Racism is an obscenely overloaded word in this era. It is taken by our cultural enforcers as being synonymous with Evil---indeed, being the evil of evils. There are two huge problems with 'racism':
1) Racism is a net cast so broadly that if it were applied evenhandedly (i.e., not limited strictly to white people in practice), it would encompass nearly everyone today and pretty much everyone pre-1960. Words like this are not useful for communication or categorization, they are only useful for theology or control. Compare 'sinner' from Christian theology. Everyone is a sinner, or they're a lying sinner. Calling someone a sinner is therefore reasonably useless. The Catholics, for instance, recognize this, which is why they have the concept of a 'manifest public sinner'.
2) Racism as a concept is only enforced against white people. In practice 95% or more of anti-racism is just anti-white. When large numbers of nonwhites find the expression of their tribal interests ends their careers and massively lowers their social status, I'll reconsider this point. I'm not holding my breath here though.
Unfortunately, the de facto definition of words is not something that someone who doesn't control the cultural battlespace can determine. So let us consider what is called racism and analyze the evil or lack thereof within:
The belief that different races/ethnicity have different distributions (in mean and variance) of significant attributes (e.g., IQ, athleticism, criminality, etc). This is considered to be grade-A racism---serious thought crime.
Unfortunately it is also undeniably true---what's worse, pretty much everyone behaves in their personal lives as if they believe that it is true even while they loudly deny it. So someone who is racist on this score is actually a better person, if you view honesty as a virtue, than someone who is 'anti-racist'. I don't think we can attribute any evil here, and this is by far the most common sort of 'racism' in these circles.
The belief that a racial group is superior or inferior to another. Here, this is a value judgment. I don't see any evil here, although my particular favor for my own group is not based on my perception of its superiority or inferiority but rather the brute fact that it is my own.
Opposition to immigration from groups that threaten the demographic hegemony of the native citizens of a nation (also only applied against white people). Obviously I don't feel this is evil. In fact I view this as a positive good, as large scale immigration breaks down communities and greatly harms the marginal elements of it. Furthermore, there's a great deal of psychological harm inherent in living in the tents of another. Most people prefer to be ruled by those they perceive are their own, even if such rulership is distinctly suboptimal from a utilitarian standpoint.
Support of efforts through the social or political sphere to advance one group in zero or negative sum games versus others. I suppose you could attribute evil here if you wanted to---the problem is, you run into the problem in 1)---pretty much every group with the exception of post 1960s white men does it and didn't feel bad about it. Can you shame them all into stopping it, or sanction them sufficiently that such organization is contrary to their interest? If so, there might be value in this, but if you can merely only shame SOME groups, you're just handing a massive cultural battlespace advantage to those without shame. Even a morally licit meme can become wicked, IMO, when it is selectively targeted.
The use of unorganized or organized violence to achieve racial aims or pogroms. You can say this is evil, but that is generally true when you subtract 'to achieve racial aims or pogroms' from the statement. The sleight of hand here is when the first flavor of racism is equivocated with this form---i.e., you believe that black people in the US have a @1 standard deviation deficit relative to whites in the US, therefore you must also want to exterminate all black people in concentration camps at the Mexican border after shipping them bound in chains in cattle cars escorted by Klansmen in full regalia on horseback.
So what's to be done? Certainly rhetorically we can embrace the word---many words have had their negative connotation extinguished through a deliberate embrace (e.g. Quakers, Methodists, Christians). We could also deny it or try to redefine it---but there I ask---how's that working for you? (Hint, such tactics very rarely work when you're in the face of cultural battlespace superiority or supremacy) But for the purposes of actual communication, we need some fairly parsimonious words to describe each of the positions above, none of which necessarily imply any of the others.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Tribalism is interested in you
To borrow from Trotsky, you may not be interested in tribalism, but tribalism is interested in you.
Lots of my readers find tribalism viscerally uncomfortable. They would prefer to live in a nation or a world where such considerations were insignificant. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world. Particularly in pseudo-democratic societies, groups which are less tribal face a significant disadvantage against groups with more political and cultural unity. One fairly easy way to see who has the tribalism 'advantage' is to ask, who do people of mixed race, say 1/2 or 1/4 typically identify with, when the choice isn't forced on them? Does someone who is half Hispanic call themselves that, or call themselves White? Obviously these choices can be influenced fairly heavily by what legal 'plusses' each choice gives. Getting rid of the bonuses given for not being white should be a fairly significant focus for white reactionaries and conservatives---not simply because every bonus to someone else in zero sum games is a penalty to our own, but because the presence of such modifiers tends to cause the mixed race to identify more with the other. You'll know you're winning the tribal wars when the 1/2 and 1/4 start trying to 'pass'.
Here's a significant wake up call, aimed particularly at libertarians. As white demographic hegemony decreases, expect things like affirmative action and racial wealth transfers to increase, not decrease. These issues aren't about moral principles at all, they're about who is to enjoy higher status and a larger share of society's goodies. And to those who say that immigration reduces support for the welfare state, I ask, how's that working out for you in California?
It is patently unreasonable to expect that a group that has a significant---even, say a 1/2 sigma---disadvantage in a major metric of success in your country will not seek to use the political process to overturn said disadvantage. The only group that ever tolerated another group playing its game better than it does is white people, and those only relatively recently.
Lots of my readers find tribalism viscerally uncomfortable. They would prefer to live in a nation or a world where such considerations were insignificant. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world. Particularly in pseudo-democratic societies, groups which are less tribal face a significant disadvantage against groups with more political and cultural unity. One fairly easy way to see who has the tribalism 'advantage' is to ask, who do people of mixed race, say 1/2 or 1/4 typically identify with, when the choice isn't forced on them? Does someone who is half Hispanic call themselves that, or call themselves White? Obviously these choices can be influenced fairly heavily by what legal 'plusses' each choice gives. Getting rid of the bonuses given for not being white should be a fairly significant focus for white reactionaries and conservatives---not simply because every bonus to someone else in zero sum games is a penalty to our own, but because the presence of such modifiers tends to cause the mixed race to identify more with the other. You'll know you're winning the tribal wars when the 1/2 and 1/4 start trying to 'pass'.
Here's a significant wake up call, aimed particularly at libertarians. As white demographic hegemony decreases, expect things like affirmative action and racial wealth transfers to increase, not decrease. These issues aren't about moral principles at all, they're about who is to enjoy higher status and a larger share of society's goodies. And to those who say that immigration reduces support for the welfare state, I ask, how's that working out for you in California?
