now there's peace and order, given another few decades maybe even law and freedom.

The other reason crime is down is because of widespread abortion which basically acts as a eugenics program, and the complete segmentation of the ghettoes. Whereas in the 70s/80s where whites and middle class blacks neighborhoods were being overrun by ghetto thugs, now ghetto blacks live in areas where they pretty much can't harm anyone but themselves.

We can continue this de facto apartheid, keeping the criminal sub populations in isolated areas, maybe even imposing internal movement checkpoints a la District 13. Combined with heavily subsidized abortions and reformed welfare that doesn't promote lots of kids (at least not nearly to the extent that it did in the 70s), acting as de facto genocide, we can keep these populations in check indefinitely.

March 23, 2010 at 10:15 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"Combined with heavily subsidized abortions and reformed welfare that doesn't promote lots of kids (at least not nearly to the extent that it did in the 70s), acting as de facto genocide, we can keep these populations in check indefinitely."

If we could do that, we could just prevent crime in the first place. Also, don't forget, these are our CITIES. These should be the centers of our culture and our best places to live. The current state of affairs is that we have turned them over to the gangs. If Latino gangs, via superior organization, have come to dominate and ethnically cleanse areas previously ethnically cleansed by blacks, this still leaves half of the country stuck in Walmart-ville.

March 23, 2010 at 10:57 AM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

@DR, josh

If we could do that, we could just prevent crime in the first place.

I agree. Preventing crime (to the point where it is practically nonexistent) is quite possible. It is also cheaper and safer than turning over half our cities to senseless animals. Why do we know this: because we had already managed in the early twentieth century before we let everything go to hell in a handbasket.

March 23, 2010 at 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

Newt0311, you rather oversimplify the relationship between the bishops/cardinals of the Church of Rome and their pope/king.

For most of the period during which the papacy was a temporal as well as a spiritual sovereignty, the pope's power to appoint bishops was basically a rubber-stamp. The bishops were nominally elected by their cathedral chapters but in fact the rulers of the countries within which their dioceses were situate gave the chapter "conge d'elire" (leave to elect) the candidate of his choice. The parallel was to that of the local laird or squire who held the advowson, or right of presentation, to the ecclesiastical living(s) within his demesne(s). Just as the diocesan bishop normally ratified the laird's choice of a priest, so the pope normally ratified the secular ruler's choice of a bishop.

The right of nomination to bishoprics was ordinarily confirmed to secular rulers in concordats, i.e., treaties between the papacy and their countries. This persisted well into the twentieth century - for example, in Franco's Spain - and may still exist in some jurisdictions.

Similarly, the Holy Roman Emperor (and his successors in the Habsburg dual monarchy) held the right of veto over the election of the pope by the College of Cardinals. The emperor Franz Joseph exercised it in 1904 to prevent Cardinal Rampolla from becoming pope.

Genuine absolute rule never existed even in the days of notionally absolute monarchs.

March 23, 2010 at 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> we can keep these populations in check indefinitely

How you gonna keep them in check down at the voting booth? That's why a coup seems rather likely in the US - or at least a further distancing from democracy. Just look at Latin America. The gini coefficients tend to be very high. This would seem to correspond with the mixed populations with high variance for economic productivity. Without knowing much about it, I tend to suspect that the coups down there result largely from the desire of the productive to avoid being expropriated, which is inconsistent with democracy when the expropriators are a majority. And boy are there a lot of coups, and it seems none of the major countries have escaped this entirely. Some were fomented by CIA or the like. It seems that many more were not.

Admittedly, the same pattern (gini, coups) is seen the rather European-extracted Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. So high amounts of southern European heritage are probably among the contributors to Latin America's characteristics - it's not just high individual variance in economic productivity.

Israel also has high variance for productivity, but it has a population united by strong ideals, amidst a sea of enemies. This may help explain its low gini. Then there's S. Africa, which I need not say anything about. Malaysia seems to have had fairly stable government over its few decades of independence, despite unrest. It sounds like it is marginally democratic. The gini coefficient is fairly high due to the 25% chinese population. It's definitely an affirmative action state ruled by the Malays, but they might find it pretty hard to push the gini much lower without causing trouble. Therefore it is likely to remain only marginally democratic, I would suspect.

March 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM  
Anonymous free_range said...

@Mitchell --

Yes, you're parsing that correctly. (The caveat, worth making explicit, is that I don't take *any* all-encompassing theory of history as a perfect description of how the world actually works. I try to approach these things with the approprate amount of skepticism.)

