Majorityrights Central > Category: History

The YouTube channel N.D.L has put out a new video today, which really captures the sadness of what policing in Sweden must be like now.

Progressive cultural manifestations flourish under the protection of the state, while at the same time the policymakers undermine that same protection by allowing a retrogressive demography to enter and replace the citizens of the country. Additionally, the Anarchist Bloc attacks the police at every turn, exacerbating the instability of the situation.

Sometimes video really does depict it better than text.

The government of Stefan Lofven really has the same kind of haplessness and incompetence that the government of Harold Wilson had. I’m sure that no one truly wishes for this in their heart of hearts—but I think that if the situation should deteriorate to an extent where governance is impossible in Sweden and the electoral system continues to deliver up the wrong result, in such a case I would hope that the Swedish security services have contingency plans on hand to fight the decline in the same way that British services had contingency plans in the 1970s.

Until the last moment.

Before you complain

An American once said to me that whenever they see me post an article about the United States now, they just have to brace for a total assault on their morale, and that “it is almost like seeing something like Tokyo Rose’s work in written form.”

I don’t know whether to take that as a compliment or not, since despite her best propaganda efforts, Iva Toguri D’Aquino was ultimately not able to convince the Americans to stop supporting the United States. Perhaps some of the Americans did have pause though, perhaps they did think occasionally, “You know, those things that Tokyo Rose is saying on the radio, could there be something to all that?”

But really, it’s not like I have to go out of my way to come up with these socio-economic angles against the ‘Make America Great Again’ concept. They present themselves to the world daily in such a high volume that it’s almost like trying to catch a cup of water from a firehose of negative developments. One has to be very selective about which part of the non-stop blast of negative news one is going to select, interpret, and develop a piece on, on any given day.

Today’s selection is going to really induce a feeling like when you’re sparring with someone and they forget to hold back, and next thing you know their foot is trying to tickle your kidneys or something, and it’s just like, “Oh wow, this pain is real.” It’s pretty bad. I apologise for the pain that you’re going to feel in advance.

True to the tradition I’ll get things started by putting the music on.

How things reached this stage

When Donald Trump was inaugurated on an overcast day about two months ago, he stood in front of the lectern and in a stern voice spoke the words that initiated a miserable new trade war:

TIME, ‘Trump Inauguration: Transcript of Donald Trump Speech’, 20 Jan 2017 (emphasis added):

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs.

Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body and I will never ever let you down.

America will start winning again, winning like never before.

We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

It may seem on the face of it that Donald Trump was saying that all the decisions he would make would be based on whether they will benefit American workers and American families. His mouth said that somewhere in there, but is that what protectionism actually does in the longrun?

We know that it does not benefit ‘workers and families’ in the longrun. 

There is widely understood empirical evidence which shows that in the present era, free trade is what benefits the broad mass of the people, not protectionism. Free trade is what enables wider access to products at a cheaper price. Free trade enables this indirectly by facilitating regional division and specialisation of production to enhance productivity on a planetary basis. 

Broadly speaking, tariff and non-barrier barriers are mostly retrogressive, as it is low income consumers who spend a greater percentage of their income on food, clothing, consumer electronics and vehicles, which tend to be most highly protected under the kind of tariff regime proposed by Donald Trump’s White House and supported by his Alt-Lite and Alt-Right supporters.

So if American ‘workers and families’ do not really stand to benefit, does this mean that I am saying that Donald Trump is not putting America ‘first’? By no means. The misunderstanding that many have is that they conflate rhetoric about a country’s interest with the interest of the broad mass of the people. Trump essentially tailored his speech to exploit that misunderstanding.

In fact, America is indeed being ‘put first’ by Trump, but that is not a positive thing. The policies which he is advocating ensure that those who really stand to benefit are primarily the American financiers and the upper-bourgeoisie stratum of big and middle-sized manufacturers, who feel themselves to be under stiff competition from their counterparts in Europe and Asia. This scenario comes at the end of a long cycle of a widening pattern of global investment during and after the Cold War environment, which had led to the repair and economic rehabilitation of that section of the world that America had razed to the ground in the process of destroying Axis. 