It is patently unreasonable to expect that a group that has a significant---even, say a 1/2 sigma---disadvantage in a major metric of success in your country will not seek to use the political process to overturn said disadvantage. The only group that ever tolerated another group playing its game better than it does is white people, and those only relatively recently.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt
Ridicule and mockery are among the most powerful weapons available to us. Here are some good examples of it: http://www.taxcheatstamps.com
This site sells stamps to replace Tim Geithner with 'Tax Cheat' on currency. I wholeheartedly approve, as this is like defacing an altar of the Cathedral. Music is another way to propagate ridicule. Reactionaries and conservatives really need to get on the stick in this regard. Helicopter Ben, for instance, is eminently mockable. My little ones really love the silly stories I spin with their toy helicopters and little people about 'Helicopter Ben' tossing bags of money to starving bankers on Wall Street. They especially love it when 'Farmer Jed' appropriates Ben's helicopter and drops bags of manure instead of money on said bankers.
Here's some decent ridicule set to music via youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqTLTHEJEI8
Yes, I won't claim their song is for the ages, but songs in this genre don't need to be. Anything that reduces the prestige of the Cathedral is a good thing, because in hard times prestige is what allows the center to hold.
This site sells stamps to replace Tim Geithner with 'Tax Cheat' on currency. I wholeheartedly approve, as this is like defacing an altar of the Cathedral. Music is another way to propagate ridicule. Reactionaries and conservatives really need to get on the stick in this regard. Helicopter Ben, for instance, is eminently mockable. My little ones really love the silly stories I spin with their toy helicopters and little people about 'Helicopter Ben' tossing bags of money to starving bankers on Wall Street. They especially love it when 'Farmer Jed' appropriates Ben's helicopter and drops bags of manure instead of money on said bankers.
Here's some decent ridicule set to music via youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqTLTHEJEI8
Yes, I won't claim their song is for the ages, but songs in this genre don't need to be. Anything that reduces the prestige of the Cathedral is a good thing, because in hard times prestige is what allows the center to hold.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
The Reactionary's Cross to Bear
Low Agreeability is the cross that reactionaries must bear. On a moments reflection, the reason should be obvious. The existing culture exacts a strong social price for expressing reactionary opinions, so reactionaries must therefore be drawn disproportionately from the subset of the population with low agreeability. Come the Reaction, we'll be able to make nearly everyone with high agreeability bend to the reactionary zeitgeist, but that is a battle for another day.
Today we must consider the fact that Reaction is not a monolith, nor does it even have a single banner. And we Reactionaries are a fractious lot. Many of us expend obscene amounts of energy fighting against other reactionaries---frequently on issues of religion or the Jewish Question. Some reactionaries, such as myself, are traditionalist Christians. Yet others believe that Christianity is the enemy. I believe that most Christian elites, like most other elites today, have sold out their rank and file for social prestige and status. Can anyone name an elite group in the US today that hasn't sold out their coreligionists or coethnics? I can think of maybe one, the Hispanic elite, which generally pushes the agenda of demographic hegemony for their coethnics. Everyone else's elites are screwing their parent populations obscenely:
Most white elites are traitors on issues of demographic hegemony AND supporting interracial transfer payments
Most Christian elites are traitors for the same two reasons
Most Black elites are serious traitors on demographic issues, as in many areas Mestizos are in effect ethnically cleansing them.
Most Jewish elites are seriously hurting the Jewish brand, which will lead to, I predict, dire consequences of the historical variety for ordinary Jews, 60% of whom are against demographic displacement in the US.
Reaction is positively surrounded by enemies to its Left. There is absolutely no shortage of targets to engage at in that direction. So why is it that there is so much ammunition expended by us towards the Right?
The amount of this activity is wasteful, and the cycle created is destructive. I suggest that, for now at least, we ignore any enemies to the Right of us. For my part, if you're against the loss of demographic hegemony for me and mine, you are not my enemy. It matters not for that purpose whether you're a free marketeer, a national socialist, a Georgist, or whatever. It matters not for that purpose whether you're a Christian, Asatru, Wiccan, Jewish, or whatever. It also matters not whether you love Jews, hate them, or hold them in indifference, or something more nuanced. Yes, it is true that some of your 'not enemies' today may become your enemies in the future as Reaction's banner rises. But one must get through each day before tomorrow comes. Reaction has a long term plan---an emergent one that its components are executing quite nicely without any central coordination---that will bring victory. But such generational plans take a very long time to come to fruition, and there are battles in the here and now that must be won. In said battles, we can ill afford to waste ammunition.
Today we must consider the fact that Reaction is not a monolith, nor does it even have a single banner. And we Reactionaries are a fractious lot. Many of us expend obscene amounts of energy fighting against other reactionaries---frequently on issues of religion or the Jewish Question. Some reactionaries, such as myself, are traditionalist Christians. Yet others believe that Christianity is the enemy. I believe that most Christian elites, like most other elites today, have sold out their rank and file for social prestige and status. Can anyone name an elite group in the US today that hasn't sold out their coreligionists or coethnics? I can think of maybe one, the Hispanic elite, which generally pushes the agenda of demographic hegemony for their coethnics. Everyone else's elites are screwing their parent populations obscenely:
Most white elites are traitors on issues of demographic hegemony AND supporting interracial transfer payments
Most Christian elites are traitors for the same two reasons
Most Black elites are serious traitors on demographic issues, as in many areas Mestizos are in effect ethnically cleansing them.
Most Jewish elites are seriously hurting the Jewish brand, which will lead to, I predict, dire consequences of the historical variety for ordinary Jews, 60% of whom are against demographic displacement in the US.
Reaction is positively surrounded by enemies to its Left. There is absolutely no shortage of targets to engage at in that direction. So why is it that there is so much ammunition expended by us towards the Right?
The amount of this activity is wasteful, and the cycle created is destructive. I suggest that, for now at least, we ignore any enemies to the Right of us. For my part, if you're against the loss of demographic hegemony for me and mine, you are not my enemy. It matters not for that purpose whether you're a free marketeer, a national socialist, a Georgist, or whatever. It matters not for that purpose whether you're a Christian, Asatru, Wiccan, Jewish, or whatever. It also matters not whether you love Jews, hate them, or hold them in indifference, or something more nuanced. Yes, it is true that some of your 'not enemies' today may become your enemies in the future as Reaction's banner rises. But one must get through each day before tomorrow comes. Reaction has a long term plan---an emergent one that its components are executing quite nicely without any central coordination---that will bring victory. But such generational plans take a very long time to come to fruition, and there are battles in the here and now that must be won. In said battles, we can ill afford to waste ammunition.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
In defense of mercenary physicians
In the past couple of decades, I wish I'd bought an ounce of silver every time I heard someone pontificating about 'greedy doctors' (usually with an aside about the infernal insurance companies as well). I'm not here to talk about insurance today---I discussed that some time ago in the context of the fundamental theorem of reaction. Instead, I'd like to say a few words in defense of medical mercenaries.