The Moldbug-Spengler connection is particularly relevant to the current post, but when I try to put it in writing I find that my idea of how it actually works is more inchoate than it ought to be. Check back in a couple days.

(Anyone else interested in pursuing it, for the love of all that's good don't take Yockey's neofascist tract Imperium as a reliable guide to Spengler. Start with the Reilly essay linked above or go straight to The Decline of the West, which unfortunately falls just under the Google Books copyright cut-off date.)

March 23, 2010 at 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Decline of the West is nevertheless found online. Here:

March 23, 2010 at 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read Yockey for Yockey's sake, Spengler for Spengler's sake, Nietzsche for Nietzsche's sake, Carlyle for Carlyle's sake, et al. Not as guides to any of the others. They're all available online more or less completely.

Both volumes of Decline, Man and Technics (highly recommended, extremely readable), Hour of Decision, Prussianism and Socialism, etc.

Read Yockey and decide for yourself if his work is of value. I suggest starting with chapter 5 AMERICA of IMPERIUM, then read THE ENEMY OF EUROPE, read the chapters in IMPERIUM on CULTURE PATHOLOGY, and explore his works and ideas.

Read Homer Lea's works if you can find them. Valor of Ignorance and Day of the Saxon are available at

Read Nietzsche's works, from the Gay Science through the Anti-Christ, and Mencken's introduction to the latter.

Read Mencken, Evola, Macdonald, Moldbug, Carlyle, and whatever else is generally interesting and usually censored. If it's not censored it's probably not worth reading.

Read Wilhelm Marr's Victory of Judaism over Germanism.


Read THE OCCIDENTAL OBSERVER blog, The Occidental Quarterly, etc.

D/l and read from the huge trove of books at

Read THE NEGRO AND HIS NEEDS by Patterson, available online.

Read Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak.

Read Leon Degrelle's works. Read David Irving's works. Read


March 23, 2010 at 3:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


MAN & TECHNICS - A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life (1932, 53)







IMPERIUM - The Philosophy of History and Politics







March 23, 2010 at 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


March 23, 2010 at 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Listening to an interesting podcast with USS Liberty survivor, and Alan Sabrosky, PhD...

Alan N. Sabrosky, PhD – Former Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research, U.S. Army War College.


The dark face of Jewish nationalism
By Dr Alan Sabrosky 12 March 2010

Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: 9/11 and Beyond

By Alan Sabrosky

by survivor James M. Ennes, Jr.

March 23, 2010 at 7:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OT, but on the econ front, looks like Greg Mankiw has been reading some Mencius Moldbug:

March 23, 2010 at 7:26 PM  
Anonymous Bill H said...

Maybe Mencius can explain to us how the mainline protestant churches of Germany led directly and logically to the situation described in the 19th century by Marr in

The Victory of Judaism Over Germanism: Viewed From a Non-Religious Perspective, by Wilhem Marr (1879)

and to the character of Weimar liberalism, democracy and social life 40 years later?

Two rival perspectives on Marr's fascinating pamphlet,

I'm curious which one Moldbug would endorse, if he acknowledged such things.

March 23, 2010 at 9:48 PM  
Anonymous Antoin said...

Rome and Jerusalem (1862) by Moses Hess |

"The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called "Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome." To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, the contradiction between these deadly enemies."
-- Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, 16

March 23, 2010 at 10:05 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...


MM doesn't want to get shot. Ergo, encouraging violence against USG4 is not in his MO.

March 24, 2010 at 7:10 AM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

@GM Palmer,

I am not encouraging violence against USG. Only pointing out that USG is too stable to be changed without significant violence.

I don't particularly care to change USG -- too much work with too much risk.

March 24, 2010 at 10:35 AM  
Anonymous B said...

You´re breaking my heart, Mencius. Your diagnosis is convincing, but your prescription is so...Medieval. It´s as if your doctor, after ordering a battery of expensive tests and diagnosing metastasized cancer, went ahead and prescribed leeches. There are so many holes, or at least obvious questions with no obvious answers...How does your True Election differ from the Algerian Islamists´ ˝One Man, One Vote, One Time˝? The American People´s greatness, according to your thinking, is behind their successes; do you think that the Great American People would for a minute tolerate a monarch with unconditional sovereignity over themselves? I can't even imagine what such a monarch would look like-how do you picture our Augustus? Perhaps Bartholomew´s Day was just a hiccup by Hitler´s standards, but Ferdinand and Isabella´s eviction of the Jews from Spain and the persecution of the Conversos are nothing to wave your hand at, and note that they were exactly the sort of sovereigns that you seem to be all for-strong, decisive, intelligent, and advised by those fiery-plumed cardinals resplendent in their blahblahblah. Today´s American Dalits jacking the hipster Swipples gentrifying their neighborhoods for their iPhones may or may not be the proxy warriors of the hipsters' cryptocalvinist parents and teachers against Skeeter and Jimbo; the guys disemboweling Jewish refugees on Spain´s roads to see if they had swallowed any of their jewels were certainly acting as proxy warriors for their sovereigns and their religious advisors.

