Archive for July, 2009
I just pulled a few comments out of the spam queue. The oldest is from July 18th.
Apologies to Al Parker and 1Reader.
Everyone has a problem seeing why A Plague on Both Your Houses was such a radical book in 1976. Almost everything that hit people between the eyes back then is a matter of routine discourse in politics today. Jeffrey Hart, an English professor at Dartmouth, talked about he books, “coruscating insights.” But those roiling new insights strikes one today as basic logic in politics.
It is actually impossible for anyone today to put himself back in a time when the only recognized “lobbies” in America were big business and defense spending. These were the bugbears of the liberal media. Back then, it was staggering for anyone to talk about the National Education Association as lobby, even though all its money was appropriated by governments. “Lobby” or “pressure groups” were dirty words, applied only to those who used it for Evil Purposes. You cannot put yourself back in those days, when to mention liberal pressure for government money in the same breath with the “military-industrial complex” was not only heresy, but the kind of heresy no one had actually discussed before.
For the first time ever, conservatives at the national conventions were actually discussing what a large proportion of Democratic delegates were NEA members.
In the House, the Republican head of staff made a bet with his Democratic opposite — was it Chris Matthews that far back? — that the budgets for Health Education and Welfare than the Defense budget.
Of course it was. But that had never occurred to either side. Only the Defense budget was discussed. We’re talking about the two staffers who had most to do with formulating the budgets. For the rest of the world the whole thing was unheard-of. And that was just one of the coruscating ideas in there that seem so logical today. By 1980 the whole picture of politics came from what FILTERED DOWN from that little book.
I put filtered down in caps for a reason. I was the intellectual leader on the populist side, which sounds like a contradiction in terms. William Rusher, publisher of National Review, was the leader on the respectable conservative side. We were setting up the 1980 coalition. combining working class conservatives, then called “Wallace voters” with the regular conservative base.
But there was one insight which did NOT go public. This was my undeniable assertion, not discussed before, that the Federal Courts are the last bastion of passing establishment. Bill Rusher gave me full credit for this insight in his history of the conservative movement, but nobody took it up.
The point itself is obvious. One of John last acts as the last Federalist Party president in 1801 was to appoint John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Marshall was Chief Justice after the Federalist Party died out completely. But her was a thorn in the side of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson before he died in 1834.
In 1857 the Supreme Court made the totally pro-slavery Dred Scot Decision, because it had been appointed by Democrats when Southerners dominated that Party. By 1938 Roosevelt had his famous “Court-packing” scheme, his first major political loss, because the Court was still full of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover appointees. And in 1976 the Judiciary was, with the cooperation of respectable conservatives, solidly liberal. I cannot imagine how anyone with a general knowledge of American history wasn’t aware of this phenomenon.
It just hadn’t been MENTIONED specifically.
And it has STAYED unmentioned. Bill Rusher, all unknowing, cut its throat.
The reason is critical, and the reason is this: My “coruscating insights” in Plague were in a small book read largely by a small group of insiders. If you were to trace the movement of those ideas to the mainstream, you would see that they were reworded and discussed by an astoundingly wide range of people. left, middle and right, each of whom TOOK CREDIT for them. But when Rusher attributed an idea in a major book to ME. he cut this process off.
Anyone who wanted to reword it and take credit for the Federal Courts as the routine last hold on power of the passing establishment would have been told by someone on the staff, “Oh, you mean Whitaker’s idea. Rusher discussed that.” Nothing is more discouraging to people who make their living getting credit for new ideas than being told it is old hat, yesterday’s news.
This matter of credit taking is not new. Ben Franklin discussed it as a way to promote things in his autobiography. Once YOU take credit you take it out of the taking-credit market before it gets to a Major Spokesman, you kill it, unless you NEED the credit, as a professor or a Major Spokesman does.
I was after POWER, not credit. Credit is what you give to Major Spokesmen to carry on your concept.