We have an unreasonable expectation regarding a lot of the so-called 'helping professions'. We expect them to be either altruistically motivated or to at least pretend such in public. However, lets be honest, if only in private on the Internet. Most doctors, nurses, and educators don't feel a calling to their profession (operationally, we can say someone has a 'calling' if they'd have entered the profession if it paid half or less what it paid when they began). Instead, they chose it as a way to provide for their families. They might derive more satisfaction from their job than most other professionals, but their primary motivation is mercenary.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and I shudder to think how difficult it would be to access the level of medical service that we've become accustomed to were we limited to only those with a 'calling'. Moreover, the physician has something really bad going for him that most other high IQ professionals don't:
He has to spend a lot more time on a daily basis interacting with people with less than average intelligence.
Consider an engineer by contrast. A lot of engineers have zero contact on a regular basis with anyone less than about a sigma above normal intelligence. Not so a doctor, and it isn't just lack of intelligence they have to grapple with, they also see a disproportionate amount of dysfunction as well. I don't envy them that. To induce me to practice medicine would require considerably more money than I presently earn. Yes, I have beefs with their national guild bodies, and their overall lack of transparency in business, but that is rarely the fault of the individual physician. So let us avoid attempting to use the spiked club of expected altruism to beat on our doctors.
We have an unreasonable expectation regarding a lot of the so-called 'helping professions'. We expect them to be either altruistically motivated or to at least pretend such in public. However, lets be honest, if only in private on the Internet. Most doctors, nurses, and educators don't feel a calling to their profession (operationally, we can say someone has a 'calling' if they'd have entered the profession if it paid half or less what it paid when they began). Instead, they chose it as a way to provide for their families. They might derive more satisfaction from their job than most other professionals, but their primary motivation is mercenary.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and I shudder to think how difficult it would be to access the level of medical service that we've become accustomed to were we limited to only those with a 'calling'. Moreover, the physician has something really bad going for him that most other high IQ professionals don't:
He has to spend a lot more time on a daily basis interacting with people with less than average intelligence.
Consider an engineer by contrast. A lot of engineers have zero contact on a regular basis with anyone less than about a sigma above normal intelligence. Not so a doctor, and it isn't just lack of intelligence they have to grapple with, they also see a disproportionate amount of dysfunction as well. I don't envy them that. To induce me to practice medicine would require considerably more money than I presently earn. Yes, I have beefs with their national guild bodies, and their overall lack of transparency in business, but that is rarely the fault of the individual physician. So let us avoid attempting to use the spiked club of expected altruism to beat on our doctors.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
A meditation on the library, and a question for readers
I noticed a few days back that my wife and I had neglected to return 'The Unincorporated Woman' to the library on time---it being overdue by a couple of days. Now, having the 'middle class honor' that Half Sigma likes to write vaguely disparagingly of, we of course hastened to return it and pay the few pennies in library fines.
I thought a bit during this about library fines and the possibilities that exist there. It strikes me that library fines are defined by two main parameters---how long you get to keep the book without any fine and the fine per unit time. Sometimes they also have a fine cap and sometimes the fine per unit time is nonlinear.
What I wonder about it this: Are there any explicit legal limits on what values these parameters can take?
For instance, imagine that the first parameter was effectively zero. Imagine that the 2nd parameter was dependent on the type and 'newness' of a book---being, say $1/day for a new release of something that actually typically sells quite a few copies.
All of the sudden, with tweaks to just a couple of parameters, you've created an entirely new business model---a model I've never seen in practice. It's essentially like a video rental store, except with books. Surely there's a reason this is illegal :-) I know there are a lot of people like myself that view the main utility in books as devouring them and have considerably less use for owning them long term. I'd love to be able to effectively rent a new book for 3 days for $3 or so, read it, and return it so the next person in the queue could do the same. It also seems that if you could obtain books near their wholesale or sale price, there'd be plenty of profit margin in the business.
So why is it that this business model essentially doesn't exist? Certainly it would be profoundly disruptive, but doesn't there exist a doctrine of the first sale?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Seems to me such an establishment could also do a groupon like thing where they'd purchase a copy of a book if N people agreed to check it out. So where is the hidden barrier to entry?
Of course, like most of my offerings, this is yours to use in any way you like---even claiming it is your original idea and gaining social status or fantastic amounts of money.
I thought a bit during this about library fines and the possibilities that exist there. It strikes me that library fines are defined by two main parameters---how long you get to keep the book without any fine and the fine per unit time. Sometimes they also have a fine cap and sometimes the fine per unit time is nonlinear.
What I wonder about it this: Are there any explicit legal limits on what values these parameters can take?
For instance, imagine that the first parameter was effectively zero. Imagine that the 2nd parameter was dependent on the type and 'newness' of a book---being, say $1/day for a new release of something that actually typically sells quite a few copies.
All of the sudden, with tweaks to just a couple of parameters, you've created an entirely new business model---a model I've never seen in practice. It's essentially like a video rental store, except with books. Surely there's a reason this is illegal :-) I know there are a lot of people like myself that view the main utility in books as devouring them and have considerably less use for owning them long term. I'd love to be able to effectively rent a new book for 3 days for $3 or so, read it, and return it so the next person in the queue could do the same. It also seems that if you could obtain books near their wholesale or sale price, there'd be plenty of profit margin in the business.
So why is it that this business model essentially doesn't exist? Certainly it would be profoundly disruptive, but doesn't there exist a doctrine of the first sale?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Seems to me such an establishment could also do a groupon like thing where they'd purchase a copy of a book if N people agreed to check it out. So where is the hidden barrier to entry?
Of course, like most of my offerings, this is yours to use in any way you like---even claiming it is your original idea and gaining social status or fantastic amounts of money.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Taqiyya, a gift from Mohammed for the neurotypical
Sometimes I find myself incredibly backlogged in my writing. This post is nearly a year overdue--I said it was coming soon in November of last year. But, since it is a gift from well over a thousand years ago, I suppose a year is a small matter.
Obviously my purpose in this writing isn't to make you followers of Mohammed. But our profound theological differences should not blind us to the weapons that he can gift us.
Taqiyya, loosely translated, means holy deceit. In practice what it means is that as a follower of Islam, it is acceptable and often religiously praiseworthy to deceive the infidel as a stratagem in the 'House of War' (i.e., anywhere that Islam isn't in control). This really isn't that surprising a concept after some reflection. I mean, if you're at war, obviously the use of ruse, flanking, et al are all perfectly acceptable. All warfare is made by means of deceit after all. If you are strong, appear weak, if weak, appear strong. The innovation of Islam is the application of this to the cultural battlespace.