March 24, 2010 at 1:20 PM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

B says:

"do you think that the Great American People would for a minute tolerate a monarch with unconditional sovereignty over themselves?"

It is hard to imagine today's Americans responding to a ruler the way that today's North Koreans appear to do. However, I can, just barely, imagine them abandoning democracy for something else. I think it would take a catastrophe, however, and the new system would have to be one which involved lots of regional autonomy.

As things stand, even if a Somali situation developed within one or two states, it would not be the end of American democracy; when Washington finally decided to act, you'd have martial law in those states, and democracy would continue across the rest of the country.

March 24, 2010 at 5:41 PM  
Anonymous Brian said...

From TOQ online, checkout:

The Psychopathology of Judaism
Hervé Ryssen

Translated by John de Nugent

"A War Machine against Humanity

In fact, the only tangible results of this moral “liberation” [the sexual revolution] was the systematic demoralization and criminalization of the white man, who is denounced tirelessly in movies, literature and history as the cause of all the planet’s ills and of the collapse of the West. The appeal of egalitarianism – as intended by Jewry – tends to level all ethnic differences and identities and brings about their slow destruction.

Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv wrote this himself in the same issue of Israel magazine:

Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e, all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.

You read it right : Between the Jewish people and the rest of humanity the struggle can only be “genocidal and total.” The “peace” which Israel intends to confer is no more and no less than “genocide,” the warrant for the execution of all humanity – except for those allowed to live as cultureless slaves.


"The question is whether the aggressiveness of Judaism can be neutralized in order to save humanity from its evils, evils that could prove even more serious than Marxism such as psychoanalysis and the ideology of globalism. First of all, we must face the facts: After all these centuries of mutual misunderstanding, the antisemitic Christians, the Muslims, and Hitler have all failed to resolve the Jewish question. The fact is that the Jews feed on and grow off the hatred they have engendered among all the peoples of this world. This hatred, it must be said, is vital for their survival and for their spiritual genetics. It has allowed them for many centuries now to close ranks within their community against an external enemy, while other civilizations have disappeared.

For their part, the rabbis spare no efforts to keep their gene pool Jewish. And so even a renegade Jew remains a Jew, and therefore it is perfectly useless to attempt to leave the Jewish prison community. Judaism is indeed a prison. Claiming that a Jew cannot ever stop being Jewish works in favor of Jewry’s survival.

Our mission must be to accommodate these sick among us, because the Jews are not “perfidious” people as much as they are sick people to be cured.

Jews are to be loved individually and sincerely in order to free them from the prison in which they are locked. Only then will they become free from the cult’s grip – and from the threat they pose to themselves and to all humanity."

March 24, 2010 at 7:19 PM  
Anonymous Biggus Dickus said...

The Psychopathology of Brianism
Roger Marie François Jouret

Translated by the Talons of Weng-Chiang

"There seems to be some amount of Islamic influence on some of the aspects of Brianism. The seven pillars seem to be an allusion to the Islamic five pillars. The chapter of the book of Brian are called Sura similar to the Islamic holy book the Quran, which are again subdivided into verses. The webpage of the World Brianism Foundation ( lists the seven pillars with quotes from Sura 1 verses 1 to 7 after each pillar, this number of verses correspond to the number of verses in the first Sura in the Quran, apparently all other chapters have only 6 verses. Brianism teaches regarding the Book of Brian that the electronic form is considered the primary form of the book while printed copies are considered secondary forms; this teaching seems to allude to the Islamic teaching that the Quran exists as a primary eternal form in a heavenly tablet known as the "Mother of Scripture" or Umm-ul-Kitab the written copies being only temporal manifestations of this primary form. The stressing on the role of Brian as "an ordinary human" and simply "the messenger" correspond quite well to the Islamic insistence that Muhammad was merely a man, and only a rasul that is "messenger" ..."

March 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, in our once-great American cities,

What started as a fun game for hipster-SWPL Brahmins has been taken up by Dalits as an outlet for antisocial aggression. Is anyone surprised?

March 25, 2010 at 8:46 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Looks like it's time for the grapeshot.