The repair and rehabilitation was possible because the leaders of various European and Asian economies opted to play the longest of long games, accommodating the liberal global order that the American victors had maintained for their own diplomatic and geostrategic benefit (to economically contain their next opponent, the Soviet Union), but which were used by the former Axis countries and other Third World countries to build something again from the ashes of the Second World War and to take advantage of the mutual benefits that came from having the economic vitality and thus the military wherewithall to deter the Soviet Union. 

A hegemon’s dilemma

The flourishing of any world order in which a hegemon has to allow power to devolve into the hands of outsiders, is a world order which will eventually unravel itself as the hegemon will come to fear its own deputies. Much as the Greek Empire unravelled itself when each of the governors, tribes, and exarchates which had been permitted to accrue power so as to encircle common enemies, suddenly realised that they had reached a stage where they could bid for global power in their own right, so too the American liberal world order is coming to a close as this cycle of capital accumulation draws to a close.

The productive capacity which had been offshored from the United States and implanted into the European and Asian periphery so as to reinforce economic containment and encirclement against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, now becomes in 2017 the potential weapon which the American high-bourgeoisie fears will be turned against it in a multipolar world, the first chapter of which is now opening. America’s old Cold War gendarmes of capital, are now gendarmes that are increasingly operating autonomously, and the United States is struggling to chart a course to address that new reality.

The American high-bourgeoisie wants what it views as ‘its wealth’ back. But they are not the actual owners of it. The wealth, limited though it is, and not without imperfection in its distribution, which is presently enjoyed by the peoples of Europe and Asia was re-built through hard years of work by the generation of people who survived the Second World War, and who, seeing their ideals crushed by the Americans, resolved to build their countries again during the Cold War.

The American high-bourgeoisie knows that it cannot fight the world alone, since it is only a small class of people, and therefore it must assert leadership and bind the other American classes to itself. They do this by appealing to a form of populism, where people like Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, knowing that they cannot appeal to a class consciousness, instead appeal to a civic nationalist mantra: “Make America Great Again.”

What is America that anyone should want to make it ‘great’ again? That is the most astounding development in this whole sequence, particularly in the context of the Alt-Right and other nationalist opinion-formers such as David Duke, who largely made themselves responsible for having enabled all of this. For example, Hunter Wallace at Altright.com said late last month: 

Hunter Wallace / Altright.com, ‘We Are The Vanguard’, 24 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

[...]

The primary reason the media is so interested in us is because it is our ideas that have entered the political mainstream. For years now, we have been the ones calling for an America First trade policy, an America First foreign policy, an American First immigration policy, rapprochement with Russia, scrapping the refugee resettlement program, stressing our interests as opposed to liberal ideology, strong borders and a crackdown on immigration, assaulting political correctness, making peace with the labor movement, etc., etc. [...] Now, we are living in the digital world of social media and young people are watching us on YouTube and Periscope. They are interacting with us on Twitter. We don’t need the “mainstream” to network or spread our ideas.

[...]

We are the vanguard now. The world has changed, the “mainstream” is dead and the media is trying to catch up with the times. Rich Lowry’s National Review and Bill Kristol’s The Weekly Standard are at the nadir of their influence over the Right. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if flyover country conservatives are familiar with Richard Spencer and the Alt-Right. If our ideas are triumphing over David Frum’s ideas and Bill Kristol’s ideas, it doesn’t matter. If our discourse triumphs over and displaces “mainstream” discourse, then we are having a massive impact whether the “mainstream” cartel acknowledges it or not.

The same kind of people who for years had operated under the suspicion that the United States was possibly falling under a ‘Zionist Occupation Government’, are now the very same kind of people who are actually trying in these days and hours to fight as hard as they can to attempt to defend and perpetuate the global reach of the United States government and its centrality as a manufacturing centre now that it is  transparently going into openly-verifiable overdrive in that regard. Now that the ‘occupation’ is openly parading itself in their faces from the White House in verifiable statements that have been reproduced in mainstream media outlets, they suddenly and magically cannot seem to see it.