Here's why it is so important. Neurotypical people generally require a mental narrative that explains their actions to themselves. Let's say you've been required in a public place to say 30 Hail Obamas, and this is a frequent requirement in the area wherein you live, or you will face at minimum some social sanction. The neurotypical mind gets ground down over time by this because the least uncomfortable narrative is that I say this because I really like Obama. The alternative narrative is that I say it because I'm afraid of the sanctions involved. People really don't like having to believe that. Ever wonder why pledges of allegiance and the like are so popular as requirements? Thank the customary wiring of the neurotypical. People have spent a LONG time hacking that Human Operating System, and precious few patches have been delivered.
However Taqiyya offers an alternative narrative. You're a spy on a holy mission. For you it is perfectly acceptable to fool the infidel dogs, it merely stokes your contempt for them. Your own brain ceases to be your adversary in maintaining your convictions and once again becomes your ally.
Obviously my purpose in this writing isn't to make you followers of Mohammed. But our profound theological differences should not blind us to the weapons that he can gift us.
Taqiyya, loosely translated, means holy deceit. In practice what it means is that as a follower of Islam, it is acceptable and often religiously praiseworthy to deceive the infidel as a stratagem in the 'House of War' (i.e., anywhere that Islam isn't in control). This really isn't that surprising a concept after some reflection. I mean, if you're at war, obviously the use of ruse, flanking, et al are all perfectly acceptable. All warfare is made by means of deceit after all. If you are strong, appear weak, if weak, appear strong. The innovation of Islam is the application of this to the cultural battlespace.
Here's why it is so important. Neurotypical people generally require a mental narrative that explains their actions to themselves. Let's say you've been required in a public place to say 30 Hail Obamas, and this is a frequent requirement in the area wherein you live, or you will face at minimum some social sanction. The neurotypical mind gets ground down over time by this because the least uncomfortable narrative is that I say this because I really like Obama. The alternative narrative is that I say it because I'm afraid of the sanctions involved. People really don't like having to believe that. Ever wonder why pledges of allegiance and the like are so popular as requirements? Thank the customary wiring of the neurotypical. People have spent a LONG time hacking that Human Operating System, and precious few patches have been delivered.
However Taqiyya offers an alternative narrative. You're a spy on a holy mission. For you it is perfectly acceptable to fool the infidel dogs, it merely stokes your contempt for them. Your own brain ceases to be your adversary in maintaining your convictions and once again becomes your ally.
Monday, September 19, 2011
War and Reaction
First I should be careful to note that not all reactionaries, or even necessarily a supermajority of such will agree with what I have to say.
War, especially modern war, is a horror. It is a terrible thing, although it is not necessarily the worst thing. Being conquered, for instance, is usually a worse thing. But I can't say I've lived through a war (albeit they're not usually named that), that from the perspective of a superpower like the US, was advantageous materially or morally to get involved in.
I subscribe, as I suspect do most reactionaries, to the all or nothing school of warfare. Either you're willing to commit the requisite blood, treasure, and bloodshed to accomplish your stated objectives in a conflict or you are not. If you are, and can reasonably foresee your will persisting over the course of the conflict, then perhaps you can justify engaging in said conflict. If not, don't even try. Don't just do something, stand there.
At the beginning of any conflict when you're contemplating getting involved, consider these things. How much is this, in dollars and lives on our side, going to cost? Then, how many of Them is it going to be necessary to kill or maim to compel capitulation to our aims? Then ask the question, is this calculus acceptable to us? Some case studies are useful in this regard---consider Germany and Japan. Both of them were opponents with strong morale and a profound dislike for being conquered. Both capitulated more or less unconditionally. Both required an immense amount of blood and treasure to defeat and suffered immense numbers of casualties themselves.
Having this debate in open and honest terms is likely to forestall much nonsense about rules of engagement should you actually decide that you have to fight. The US WWII and prior knew how to actually conduct a conflict of this type and more or less invariably succeeded in its aims. Moldbug, for instance, has linked to a number of WWII and prior documents produced by the US army as regards occupation and similar unpleasantness. But I think you'll find that most of the time, you'll decide that the best answer is not war.
War is also immensely socially destructive, especially when large numbers of casualties are involved. For one thing, it disrupts the natural male-female ratios profoundly, often resulting in the breakdown of moral standards. It typically also involves massive amounts of debt, which frequently spreads a large amount of moral hazard all throughout society like shrapnel as well. Frequently that debt ultimately destroys currencies. Lastly, it drags all the worst impulses of rent-seeking out of the population. Is it any wonder that a lot of the 2nd wave of entitlements came out of the Vietnam era? I think not. Lastly, there is this point: when you are a superpower, the threat of what you would be able to do, when it is not manifest obviously, is frequently far scarier than the reality. The British found this during their days of Empire---getting entangled in one war frequently led to becoming mired in several more because the awe of your incredible power was diminished in the eyes of the opportunistic. A sword is best used to keep another in its sheath.
Of course this last point is nearly unthinkable to Americans---sometimes, you may find that your aims are not achievable at the price that you're willing to pay. In layman's terms, you might lose. Losing is nearly universally agreed to suck, even when it fails to be accompanied by enemy soldiers goose-stepping down your avenues. One could compress nearly the entire message of 'The Art of War' from the perspective of a major power into this: Never get your country involved in a war that will later be of interest to wargamers.
War, especially modern war, is a horror. It is a terrible thing, although it is not necessarily the worst thing. Being conquered, for instance, is usually a worse thing. But I can't say I've lived through a war (albeit they're not usually named that), that from the perspective of a superpower like the US, was advantageous materially or morally to get involved in.
I subscribe, as I suspect do most reactionaries, to the all or nothing school of warfare. Either you're willing to commit the requisite blood, treasure, and bloodshed to accomplish your stated objectives in a conflict or you are not. If you are, and can reasonably foresee your will persisting over the course of the conflict, then perhaps you can justify engaging in said conflict. If not, don't even try. Don't just do something, stand there.
At the beginning of any conflict when you're contemplating getting involved, consider these things. How much is this, in dollars and lives on our side, going to cost? Then, how many of Them is it going to be necessary to kill or maim to compel capitulation to our aims? Then ask the question, is this calculus acceptable to us? Some case studies are useful in this regard---consider Germany and Japan. Both of them were opponents with strong morale and a profound dislike for being conquered. Both capitulated more or less unconditionally. Both required an immense amount of blood and treasure to defeat and suffered immense numbers of casualties themselves.