March 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Euro2cent said...

> Is anyone surprised?

Nope, Larry Niven wrote "Flash Crowd" back in 1973.

March 25, 2010 at 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Faux "flash mobs" aka marauding black mobs of rioters and assault-gangs acting like... Africans.

For the uninitiated, 'flash mob' refers to the non-violent, social network choreographed, swpl activity of showing up in public with a few hundred other facebook geeks and then dispersing without incident, or after some pre-arranged improv act, as in the enteraining grand central 'freeze' stunt...

Rioting ni99ers aren't flash mobs. They're bands of barely literate untermensch engaging in pack assaults against defenseless prey.

March 25, 2010 at 5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moldbergism is Hitlerism without a Holocaust. He wants a Fuhrer ("divine-right monarch") who will protect big corporations and Israel, while using violent force to keep back anti-Semites and schwarzim.

There. I explained in 37 words what takes him 37,000.

March 26, 2010 at 12:51 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

"MM doesn't want to get shot. Ergo, encouraging violence against USG4 is not in his MO."

MM doesn't encourage guerrilla violence because it's an antinomian tactic that, apparently, can only be successfully used by antinomianists and thus leads to progressivism.

The not getting shot thing is just a side issue.

March 26, 2010 at 4:06 AM  
Anonymous josh said...


It's more like Hitlerism - holocaust + orderly succession - internal political conflict + government by direct financial beneficiaries of state. So there really are some key differences from national socialism.

March 26, 2010 at 4:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Nope. Moldbuggery really is Nazism minus Jew-murder. Having "orderly succession" and no "internal political conflict" are things to which Hitlerism and Molbuggery aspire. Hitlerism failed in achieving them, and if Moldbuggery is ever tried, it will also fail in them. So the only difference, really, is that one has been tried and failed, while the other hasn't been tried yet.

March 26, 2010 at 5:01 AM  
Blogger B Lode said...

Having "orderly succession" and no "internal political conflict" are things to which Hitlerism and Molbuggery aspire.

Hitlerism didn't say how it was going to achieve orderly succession though. Everyone wants orderliness, but what make Moldbuggery (slightly or very) distinct is it tells you how to get orderly succession.

I also don't buy that Hitlerism would tolerate, much less require, private security companies or independent city-states.

Finally, Moldbug believes physical security and order are paramount, while Hitlerism distinctly required hearts-and-minds level support from everyone. Moldbug has stated that hearts are irrelevant, and that what really matters is orderly behavior. Hitler wouldn't favor separation of media and state.

March 26, 2010 at 9:36 AM  
Blogger newt0311 said...


Not all violence is "guerrilla violence."

March 26, 2010 at 9:37 AM  
Anonymous John D said...

I think you'd get the most convincing liar of whichever bunch was running. Whoever convincingly told the people that their lives would be easiest (read, most free stuff, however big the whoppers are about potential government largesse) would win, much like the way Democrats win elections these days.

Anyone promoting a realistic worldview would have no chance of winning in a system where everyone still had the franchise.

You'd also wonder if people, by and large, would vote their race if people of differing races were running. As we have seen in Zimbabwe, people do vote race over who will most effectively rule.

March 26, 2010 at 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

Confusing absolute monarchy with totalitarianism is both an historical and a philosophical error. Aristotle makes clear in his "Politics" that monarchy is an institution within the law, whereas tyranny is without law. Making up the law as one goes along - the "telephone justice" of Stalin's Soviet Union - is a mark of tyranny rather than of monarchy, however absolute the monarch may be.

MM seems to me to be a latter-day Hobbesian, and his ideal seems to me not to be Nazism (howsoever modulated) but rather a world divided into many Liechtensteins. That may seem a bizarre wish, but it is hardly the same as advocating the return of the Third Reich.

March 26, 2010 at 11:04 AM  
Anonymous The Undsicovered Jew said...

who will protect big corporations

Why are big corporations a bad thing?

and Israel,

Actually, he advocates neutrality like his fellow Mischlinge blogger, TGGP (note, paleos, that a neutral position on Israel is not synonymous with a pro-Palestinian position)

while using violent force to keep back anti-Semites and schwarzim.

When has he ever advocated violence against anti-Semites?

Moldbuggery really is Nazism minus Jew-murder.

Well, what is wrong with not advocating Jew-murder?

Do you think murdering Natalie Portman, Jennifer Connolly, Chelsea Handler, Rachel Weisz, Bar Rafaeli and Scarlett Johansson - all of whom are clearly and irrefutably white - somehow would be good for the manly, Euro-man, master race?