Perhaps it may be that it is difficult to understand why that contradiction exists until you look at the socio-economic class dimension. Perhaps they choose not to notice the Zionism issue now, because it’s the case that it is inconvenient for them financially, given that most Trump voters are middle class and may believe that they stand to gain from the Trump administration’s budgetary, financial and economic policy direction. Or perhaps it is the case that they are just really bad at politics and aren’t paying attention to what is happening, and are more interested in identitarian form and signalling, than in actual policy. Or maybe it is the case that there is a kind of ongoing entryism which is usually not visible to the public but which only is revealed in short glimpses, such as, for example, when it emerged that Heritage Foundation analyst Jason Richwine had actually been writing for the old AlternativeRight.com website in 2010. Or it could be some combination of all of these things.

Whatever the case happens to be, for all those who ever believed in anything that those people previously said, these present developments can only be seen as a betrayal. If they are ‘the vanguard’ and this is what they have produced, then they have a considerable amount of explaining to do.

Unfortunately with the situation as it is, I am not expecting that an explanation will be coming from them, but I am expecting that the Alt-Right and Alt-Lite opinion-formers will continue to act as a kind of grassroots support for the Trump administration, one which will have a high resilience and effectiveness because it couples a tacit support with a consistent pseudo-denial of actually being on the same side as the administration. We hear on the one hand the Alt-Right continually saying that they are ‘not Trump’, but then on the other hand they like the specific actions the administration is doing and its overall direction which they see as a ‘stepping stone’ (to where?), they just wish that that those actions would be done with more intensity.

The effective function of the Alt-Right internet presence is basically that they remain engaged on social media as a ‘grassroots’ presence which continually presents narratives and arguments that serve to socially legitimate Trump administration spokespersons, supporters and key cabinet figures and their policy preferences in a way that is completely independent of the state, as it is done at arms length, behind a veil of denial and disavowal by the White House itself. The bonus that the White House receives in all of this is that there is no-one who has to be paid or instructed to do this for them. The Alt-Right doesn’t need to be paid, they do it for free.

Introduction

Getting started: This article is about one facet in the process of the Trump administration making its programme operational. The first operational step that the American high-bourgeoisie are taking is that they are seeking to enhance their structural power, or to turn a phrase, they are seeking to make themselves great again, by weakening the efficacy of checks or dissents against their power domestically. This would place them in the best command position imaginable, which would allow them the ability to then turn their focus to foreign policy and trade policy as their second step, with minimal interference at home. That second step is outside the scope of this article and will be covered at a later date. The first step is what will now be described here today.

Enhanced dictatorship of the high-bourgeoisie

There are four major actions that the Trump administration is carrying out right now which would allow the American high-bourgeoisie to enhance their structural power domestically. These actions are as follows:

1. H.R.985 - Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017.
2. H.R.720 - Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.
3. The appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States.
4. The elimination of all federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation.

Let’s go through them in the order I’ve listed them. And in case you are trying to guess what the four items have in common, yes, what all of these things have in common is that they pertain to the ability to form a class so as to bring a class action lawsuit against companies or government agencies, and to raise funds to carry out that endeavour.

H.R.985

When people are facing systemic abuse from companies or from government agencies, class action lawsuits are a vital tool that is used to bring a halt to their behaviour. By bringing about a class action lawsuit, a few people can stand in for a larger number of people in a lawsuit against a perpetrator and seek either injunctive relief (where the perpetrator must cease a bad practice) or compensation (monetary damages).

The bill, H.R.985 which passed in the US House of Representatives by recorded vote 220 - 201 on Thursday 09 March 2017, and will next be placed before the US Senate, is a bill that makes it more difficult for people to bring class action lawsuits.

Bill H.R.985 makes it harder for people to form a ‘class’ by further restricting and constraining the criteria under which people may come together to bring a case, and placing various hurdles in the way of the collection of lawyers’ fees, thus decreasing the incentive for lawyers to take on class action lawsuits.

The net effect of this is that it will sharply reduce the ability of people to seek injunctive relief or compensation in any scenario where they are being harmed by a company or a government agency.