Having this debate in open and honest terms is likely to forestall much nonsense about rules of engagement should you actually decide that you have to fight. The US WWII and prior knew how to actually conduct a conflict of this type and more or less invariably succeeded in its aims. Moldbug, for instance, has linked to a number of WWII and prior documents produced by the US army as regards occupation and similar unpleasantness. But I think you'll find that most of the time, you'll decide that the best answer is not war.
War is also immensely socially destructive, especially when large numbers of casualties are involved. For one thing, it disrupts the natural male-female ratios profoundly, often resulting in the breakdown of moral standards. It typically also involves massive amounts of debt, which frequently spreads a large amount of moral hazard all throughout society like shrapnel as well. Frequently that debt ultimately destroys currencies. Lastly, it drags all the worst impulses of rent-seeking out of the population. Is it any wonder that a lot of the 2nd wave of entitlements came out of the Vietnam era? I think not. Lastly, there is this point: when you are a superpower, the threat of what you would be able to do, when it is not manifest obviously, is frequently far scarier than the reality. The British found this during their days of Empire---getting entangled in one war frequently led to becoming mired in several more because the awe of your incredible power was diminished in the eyes of the opportunistic. A sword is best used to keep another in its sheath.
Of course this last point is nearly unthinkable to Americans---sometimes, you may find that your aims are not achievable at the price that you're willing to pay. In layman's terms, you might lose. Losing is nearly universally agreed to suck, even when it fails to be accompanied by enemy soldiers goose-stepping down your avenues. One could compress nearly the entire message of 'The Art of War' from the perspective of a major power into this: Never get your country involved in a war that will later be of interest to wargamers.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Is the Constitution the White Man's Ghost Shirt?
A couple of posts back, I mentioned the expression: The Constitution is the White Man's Ghost Shirt (original source unknown, seen originally on Usenet back in the 90s, feel free to step forward and claim it if it is yours).
My wife asked me about this expression, so perhaps I should explain it in a bit more detail. The Ghost Shirt was an item that a number of Indian factions believed would protect them against the White Man's bullets and other weapons during an uprising. Typically such shirts would be covered with all sorts of mystical symbols and writing. Needless to say, confronted with naked force (specifically, the bullets and sabres of US cavalrymen), they didn't work terribly well.
The Constitution has a similar talismanic property in the minds of lots of White People, especially conservatives. This is a mistake, both tactically and strategically. The tactical mistake is that as a conservative, or, God forbid, a reactionary or counter revolutionary, you will pretty much never win a position on the strength of the Constitutional argument for it. You'll find instead that your Constitutional position will only be grudgingly recognized by the courts once you've won the position in the court of public opinion or at least made the issue totally radioactive for the politicians who would oppose you. This, for instance, is how the gun control battle has been largely won in recent years. For years gun advocates appealed to the courts about how utterly clear their case was in the plain language of the Bill of Rights. This didn't work---the courts will rule how the hell they want to rule with little regard to such considerations as the literal meaning of the text. However when the NRA started seriously going after its enemies in the electoral process, claiming scalps and picking on the weakest of their enemies in earnest in the 90s, things began to change. Once the issue became radioactive to the Democratic party, all of the sudden, the courts started taking the 'Embarrassing Second Amendment' somewhat seriously. Did the meaning of the text suddenly change? Was it amended? No, nothing changed except the political calculus. This is why it is a tactical mistake to attribute the powers of a talisman to the US constitution.
The strategic mistake is this: The Constitution and Bill of Rights can best be described as constituting a set of rules of engagement for political conflicts within the US. At least that was the intent. Rules of engagement have this universal property: They only 'work' when both sides generally abide by them. When only one side obeys those rules, it tends to suffer pretty massive disadvantages in the conflicts that the rules theoretically govern. If you have a massive advantage in a conflict, you can sometimes afford this, either because the rules of engagement represent some moral principle that you're willing to suffer greatly for, or because you believe that the peace after your victory will be more liveable if you do. But when you're at a significant disadvantage, you can't afford this sort of thing, especially if your conflict is existential. Simply put, reactionaries, conservatives, and counter revolutionaries should never shelve a particular desire for the mere reason that it wouldn't be constitutional. The rules of engagement are breached and you'd better get used to that. If you had the ability to have violators of the constitution hanged from lamp posts, especially those who 'interpreted' it beyond recognition, things might be different. But at present you don't, so don't feel bound by anything for such reasons, especially when they're not even in the plain text (the words separation of Church and State do not exist in the document, it rather forbids the Establishment of a Church, which meant nothing more than that the US would not have an official Federal church, like many nations in Europe, which would be supported by mandatory tithes--several states, did in fact have State churches, and this was considered perfectly kosher) but rather in the interpretation that some guy in a black dress dreamed up.
My wife asked me about this expression, so perhaps I should explain it in a bit more detail. The Ghost Shirt was an item that a number of Indian factions believed would protect them against the White Man's bullets and other weapons during an uprising. Typically such shirts would be covered with all sorts of mystical symbols and writing. Needless to say, confronted with naked force (specifically, the bullets and sabres of US cavalrymen), they didn't work terribly well.
The Constitution has a similar talismanic property in the minds of lots of White People, especially conservatives. This is a mistake, both tactically and strategically. The tactical mistake is that as a conservative, or, God forbid, a reactionary or counter revolutionary, you will pretty much never win a position on the strength of the Constitutional argument for it. You'll find instead that your Constitutional position will only be grudgingly recognized by the courts once you've won the position in the court of public opinion or at least made the issue totally radioactive for the politicians who would oppose you. This, for instance, is how the gun control battle has been largely won in recent years. For years gun advocates appealed to the courts about how utterly clear their case was in the plain language of the Bill of Rights. This didn't work---the courts will rule how the hell they want to rule with little regard to such considerations as the literal meaning of the text. However when the NRA started seriously going after its enemies in the electoral process, claiming scalps and picking on the weakest of their enemies in earnest in the 90s, things began to change. Once the issue became radioactive to the Democratic party, all of the sudden, the courts started taking the 'Embarrassing Second Amendment' somewhat seriously. Did the meaning of the text suddenly change? Was it amended? No, nothing changed except the political calculus. This is why it is a tactical mistake to attribute the powers of a talisman to the US constitution.