March 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lulz @ the undiscovered jew's list.

John D, I thought you literally meant how large the whoppers were.

March 26, 2010 at 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who said anything about murder?

Murder and expulsion are not the same thing.

We want you out, not necessarily murdered.

And we're not interested in all this "master race" talk. We're not supremacists. We're separatists.

March 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM  
Blogger LFC said...

In skimming through this post -- skimming because I lack the patience to read every word of these very long, self-indulgent screeds -- I find the statement that FDR and Lincoln exercised the same level of authority as Lenin, Hitler, Cromwell and Napoleon -- something the post calls "personal sovereignty."

Some U.S. presidents in wartime -- e.g. FDR, Lincoln, Wilson, and one might add G.W. Bush -- have exercised power in ways that came right up to the edge of the constitutionally permissible and in some cases considerably exceeded it, sometimes aided by a compliant legislature and judiciary. But the running together of Lincoln, FDR, Lenin, Hitler, and Napoleon is nonsense. It is ahistorical in mushing together quite different political systems and contexts and throwing necessary distinctions to the wind. Whatever the author of this post is, he is no historian.

March 26, 2010 at 3:16 PM  
Anonymous so long said...

Well, none of them had absolute sovereignty. If Hitler had ordered every German to kill himself the next day at dawn, this would have failed. That's a trivial and stupid example, but there probably exist less trivial limits on dictatorial power.

I do think Lincoln and FDR were less than powerful than Hitler. Lincoln, of course, almost failed to gain a second term. Would he have been able to seize one illegally, given the will to do it? I can't say, but I doubt it. Could FDR have remained president for yet more years, had he lived, even after the end of the war? Doubt it.

March 26, 2010 at 3:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MM wrote a letter to Auster, published at VFR:

Carleton Putnam had exactly the same plan for competing with the civil-rights movement. Have you heard of Carleton Putnam? Try his excellent work--Race and Reason, 1961

Obviously, Carleton Putnam was right. Who did he educate? Quite a few people, actually. The Putnam letters were published by newspapers all over the South. Where are those who read them? Pushing up the daisies, mostly. How many little educating steps will you have to take until you reach an America where Carleton Putnam is mentioned in the textbooks, where his ideas are taught, where Americans learn that he was right and the good and great were wrong?

The answer is: a lot. So, by repealing healthcare reform, you're renovating one floorboard in the kitchen, and thinking that will make it easier to renovate the next floorboard. Destruction works this way. Renovation doesn't. Whether you know it or not, your model of social and cultural change is a liberal model. It works for them but not for you--or Carleton Putnam.

I recommend a look at Putnam.

Everything HBDers say today, Putnam said back in 1960.

March 27, 2010 at 6:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To all the pro-slavery wankers here:

Happy Pesach, bitchez! And may the plagues of the Egyptians be upon you.

Then the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt hold them still, Behold, the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain.

March 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To all the pro-unicorn waltzers here:

Happy Zorgatam, nagz! And may the sneezes of the Serbo-Croatians be upon you!

17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

March 27, 2010 at 5:42 PM  
Anonymous American History said...

Some moldbugesqe analysis of American politics and the 20th century,

(1948, p. 458)

"Politics in America, in the European sense, there was none. The American union was formed before the 19th century style of 'inner-politics' was developed. Political parties in their later form were unknown to the authors of the Constitution. The word Party described a dangerous thing — factionalism, near-treason. George Washington in his farewell to public life, counseled his people against “the spirit of Party.” But ambitious men will always seek to have power, even the limited and irresponsible power available within the bounds of a loose federation. When tenure of power is limited to a few years (four years in the American union) the main inner-political problem becomes remaining in power. When the power is obtained by majorities in elections, the science of “electioneering” develops. Voters must be organized in order that the leaders may perpetuate themselves in office, and the technique of organization is the party. Organization takes funds, and it takes ideals. The ideals are for the masses of voters, the funds make it possible to spread them. The funds are more important because they are difficult to procure, whereas ideals are plentiful. This dependence of party-organization upon a supply of funds brought about the situation in which rich men were able to make the party-leaders and party-organizations run things to please them. Even a party-leader in office was not independent, for the rich man alone could keep him there. The name given in the books to this type of government is plutocracy, the rule of money. This was the American form during the whole 19th century, and it continued to the year 1933.

p. 461

"The South could not replace its human losses however, and this the Yankees could do, utilizing German and Irish immigrants in particular. This War was the largest-scale war in the Western Civilization up to the First World War. The armies numbered millions, the theater of war embraced more than a million quadrate kilometers. Railroads and ironclads entered tactics for the first time.