The architects of the bill and its proponents, such as Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), have tried to mask their intentions by presenting it to the media as a bill that is designed to prevent supposedly-existent ‘lawyer-driven litigation’, by which they mean a kind of ‘trolling’ litigation which is designed to enrich lawyers rather than address any actual grievance of the plaintiffs. By masking their intentions with such a cover story, the lawmakers have sought to conceal the actual reality of the attack which they themselves are conducting against working people and families.

The factor which exposes their cover story as a lie, is the simple fact that if they really thought that they needed to write a bill to prevent ‘lawyer-driven litigation’, then they wouldn’t have written a bill that attacks people’s ability to seek injunctive relief, in which money is not awarded but practices are changed, as well as compensation. However, that is precisely what they have done, and in doing so, their motive was revealed along with the effect.

On the issue of the hurdles placed in the way of the collection of lawyers’ fees, the bill deliberately limits lawyers’ fees in injunctive relief cases to “a reasonable percentage of the value” of the relief. This of course makes no sense, by design, because it is quite impossible for a court to determine what the monetary worth of a non-monetary action is, so as to calculate such a percentage. The effect is that lawyers would be disincentivised from taking the risk of bringing an injunctive class action case.

Furthermore, the bill also places a condition on the timing of the payment of lawyers’ fees to the date of full monetary recovery. This could even sometimes deny lawyers the ability to be paid their fees altogether, since some cases have a term of settlement that is longer than the remaining lifespan of the lawyers who are working on the case. For example, in a case where full settlement is expected to take fifty years, it would mean that the lawyers would not be paid until the end of those fifty years. Even with that potentially disastrous scenario aside, with regards to the duration of the litigation itself, the condition incentivises defendants to drag out and prolong litigation.

The possibility of never receiving lawyers’ fees or having to wait years to receive them, will act as an enormous deterrent for any law firm that absolutely requires those fees to pay their staff and keep their business running.

H.R.720

H.R.720 the so-called ‘Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act’ is a cunningly named bill which will actually require all federal judges to penalise any lawyer who brings what they consider to be a ‘frivolous lawsuit’. Up until now, it has up to the judge’s discretion to decide whether to do this.

The interesting thing about this is that for a lawsuit to actually make it to the point where it has come before a jury, it means that a judge clearly already considers it to be a valid lawsuit. Legislation like H.R.720, simply incentivises the behaviour where a defendant can continually protest that everything that is happening is ‘frivolous’, and it disincentivises lawyers from trying to bring a lawsuit to find out how it will be regarded.

In practice, this means that the legislative and executive branches of US government are seeking to attack lawyers for trying to help people to seek relief or compensation through the court system. After all, a corporate defendant would likely start out from the stance that any lawsuit brought against their esteemed selves is definitely ‘frivolous’.

The appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS

An ‘originalist’ Judge Neil Gorsuch, having previously been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by George W. Bush on 08 August 2006, has been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States by President Donald J. Trump. A decent summary of his background has been written at FiveThirtyEight.

Beltway conservatives immediately feted him as having come out of the mold of another now late ‘originalist’ Judge Antonin Scalia, or at least something close to that. Evangelicals celebrated Gorsuch’s statements about his belief in the ‘pro-life’ stance, as that is a pet issue of maximal all-consuming importance to them. 

The Alt-Lite and Alt-Right’s reaction to the nomination was in a sense no more sophisticated or diligent than that of any of the other groups. Hunter Wallace published a very strange article at Alt-Right.com which referred to Gorsuch as a “real American”, as though this were a reason for why he wanted to see Gorsuch nominated in and of itself. Richard Spencer produced an article which had a similarly strange central thrust, referring to Gorsuch as “America’s wise, WASPy dad—an avatar of the ruling class of days gone by.” Spencer’s view was echoed by James Edwards on the Political Cesspool, which carried Spencer’s article verbatim. 

In my view none of this matters anyway, but while ‘Gorsuch’ may be an old Anglo-Saxon name, the man himself is ancestrally Irish. Additionally, Gorsuch was raised as a Catholic, and then he converted to Episcopalianism later, so he is not a ‘WASP’. He’s also not America’s ‘dad’, he’s a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, for goodness sake.

Unfortunately no real analysis of Gorsuch’s views on class action lawsuits has been done by anyone in the nationalist sphere. If anyone had chosen to do so, then some extremely meaningful patterns, all of which are negative, would have emerged into view immediately.