The strategic mistake is this: The Constitution and Bill of Rights can best be described as constituting a set of rules of engagement for political conflicts within the US. At least that was the intent. Rules of engagement have this universal property: They only 'work' when both sides generally abide by them. When only one side obeys those rules, it tends to suffer pretty massive disadvantages in the conflicts that the rules theoretically govern. If you have a massive advantage in a conflict, you can sometimes afford this, either because the rules of engagement represent some moral principle that you're willing to suffer greatly for, or because you believe that the peace after your victory will be more liveable if you do. But when you're at a significant disadvantage, you can't afford this sort of thing, especially if your conflict is existential. Simply put, reactionaries, conservatives, and counter revolutionaries should never shelve a particular desire for the mere reason that it wouldn't be constitutional. The rules of engagement are breached and you'd better get used to that. If you had the ability to have violators of the constitution hanged from lamp posts, especially those who 'interpreted' it beyond recognition, things might be different. But at present you don't, so don't feel bound by anything for such reasons, especially when they're not even in the plain text (the words separation of Church and State do not exist in the document, it rather forbids the Establishment of a Church, which meant nothing more than that the US would not have an official Federal church, like many nations in Europe, which would be supported by mandatory tithes--several states, did in fact have State churches, and this was considered perfectly kosher) but rather in the interpretation that some guy in a black dress dreamed up.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Besieging Moldbug's Cathedral: Help From Inside the University System
http://mangans.blogspot.com/2011/09/minorities-up-to-1500-times-more.html
In short, the University of Wisconsin-Madison was sued successfully by the Center for Equal Opportunity to release its admissions records, which they then mined to produce the jewel of legitimate grievance Mangan has so generously shared with us. Now, everyone who isn't a total idiot knows that racial preferences exist in the university system. But what everyone DOESN'T know is just how massive said preferences actually are. None of this surprises anyone with a basic knowledge of HBD and Statistics. For instance, around 1 in 6 black people in the US is of above average intelligence. One in 50 has more than a 115 IQ, which is the basic ante for a real degree program at a school with real standards---and which used to be the average IQ for college graduates (presently that number is closer to 105). However this creates massive representation ratios---because for a white person, approximately 1 in 2 are above average intelligence, and 1 in 6 have the 115 IQ mentioned previously. Those familiar with the normal distribution recognize, of course, that the representation ratios just get nastier and nastier as you move up the sigmas.
Our friends inside the Cathedral admissions department have done us a yeoman service here, by being so egregiously blatant about discriminating against white people in favor of hispanics (many who are probably the white people with Spanish surnames I posted about earlier this month) and blacks (many who are probably recent immigrants or foreign nationals). A better publicity coup to undermine the support of the Cathedral I would have difficulty devising myself.
Now the naive approach is to try to simply deny the admissions departments the knowledge of the race of the applicants. Don't count on this working. There are all kinds of ways the two motivated groups (the ones with a burning desire to get their diversity brownie points and the ones who have a flaming desire to bestow them) can coordinate implicitly. There's the infamous essay, the high school they graduated from, the name of the applicant, and now...google and facebook. Anyone who thinks they won't attempt to game any such regimen is smoking something really good. The only approach with half a chance would be to strip them totally of all discretion and use a European-style examination admission system. But honestly, we reactionaries really don't want to solve the affirmative action injustice so much as to use it as a club with which to destroy the Cathedral. Successive good faith attempts by the voters and their representatives to fix this problem subverted by the dark powers of the admissions department which inspire further rage in said voters is EXACTLY what we want. Praise God for his hardening of the hearts of our adversaries.
In short, the University of Wisconsin-Madison was sued successfully by the Center for Equal Opportunity to release its admissions records, which they then mined to produce the jewel of legitimate grievance Mangan has so generously shared with us. Now, everyone who isn't a total idiot knows that racial preferences exist in the university system. But what everyone DOESN'T know is just how massive said preferences actually are. None of this surprises anyone with a basic knowledge of HBD and Statistics. For instance, around 1 in 6 black people in the US is of above average intelligence. One in 50 has more than a 115 IQ, which is the basic ante for a real degree program at a school with real standards---and which used to be the average IQ for college graduates (presently that number is closer to 105). However this creates massive representation ratios---because for a white person, approximately 1 in 2 are above average intelligence, and 1 in 6 have the 115 IQ mentioned previously. Those familiar with the normal distribution recognize, of course, that the representation ratios just get nastier and nastier as you move up the sigmas.
Our friends inside the Cathedral admissions department have done us a yeoman service here, by being so egregiously blatant about discriminating against white people in favor of hispanics (many who are probably the white people with Spanish surnames I posted about earlier this month) and blacks (many who are probably recent immigrants or foreign nationals). A better publicity coup to undermine the support of the Cathedral I would have difficulty devising myself.
Now the naive approach is to try to simply deny the admissions departments the knowledge of the race of the applicants. Don't count on this working. There are all kinds of ways the two motivated groups (the ones with a burning desire to get their diversity brownie points and the ones who have a flaming desire to bestow them) can coordinate implicitly. There's the infamous essay, the high school they graduated from, the name of the applicant, and now...google and facebook. Anyone who thinks they won't attempt to game any such regimen is smoking something really good. The only approach with half a chance would be to strip them totally of all discretion and use a European-style examination admission system. But honestly, we reactionaries really don't want to solve the affirmative action injustice so much as to use it as a club with which to destroy the Cathedral. Successive good faith attempts by the voters and their representatives to fix this problem subverted by the dark powers of the admissions department which inspire further rage in said voters is EXACTLY what we want. Praise God for his hardening of the hearts of our adversaries.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Our Adversaries: Encouragment and Morale to Reaction
Today I'd like to offer some encouragement to my fellow reactionaries. We've got a lot of challenges, perhaps partly because to be a reactionary, practically by definition in the current climate you need to be pretty low in the 5-factor model Agreeableness. That is simply the cross we must bear, but take heart, Reaction is not achieved by Agreeable men.
The biggest thing we have going for us in truth is our adversaries. Our present day adversaries are, if more numerous than they were in the past, of distinctly inferior quality. Gone are those who would embrace martyrdom. The SWPL of today has probably never even been in a mere argument wherein he was outnumbered or fighting the cultural zeitgeist. No, he is terribly spoiled by the fact that, despite his protestations, he IS the establishment, and a lazy one at that. He has no stomach for a real fight, even if it is strictly rhetorical, at anything other than many to one odds. In general he lacks even any honest to goodness principles, he simply does what gets the most plusses to social status. He has few if any children, and sends them to schools that are curiously non-diverse despite his loud profession of faith in diversity.
Come the Reaction he will strive to gain social status by demonstrating his prodigious knowledge of Antediluvian geneologies. All that is necessary to bend him to our will is to change the status incentive structure that he faces. He is not the would-be crusader of years past that faced a powerful Klan with his life in the balance. No, truth be told, a present day member of the Klan---if it still has a nontrivial number of members that are not federal or state informants, is far more courageous than he. For he, at least, is willing to place SOMETHING above the mere aggrandizement of social status. Take this as a gift: There is absolutely nobody more easy to manipulate than the one who is concerned with social status uber alles.