Napoleon had calculated, from his experience on 150 fields, that the ratio in warfare of the spiritual to the material is as three is to one. Assuming this to be true, the defeat of the South was the result of Yankee material superiority of more than three times. This war had many lessons for Europe, but was mostly ignored in the European capitals, which were still in the nationalistic petty-state period, and not capable of large-space thinking. It showed the enormous military potentiality in America, it showed the Yankee character, which was thenceforth to be the American spirit, it showed the enormous will-to-power of the New York plutocracy — it showed, in short, that a base for a world-power had been laid here."

p. 465

"Historical thinking is more interested in what is done with a written constitution than what it says, and the practice of government in America was actually quite independent of the Constitution, even though that document was constantly invoked by all party-politicians. In the first place, the Constitution did not recognize Parties, but only individuals. It did not foresee that political businesses would develop which would coerce the masses through employment of ideals, promises, and money. Nor did the Constitution recognize universal suffrage, since it was thought quite unnecessary to forbid a thing which was regarded by everyone at that time as synonymous with anarchy. If the Founding Fathers were to return, they would demand the abolition of Parties and their coercion of individuals, and forbid group participation in politics, as well as severely restricting the franchise by property, educational, racial, and social qualifications, since these restrictions were the actualities whose continuance was assumed by the authors of the American Constitution."

March 27, 2010 at 10:52 PM  
Anonymous American History said...

The Federalist Chief Justice Marshall was the last representative of the Federalist tradition in the government. He established the unique idea in America that laws can be upset by the judicial system, which can declare them “unconstitutional.” This device was to play a large role in American inner-politics during the 19th and 20th centuries. More than anything else, the decisions of this Justice strengthened the central government. But the technique he developed was of necessity limited; its efficacy was purely negative. It could unmake laws, but could not make them. This too was entirely against the Constitution, like Parties, conventions, wide suffrage, “implied powers” and the rule of private persons."

"Judicial veto of legislation thus seemed quite natural in America and conquered a place for itself. Consequently the strange usage developed of referring all manner of problems to the legal system, to be handled on common law principles. The theory was that political, social, economic, racial, and other problems would thus receive an impartial treatment, free from any human bias.

Law however is the result of politics. Every judiciary is created by a political regime. If the judiciary usurps power which makes it more or less independent, it has become political itself. But in either case, its decisions are the result of politics, cast into legal form. And thus the history of legalism in America, in the form of constitutional law, is simply a reflection of the economic-political history of America. Its first phase was a series of decisions strengthening the central government, an expression of Federalist policy. In the same tradition was the Dred Scott decision in 1857, which reflected the Southern viewpoint on slavery, since the Federalist idea was not abolitionist. After the complete victory of industrialism and Money, 1865, the decisions represent the viewpoint of industrial — and finance — capitalism. The rising capitalism of the labor-unions was continually frustrated by the Supreme Court. No less than 300 times, between 1870 and 1933, it struck down laws made by various States and the central government which were aimed at the plutocracy.

The institution of judicial review could not have developed if there had been a strong central government or a true State. Nor could it have arisen except in a country dominated by economic activity, and lacking any real political issues. Before 1861, there was only one critical political issue, that of the balance of power between North and South. Between 1865 and 1933 there was no true political issue, but only party-politics, which is merely private or group business in the form of inner-politics. The Dred Scott decision would not have been allowed to stand, had not the War of Secession broken out, since the North-South issue was really political, which means that it could not possibly be settled otherwise than by political negotiation or by war, but absolutely not by legalistic ritual. In 1933, a real political issue again took shape, and there was an unsuccessful attempt to solve it by legalistic means.

In that year occurred the fateful Revolution, the seizure of the central power by the Culture-distorting group in America. The new regime did not at once dominate the judiciary, since it has life tenure of office. The judiciary vetoed every one of the principal internal measures of the new regime, until, in 1937, it was intimidated by the threat of creating enough new judges to outvote the opponents of the regime. Grant had successfully done this in 1870 to coerce a hostile Supreme Court, showing that judicial review was merely tolerated by the ruling forces in America so long as it was in their interests."