So I want it to be THE Mantra, not BOB’S Mantra. I want to write about Wordism unless Buchanan or some other Major Spokesman takes it on. IT is not likely to be Buchanan, but it is a concept just too perfect for everybody to avoid it very long.
You notice that every time we hit them with the Mantra, including Buchanan’s pages, by the time the link is mentioned in Comments it has been removed. That is not so great a problem, because it is obviously a group effort. For now, THAT IS FINE. It is just inside our branch of the political spectrum, just the few writes we are aiming to HEAR it, that it is recognized. It will one day be taken up by someone in the middle or the left.
I am giving you information on how to proceed in a whole field of power politics no one has really even talked about since Ben Franklin. But in an information society, this is the essence of real power politics.
I have playing with the fact that America elected its first Catholic president in 1960, but it has no elected one since. The second point is the odd one. Even before the Hispanic invasion, Catholics were over a fourth of the American population.
And in 1960 the old stereotype completely escaped the facts. Despite all the talk about the “privileged WASPs, per capita Catholic income was higher than per capita Protestant income. Even “working class” Irish, once called shanty Irish, the people I worked with in Boston and Chicago, had union jobs in industry that paid wages that were the envy of many a WASP manager.
So here we had a quarter of the voting population, solidly middle and upper income and we have not had another Catholic president since 1963.
And I am the only one who seems to wonder about it. I haven’t hear any born and bred Catholics even bring it up.
It was THE issue among Catholics in 1960. I believe that even then-affluent Upper Darby, PA, “Ninety per cent Catholic and ninety percent Republican,” went for Kennedy. But since then the question has not come up.
But the Kennedy experience is altogether different from the Obama experience. Catholics needed get over the 1928 Al Smith experience and prove a Catholic could be president. To sum it up, Catholics wanted to make a point, but didn’t feel inferior.
Blacks will always feel inferior, even with a black president, a black pope, and world full of blacks kings. Catholics never asked for affirmative action. Blacks want it forever.
When Political Correctness loses an argument hopelessly, its response is to pretend it never happened.
The argument over Communists infesting the State Department in the 1950s is simply not discussed any more. Even the word McCarthyism is very rare now since somebody will always use the label to point to the now undisputed fact that he was right.
The battle to suppress racial IQ differences is to gone that top psychological journals are happy to get lead articles from Jensen and Rushton. Otherwise, it is not mentioned, nor is the earlier repression.
Political Correctness is no more inventive than any other established religion.
All of them used their established power to force forgetfulness on any issue they have lost. The Catholic Church “forgot” Galileo for centuries. It is standard admission that The Infallible Was Wrong.
“The Myth of Race” is another standard tactic.
When J. Edgar Hoover recognized that he was not smart enough to fight real organized crime, he declared, “The Mafia is a Myth.”
Predictably, faced with defeat on all fronts, the establishment has declared that the whole subject of race is a myth.
The myth of the Mafia was destroyed when its leaders were caught in a national meeting in upstate New York, no thanks to the FBI. “Race is a myth” is dealt with by the Mantra, where Political Correctness is exposed as aiming all its fire on countries that are white. They are themselves proving than race is very, very real TO THEM.
Horus has done excellent work on practical politics, but these posts on “An Example of Missing the Point” and “Near Misses” are the real lesson of practical politics.
We are NOT faced with any task that requires us to be intelligent. Nor do we need to be equipped with any deep insights. We don’t even need to apprehend the situational logic we find ourselves in. And we don’t need to concern ourselves with our opponents’ motives.
That’s because believing we have to be smart gives an opening to our opponents, unintentional concessions that allow us to slip into the “near misses” Bob is talking about. These “near misses” are unintentional concessions that say, “I have to be full of true information and deep insights to oppose you”. The mistake is in believing there is something to be argued when the truth is far simpler. The mistake is giving an opening to our opponents they don’t deserve.