So take heart in this comrades. Should the Establishment begin to waver, it will fall quickly. Far more quickly, I think, than you or I could possibly imagine. And, indeed, the SWPL will proclaim that he was with us all the time.
The biggest thing we have going for us in truth is our adversaries. Our present day adversaries are, if more numerous than they were in the past, of distinctly inferior quality. Gone are those who would embrace martyrdom. The SWPL of today has probably never even been in a mere argument wherein he was outnumbered or fighting the cultural zeitgeist. No, he is terribly spoiled by the fact that, despite his protestations, he IS the establishment, and a lazy one at that. He has no stomach for a real fight, even if it is strictly rhetorical, at anything other than many to one odds. In general he lacks even any honest to goodness principles, he simply does what gets the most plusses to social status. He has few if any children, and sends them to schools that are curiously non-diverse despite his loud profession of faith in diversity.
Come the Reaction he will strive to gain social status by demonstrating his prodigious knowledge of Antediluvian geneologies. All that is necessary to bend him to our will is to change the status incentive structure that he faces. He is not the would-be crusader of years past that faced a powerful Klan with his life in the balance. No, truth be told, a present day member of the Klan---if it still has a nontrivial number of members that are not federal or state informants, is far more courageous than he. For he, at least, is willing to place SOMETHING above the mere aggrandizement of social status. Take this as a gift: There is absolutely nobody more easy to manipulate than the one who is concerned with social status uber alles.
So take heart in this comrades. Should the Establishment begin to waver, it will fall quickly. Far more quickly, I think, than you or I could possibly imagine. And, indeed, the SWPL will proclaim that he was with us all the time.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
White People with Spanish Surnames, Affirmative Action's Weakest Link
There are a fair number of people out there who are visibly and culturally quite white, but who have Spanish surnames and accordingly are able to reap lots of affirmative action goodies. My half-sister is a good example of this (my stepfather being Spanish/German and having the most common Spanish surname of them all)---visibly probably whiter than 80% of white people but the recipient of preference, scholarships, and the like on the basis of being 'Hispanic/Latina/whatever gets the most pluses'---being, in this case, operationalized by checking the relevant box. I could have done this myself back in the day, there was talk of changing my last name when I was a youngster, but such blatant gaming of the system was considered distasteful by middle class people back then.
Nevertheless, this group is one that could be fairly easily wedged free from the existing non-Asian minority coalition. The smaller the coalition becomes, the easier it is to fight it and to remove the perks of being diverse that come at the expense of the non-diverse, like, say, my own little ones (nobody would mistake a pair of very fair little redheads with bright blue eyes for anything but the descendants of Vikings and other presently disfavored groups). Doubtlessly, the coalition would see this as an effort to divide and conquer, as in fact it is, but I have a little secret to tell you.
You don't have to convince minorities if that is your objective, you have to convince overly nice white ladies that they're not being 'mean' by advancing their husband's interests. There's of course the obstacle of the judiciary, but that is a battle that has to be fought anyway and I've outlined a plan in previous posts for delegitimizing it progressively in the eyes of the population. The short form is that as reactionaries, we are long (in the stock market sense) anger---anything that pisses off the population, like blatant legislation from the bench, works in our favor. It is to our advantage to fight anytime doing so costs us less resources than it does our opponents and when even losing bleeds the present elite's perceived legitimacy. In this case, much of the left will even agree---people like my sister have no business getting such goodies and God forbid, a system gaming version of myself getting Hispanic preferences would be an abomination.
Nevertheless, this group is one that could be fairly easily wedged free from the existing non-Asian minority coalition. The smaller the coalition becomes, the easier it is to fight it and to remove the perks of being diverse that come at the expense of the non-diverse, like, say, my own little ones (nobody would mistake a pair of very fair little redheads with bright blue eyes for anything but the descendants of Vikings and other presently disfavored groups). Doubtlessly, the coalition would see this as an effort to divide and conquer, as in fact it is, but I have a little secret to tell you.
You don't have to convince minorities if that is your objective, you have to convince overly nice white ladies that they're not being 'mean' by advancing their husband's interests. There's of course the obstacle of the judiciary, but that is a battle that has to be fought anyway and I've outlined a plan in previous posts for delegitimizing it progressively in the eyes of the population. The short form is that as reactionaries, we are long (in the stock market sense) anger---anything that pisses off the population, like blatant legislation from the bench, works in our favor. It is to our advantage to fight anytime doing so costs us less resources than it does our opponents and when even losing bleeds the present elite's perceived legitimacy. In this case, much of the left will even agree---people like my sister have no business getting such goodies and God forbid, a system gaming version of myself getting Hispanic preferences would be an abomination.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Rational Economic Man Strikes Back
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2011/08/court_decision_denigrates_marr.html
Back last year, I wrote of the consequences of the desacralization of marriage and the outcomes we should expect to see as Rational Economic Man increasingly shows up on the scene.
http://chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2010/05/rational-economic-man-marriage-and.html
At the time, some of my predictions seemed a bit far-fetched to some, but the advance of history seems to be bearing out my thesis.
In essence, what happened in this case is a number of airline pilots and their wives saw the following circumstance:
1. The pension plan they were in was underfunded
2. Underfunded pension plans are not allowed to give accelerated or lump-sum distributions because doing so would capsize the plan early and create a prisoner's dilemma among the participants
3. There is an exception to this rule for the case of a divorce because of the logistical hardships and public sympathy.
So what did they do? They conjured Rational Economic Man and did something nearly unthinkable to most people, especially neurotypicals.
They divorced, got a skewed settlement, transferred the entire pension more or less to the wive, who rolled it into her IRA without creating a taxable event, and then they remarried. Sounds an awful lot like the scenarios in my previous post does it not?
Now they were very blatant about it, which is why there was a court case. In practice marriage and divorce are incredibly messy. My father and mother, for instance, were married, to each other, twice and divorced, from each other, also twice, before they both married other people. It would be terribly difficult to adjudicate whether a given divorce is a 'sham' or not when ordinary reality deals up such a dog's breakfast as a matter of course.
Of course every time this sort of thing actually occurs, it makes it more thinkable to others. At some point you may see ad hoc dissolution of civil marriages almost considered a due diligence issue in financial, tax, and estate planning. This of course will require the rules of society to change as those who game the system less are outraged.
I predict we've not seen the last of Rational Economic Man. His hour is come at last.