March 27, 2010 at 11:00 PM  
Anonymous American History said...

p. 469


"During the whole 19th century — except for the political issue which created the Secession-War — America was a country without true politics. Inner-politics was simply business, and any group could engage in it to further its own economic or ideological interest. In addition to parties, the usage of “lobbies” developed. The lobby is the means of exerting pressure on legislators after election. Private groups send private representatives to the legislature and there they persuade office-holders, by bribes of votes and money, to support, introduce, or oppose, legislation. Agrarian groups, racial groups, economic groups, societies of every description, use this method. By this means the anti-alcohol societies introduced nation-wide prohibition of the manufacture, sale or transportation of alcoholic liquors. This political technique continues. After the defeat of the Federalist party, early in the 19th century, there was a constant trend toward widening the suffrage, supported by all parties, and only opposed by social-traditionary forces. Party always wants the widest possible suffrage, since this completely deprives the electorate of power. If ten men decide an election, they all have some power, at least, but if ten million comprise the electorate, the masses deprive the higher elements of any significance. The inner development of America has followed the invariable pattern of Democracy, observable in all Cultures and all States.

March 27, 2010 at 11:08 PM  
Anonymous American History said...

p. 482

American Imperialism in the Age of Annihilation Wars

"Through connections formed before the War, the American financiers were committed to an English victory, and they were the real force in the American plutocracy. No public “politician” knew anything whatever of external affairs, since they could not relate them to their tenure of office, their sole concern.

It was a fate for America that at this time there was an adventurer at the head of the government. He not only failed to oppose the demands of the bankers for American participation in the War on the side of England, but he had private notions of using the war to further his own unlimited ambition. He and his entourage projected the idea of a “league of nations” of which he would be the head. The English government gladly acquiesced, being in desperate military straits.

Now emerges in full clarity the weakness of American Imperialism. The moment of a European War was obviously a time for American action in its own hemisphere. It was already at war with Mexico, and could have concluded this war without hearing a voice from any other world power. Or, on a higher plane, America could have offered its good offices to terminate a war that all Europe was obviously losing, to the benefit of Asia. America could even have brought the war to a close against the will of the belligerents, for it could have forced England to give up the war.

But America pursued neither self-interest nor the interest of the Western Civilization. Now the population of America was to reap the fruit of America’s century of spiritual isolation, of insulation from History, from the sternness, harshness, cruelty and bitterness of History. Because America had fought only one hard war in its imperial history, because it had never been opposed by a great power, because it had acquired an enormous empire without any cost in blood, it had never developed any


political consciousness. The word politics was not understood, nor was the fact of the power-struggle. There was no State, the focus of power. There was no ruling class, the custodian of the State. There was no Tradition, the guiding consciousness of the Nation. There was no Nation, no Idea in whose service the population-stream of the continent lived. There was no Genius in politics, since there was no politics, but only unclean personal struggles for offices and bribes. There was only the group of bankers, and the hapless opportunist Wilson, dreaming of world-rule.

The real, spiritual, significance of the War was known to no public person. Not even the superficial, purely political aspect of the War was understood. The closest thing to realism was found in Boise Penrose’s public demand to enter the war because America had become financially tied to an English victory, which did not seem to be maturing.

If there had been a ruling class — a stratum dedicated by its existence to the actualization and service of the National Idea — America would either have remained out of the War, or have terminated it to save Europe. The atrocity-propaganda, the English monopoly of the news, the systematic efforts of private financial and social groups to bring about American intervention, would not have been allowed. A ruling-class tolerates no foreign propaganda or foreign political activity on the home soil."

March 27, 2010 at 11:20 PM  
Anonymous Concerned with MM's soul said...

How can anyone have respect for Mencius as a scholar or student of history when he has not read MacDonald's utterly comprehensive and massively footnoted history of the conflicts between Jews and Gentiles throughout history.

He dismisses this body of work, cataloging decades of scholarly research of others, largely Jewish scholars discussing Judaism, without even reading it, with this comment:

"Now, Anonymous has an advantage in that he has actually read MacDonald's books, as opposed to just a couple of essays, and he is surely right to note that MacDonald has an enormous mass of "corroborating evidence."

Two out of three of MacDonald's works are freely available online, and MM doesn't even read them before passing judgment. Any other topic, he would devour the literature from every side, to make sure he knew what he was talking about. Here, he dismisses it, snidely. That's where I lose respect for him as a scholar.

I've linked to the second work in the trilogy in my handle, and here's the link to the third, The Culture of Critique, dealing with the 20th century and the intellectual movements which transformed America, MM's putative area of research and expertise.

The Culture of Critique:

KMac comments on CofC:

March 28, 2010 at 12:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[pokes blog to see if it is still alive]

April 1, 2010 at 5:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

面臨重大的決擇,冷靜是最好的顧問 ....................................................

April 1, 2010 at 8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blog's collective consciousness:

I was sleeping, why did you wake me?