Semmelweis had nothing to argue. Actually, he didn’t have to know anything. The results of his method (washing his hands) spoke for itself.
Understanding how the example of Semmelweis relates to the Mantra allows us to shed a lot of baggage.
It is great guidance on how not to stray, on how to avoid getting mired in argument, and on how to avoid making concessions, however unintentional they may be.
In “Servitude and Slavery” below, I referred to my own specialty in graduate economics, Public Choice:
“If libertarianism and its theoretical expression, Public Choice, can’t even explain why people vote it certainly cannot explain the rest of life.
Under pure Public Choice Theory, as all the experts in that field agree, no votes would occur, no public choices would be made. They admit they can’t doesn’t explain why people vote, but they don’t worry about that.”
If you do a straight Public Choice libertarian calculation on whether you should vote, you wouldn’t. The cost is going to the polling place and standing in line. And, if we are just talking about the benefit to you PERSONALLY of casting your ballot, what do you get for it? What is the real probability that your particular vote will affect YOU personally?
No pure libertarian would bother to vote. The reason we DO vote goes to the very fundamental error of libertarianism. Voters want to influence how their SOCIETY goes, not just to benefit themselves.
Like Marx and Rand everyone else Public Choice is still in the age when animals did not fight wars. All we have learned about the nature of all social animals has been completely missed.
In other words, Public Choice and libertarianism declare that LOYALTY has nothing to do with humans. The whole Wordist superstructure of libertarianism founders on that one point, just as “anti-racism” founders on the Mantra.
I sent this logic to someone in Public Choice. Remember that I said that the job of respectable conservatism is to miss the point while appearing to address it. The same is true of Public Choice. Our whole training was that of a professional knife thrower, to always MISS just right.
This person is NOT an anti-white. But his TRAINING is to miss the point. He saw what I said. one would vote at all. His reply to me will sound familiar to anyone who has ever actually WORKED with the Mantra.
He said that Public Choicers do still mention the point that if self-interest were the only basis of voting no one would vote at all. But that was ALL he addressed. What I wrote about loyalty might as well have been blank space. I wrote him again to remind him of it and he said I should pay attention to what HE said.
You have to USE the Mantra to understand this reaction. We have here a form of HYPNOTISM. A proposition that will undermine a whole world-view runs into this.
It is vital that you recognize this form of hypnotism. You cannot just “mention the logic of the Mantra.” No one will SEE the Mantra even when you first ram it down their throats. All of us who have fought it out know well that you simply CANNOT get onto other topics and that you cannot just “mention the logic.”
You must HIT THE TARGET again and again and again. In a week, even someone you have forced to face it will have HYPNOTICALLY forgotten it.
Let us go back to Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. A friend of his died of a cut on his finger while he was doing a dissection for anatomy on an old corpse. Semmelweis looked at his friend’s symptoms and discovered that they were the same as those of “childbed fever” of which so many of the mothers and babies in his hospital died. Doctors in his hospital were doing dissections and then going straight to deliver babies without washing their hands.
It was obvious where the childbed fever was coming from.
Semmelweis explained it and explained it and explained it. The doctors replied that they were discussing childbed fever, just as my friend said they were DISCUSSING why people wouldn’t vote at all using Public Choice logic. They got him into discussions of Galen and Hippocrates. They talked about the Simplism of just washing your hands in carbolic acid. The moment he mentioned childbed fever they went off on their own tack.
Semmelweis’s deliveries were without the huge mortality rate theirs was. He was denounced as a monomaniac. In other words, they talked about everything but what he told them. They didn’t try his simplistic solution.. Hell, they didn’t even SEE it.
In the end Semmelweis won, but only after he died in a madhouse.
THAT is what we are facing. It is life and death, and “mentioning the Mantra” while you are going along with someone’s discussion won’t do the trick.