Back last year, I wrote of the consequences of the desacralization of marriage and the outcomes we should expect to see as Rational Economic Man increasingly shows up on the scene.
http://chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2010/05/rational-economic-man-marriage-and.html
At the time, some of my predictions seemed a bit far-fetched to some, but the advance of history seems to be bearing out my thesis.
In essence, what happened in this case is a number of airline pilots and their wives saw the following circumstance:
1. The pension plan they were in was underfunded
2. Underfunded pension plans are not allowed to give accelerated or lump-sum distributions because doing so would capsize the plan early and create a prisoner's dilemma among the participants
3. There is an exception to this rule for the case of a divorce because of the logistical hardships and public sympathy.
So what did they do? They conjured Rational Economic Man and did something nearly unthinkable to most people, especially neurotypicals.
They divorced, got a skewed settlement, transferred the entire pension more or less to the wive, who rolled it into her IRA without creating a taxable event, and then they remarried. Sounds an awful lot like the scenarios in my previous post does it not?
Now they were very blatant about it, which is why there was a court case. In practice marriage and divorce are incredibly messy. My father and mother, for instance, were married, to each other, twice and divorced, from each other, also twice, before they both married other people. It would be terribly difficult to adjudicate whether a given divorce is a 'sham' or not when ordinary reality deals up such a dog's breakfast as a matter of course.
Of course every time this sort of thing actually occurs, it makes it more thinkable to others. At some point you may see ad hoc dissolution of civil marriages almost considered a due diligence issue in financial, tax, and estate planning. This of course will require the rules of society to change as those who game the system less are outraged.
I predict we've not seen the last of Rational Economic Man. His hour is come at last.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Labor Day Special, Held Over from May Day
http://chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2011/05/special-offer-for-unions-on-may-day.html
Dear Unions of America,
Back in May we talked, and I presented my offer to you. In the spirit of Christian charity, I'd like to inform you that said offer is still good. You retain the ability to act in your own best interests without facing withering criticism from the reactionary quarter. Ask yourselves this, is your position improving or worsening? Judging by the various economic numbers (e.g., the substantial fall in tax receipts, a number that is much harder to game than the happy-clappy U3 numbers the MSM tries to convince you mean something---if they didn't love Obama so much, they might remember just how crappy a metric U3 is and tell you about U6, and if they hated his guts, they'd tell you about total employment ratios, labor force participation rates, and the like), I'd have to say your position is worsening by the quarter.
Last time I told you that you desperately needed to stop the bleeding caused by illegal immigration (and legal immigration, for that matter). Said policies cut your collective throats. That's still true. But I'd also counsel you that you need to think seriously about what prompts outsourcing as well. Honestly speaking, you need to think seriously about what you want to push insofar as corporate taxation is concerned, as well as the various regulations that make the US such a popular place to outsource from.
Dear Unions of America,
Back in May we talked, and I presented my offer to you. In the spirit of Christian charity, I'd like to inform you that said offer is still good. You retain the ability to act in your own best interests without facing withering criticism from the reactionary quarter. Ask yourselves this, is your position improving or worsening? Judging by the various economic numbers (e.g., the substantial fall in tax receipts, a number that is much harder to game than the happy-clappy U3 numbers the MSM tries to convince you mean something---if they didn't love Obama so much, they might remember just how crappy a metric U3 is and tell you about U6, and if they hated his guts, they'd tell you about total employment ratios, labor force participation rates, and the like), I'd have to say your position is worsening by the quarter.
Last time I told you that you desperately needed to stop the bleeding caused by illegal immigration (and legal immigration, for that matter). Said policies cut your collective throats. That's still true. But I'd also counsel you that you need to think seriously about what prompts outsourcing as well. Honestly speaking, you need to think seriously about what you want to push insofar as corporate taxation is concerned, as well as the various regulations that make the US such a popular place to outsource from.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Behold the Awesome Power of Demographic Hegemony
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/when-minorities-discriminate
Essentially the Cherokee nation just decided, and their Supreme Court confirmed, to eject all of the descendants of slaves that were previously considered official members of the tribe.
No doubt this raises the reader's hackles. There is of course a substantial amount of money involved (their casinos earned the tribe over 25 billion back in 2009).
But this is what a group that has demographic hegemony can do. By their vote, they concentrated their share of the tribe's loot. It shouldn't surprise anyone that race is used as the point of coordination. It is, after all, one of the easiest Schelling Points to use in such games, and it has the most history of use. If another group has the demographic hegemony, you're at its mercy in such matters. Also, it doesn't matter what you identify yourself with---many of the freedmen doubtlessly identified themselves as Cherokees first. What matters is who the other identify YOU with. Groups that are heavily atomized and individualistic will always have a major handicap in such status competitions, and the stakes are often very high indeed. This case is just an abnormally clear object lesson. One can't even expect a constitution to take such issues off the table, because even if a constitution is abundantly clear, there has to be an official arbitrator, and that means somebody (i.e., not you) gets to vote, and such things are amendable anyway, even though the modern preference is to simply interpret them into uselessness.
I've heard it said that the Constitution is the White Man's Ghost Shirt. I tend to agree.
Oh, but I hear you saying, I'd NEVER do that to them, so they'd NEVER do that to me. Get this through your head right now---the Golden Rule is a command, not an if-then conditional promise.
Essentially the Cherokee nation just decided, and their Supreme Court confirmed, to eject all of the descendants of slaves that were previously considered official members of the tribe.
No doubt this raises the reader's hackles. There is of course a substantial amount of money involved (their casinos earned the tribe over 25 billion back in 2009).
But this is what a group that has demographic hegemony can do. By their vote, they concentrated their share of the tribe's loot. It shouldn't surprise anyone that race is used as the point of coordination. It is, after all, one of the easiest Schelling Points to use in such games, and it has the most history of use. If another group has the demographic hegemony, you're at its mercy in such matters. Also, it doesn't matter what you identify yourself with---many of the freedmen doubtlessly identified themselves as Cherokees first. What matters is who the other identify YOU with. Groups that are heavily atomized and individualistic will always have a major handicap in such status competitions, and the stakes are often very high indeed. This case is just an abnormally clear object lesson. One can't even expect a constitution to take such issues off the table, because even if a constitution is abundantly clear, there has to be an official arbitrator, and that means somebody (i.e., not you) gets to vote, and such things are amendable anyway, even though the modern preference is to simply interpret them into uselessness.
I've heard it said that the Constitution is the White Man's Ghost Shirt. I tend to agree.
Oh, but I hear you saying, I'd NEVER do that to them, so they'd NEVER do that to me. Get this through your head right now---the Golden Rule is a command, not an if-then conditional promise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