April 2, 2010 at 12:18 AM  
Blogger GW said...

{taptaptap} Is this thing on?

April 2, 2010 at 1:32 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Calm down, everyone.

MM is probably just resting and smoking a joint.

Like MacArthur, he shall return...

April 2, 2010 at 4:29 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

In case anyone is still reading, some links that might be of interest.

Vintage racialism from the American Economic Association.

IOZ points out the absurdity of complaints about "politicizing" such inherently political events as the revolutionary war and the civil rights movement.

Supreme Court Justice William O. "Wild Bill" Douglas was a real bastard.

April 2, 2010 at 6:43 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Some more I should have included.

The counterfeit commodity standard of Somalia. (just the abstract is available now, but still sounds interesting)

The ex-Austrian Bill Woolsey has been dishing out a few hefty posts on subject matter from the ground-up like liquidity, fractional reserve banking (part two here) as well as leverage and financial mediation.

April 2, 2010 at 7:37 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Aargh, I forgot to add the html for two of those links.
Fractional Reserve Banking 2
I personally prefer my economic in more bite-sized chunks, but I figured some of the readers here would appreciate this sort of thing more.

April 2, 2010 at 7:40 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Just came across this video (about the six minute mark) where David Friedman said it's a problem that politicians don't have secure property rights, and therefore use short time-horizons in their decision-making.

April 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM  
Anonymous More mencius BS said...

Once again Mencius reveals his ignorance of history outside of his self-selected areas of study.

This deals with the post WW2 PRIMARY SOURCEBOOK. Regarding knowledge of the holocaust during the war, it was widespread among Jewish organizations in the United States, who were in touch with the US Government and State department. It was well documented throughout the war by none other than our paper of record, the NY Times. Here are some samples,

NYT, June 30, 1942, p. 7:

"1,000,000 Jews Slain By Nazis, Report Says"

NYT, September 3, 1942, p. 5:

"A European observer said the Germans planned to exterminate the Jews not only in Europe, but throughout the world. He declared the Nazis had executed 2,000,000 Jews in the past three years."

NYT, December 13, 1942, p. 21:

"[...] 'Authenticated reports point to 2,000,000 Jews who have already been slain by all manner of satanic barbarism, and plans for the total extermination of all Jews upon whom the Nazis can lay their hands. The slaughter of a third of the Jewish population in Hitler's domain [3×2,000,000=6,000,000] and the threatened slaughter of all is a holocaust without parallel.'"

NYT, December 20, 1942, p. 23:

"What is happening to the 5,000,000 Jews of German-held Europe, all of whom face extermination [...].

Early in December 1942 the State Department in Washington gave some figures showing that the number of Jewish victims deported and perished since 1939 in Axis-controlled Europe now reached the appalling figure of 2,000,000 and that 5,000,000 were in danger of extermination."

NYT, March 2, 1943, pp. 1, 4:

"Immediate action by the United Nations to save as many as possible of the five million Jews threatened with extermination [...] was demanded at a mass demonstration [...] in Madison Square Garden last night.

[...Rabbi Hertz said] 'appalling is the fact that those who proclaim the Four Freedoms have so far done very little to secure even the freedom to live for 6,000,000 of their Jewish fellow men by readiness to rescue those who might still escape Nazi torture and butchery. [...]'"[14]

NYT, March 10, 1943, p. 12:

"Forty thousand persons listened and watched [...] last night to two performances of 'We Will Never Die,' a dramatic mass memorial to the 2,000,000 Jews killed in Europe. [...] The narrator said 'There will be no Jews left in Europe for representation when peace comes. The four million left to kill are being killed, according to plan.'"

NYT, April 20, 1943, p. 11:

"London, April 19 (Reuters) - Two million Jews have been wiped out since the Nazis began their march through Europe in 1939 and five million more are in immediate danger of execution. These figures were revealed in the sixth report on conditions in occupied territories issued by the Inter-Allied Information Committee."

Draw your own conclusions...

April 5, 2010 at 8:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More Mencius BS, what are you talking about? What are you refuting? Did Mencius say the USA was ignorant of the holocaust during the Second World War or something?

April 7, 2010 at 6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon its over your head.

April 8, 2010 at 9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's BS.

April 9, 2010 at 5:04 PM  
Blogger Long said...

I have visited this site and got lots of information about part-time job than other sites that i visited

part-time job

April 10, 2010 at 3:23 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I hadn't been reading the comments when I link-dumped here earlier. Undiscovered's assumption about me was wrong, and I corrected him elsewhere.

September 9, 2010 at 5:45 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home