I tried to Google the name of the Roman Senator who at the end of EVERY speech, said, “and let me add that Carthage is a danger to Rome and must be destroyed.”
And it came to pass that Rome destroyed Carthage.
And salted the ground it stood on.
Shoving their faces in the Mantra is a direct hit. Anything else is a near miss. Near misses aren’t just bad, they are the basis of the entire respectable conservative industry.
Respectable conservative is the salvation of the enemy.
The entire respectable conservative industry — and it IS an industry bigger, than most national economies — is based on making the opponents of Political Correctness BELIEVE their points are being addressed when they are not. Respectable conservatism IS near-misses.
I made my living for many, many years in the respectable conservative industry. I got my money and my retirement by knowing exactly what a near-miss looks like. I was high in the ranks of those who knew exactly how to make YOUR contributors an voters THINK you have made the very point they can’t express, but at the same time firing just a little bit off the target, so the other side can continue the argument.
I am like a knife-thrower who has spend many years learning to miss the target by a hair’s breadth. If that expert knife thrower decides to practice HITTING the target, he is deadly accurate.
Servitude is doing what you do not want to do. It doesn’t matter if YOU are wielding your own whip.
Servitude should ONLY be engaged in for loyalty or reward. For any other reason it is slavery. Which leads us back to the whip I mentioned.
Aryans spend a large part of their lives whipping themselves for what they “ought” to be doing. This is not slavery if overcoming lethargy will result in a REWARD or a SERVICE to the group to which one has a loyalty. For example, I know that I would spend a lot less time in depression if I got up and exercised first thing in the morning.
Now that I have lived so long, I know me well enough to understand that often I won’t do that “ought,” so I forgive myself. I force myself into enough exercise for my health.
In my Aryan youth, I could not really forgive myself for not doing all that I “ought” to have done. I had two nervous breakdowns to prove it.
I might have avoided the actual breakdowns if I hadn’t spent the little rest time I had whipping myself over what I “ought” to have done additionally.
I might have avoided the actual breakdowns if I hadn’t spoiled the satisfaction of what I WAS doing by worrying over whether I shouldn’t be doing something else, if my priorities were straight.
Many, many times my priorities hadn’t been straight, and I kicked myself over THAT. As a result, my priorities worries at work were worse. Working while you are saying to yourself, “You remember the last time you got off track? You may be doing that again” is a shortcut to a breakdown.
That is whipping yourself for its own sake. That is not servitude, that is SLAVERY. The fact that you are your own overseer makes it worse, not better.
No matter what the law says, slavery occurs when you do not ask, “What is in this for ME or MINE?” Libertarianism makes the fatal mistake of taking the MINE out of the equation.
As I have pointed out before, if the MINE or natural loyalty were taken out, no one would vote libertarian. No one would vote at all. The potential reward to YOURSELF from your vote, if you are doing a PERSONAL cost-benefit analysis, is zero. You vote because you want your SOCIETY to go a certain way.
If libertarianism and its theoretical expression, Public Choice, can’t even explain why people vote it certainly cannot explain the rest of life.
Under pure Public Choice Theory, as all the experts in that field agree, no votes would occur, no public choices would be made. They admit they can’t doesn’t explain why people vote, but they don’t worry about that.
Then they proceed to explain HOW people vote. You cannot explain HOW people vote if your logic tells you they should not vote at all. People only vote because they care how their SOCIETY goes. Only loyalty explains why people vote at all.
Libertarians make this basic mistake because of their own SLAVISH thinking.
Often the person welding the whip of slavery is not you. It is someone you do not realize is your Master.
Anyone who tells you what you want is a PREJUDICE rather than a PREFERENCE is your Master. All libertarians allow an Ayn Rand or some other overseer to tell them that all loyalty is PREJUDICE because it is not PURE self-interest.
With what we know now about the behavior of every social animal, loyalty is as natural to man as sex, and for the same reason. Libertarians all have overseers. They are all slaves.