SCOTUSblog gives us an interesting look in with the summary containing this excerpt:

Amy Howe / SCOTUSblog, ‘A closer look at Judge Neil Gorsuch and class actions’, 08 Mar 2017 (emphasis added):

[...]

Covering the Wal-Mart decision for this blog, Lyle Denniston described Scalia as the court’s “most dedicated skeptic about the class-action approach to litigation.” Whether Gorsuch, if confirmed, would follow in Scalia’s footsteps remains to be seen. During his decade on the bench, Gorsuch has participated in relatively few class action cases. In the cases involving class action issues in which he has participated, he has generally, but not always, ruled for the defense. Notably, both in cases in which he has ruled for the defense and those in which he has ruled for the plaintiffs, Gorsuch has emphasized the need for courts to stay in their lane, so to speak – that is, not to exceed their authority, particularly when it comes to decisions that are in his view best left to Congress.

[...]

The Bazelon Center has a review which also contains some example of cases that were not class action lawsuits, but seem to give some idea of how Gorsuch interprets civil rights law in general:

Bazelon Center, ‘Review of Disability Cases Involving Judge Neil Gorsuch’, 17 Feb 2017:

In Hwang v. Kansas State University, 753 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2014), Judge Gorsuch wrote an opinion ruling against a longtime professor at a state university who had taken a six-month leave of absence to recover from her cancer treatment. At the end of that period, she requested a short period of additional leave at the advice of her doctor in order to avoid a severe flu outbreak on campus that could endanger her already compromised immune system. The university refused to grant additional leave. Judge Gorsuch began his analysis of Professor Hwang’s claim by asking: “Must an employer allow employees more than six months’ sick leave or face liability under the Rehabilitation Act? Unsurprisingly, the answer is almost always no.” Although the ADA and Rehabilitation Act say nothing about the length of leaves granted by employers and specifically require that that such accommodation requests be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, Judge Gorsuch held that a leave of absence as long as six months would “turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work.” He also described Professor Hwang as “a problem other forms of social security aim to address”—even though the professor was willing and able to resume her duties through online classes immediately, or through in-class teaching after the additional short leave. Judge Gorsuch also rejected her argument that the university’s inflexible six-month leave policy was discriminatory, instead reasoning that applying the same leave policies to all employees, without providing reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with a disability, would protect employees with disabilities from being “secretly singled out for discriminatory treatment.” Judge Gorsuch thus concluded that the six-month leave policy was “more than sufficient to comply” with the Rehabilitation Act. [...]

I’m sure everyone can guess where these examples are going. Here’s another:

Bazelon Center, ‘Review of Disability Cases Involving Judge Neil Gorsuch’, 17 Feb 2017:

In Wehrley v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 513 F. App’x 733 (10th Cir. 2013), a panel including Judge Gorsuch found that the plaintiff had not established that he had a disability that entitled him to the ADA’s protections. Wehrley, an insurance field claim adjuster, injured his knee and back in a workplace accident, and his employer fired him because of his inability to work on claims that involved going onto roofs. At trial, Wehrley introduced evidence of significant limitations in major life activities, including a medical report stating that he could not walk or stand for prolonged periods, that his pain disrupted his sleep, and that he had to change positions every 30 minutes while sitting. Judge Gorsuch and the panel concluded, however, that Wehrley had not shown that these impairments were substantial because the report did not say that he was unable to “walk or stand in the ordinary course of a day,” nor did it describe the extent or severity of the disruption to his sleep. Without sufficient evidence of a substantial impairment in a major life activity, the panel found that he did not meet the definition of a person with a disability.

And one more:

Bazelon Center, ‘Review of Disability Cases Involving Judge Neil Gorsuch’, 17 Feb 2017:

In Adair v. City of Muskogee, 823 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2016), Judge Gorsuch joined an opinion affirming summary judgment against the plaintiff after finding that he was unable to perform an essential function of his position. The plaintiff, a firefighter who held the position of HazMat Director, injured his back during a training exercise. The city required that he complete a functional-capacity evaluation, which showed that he had some restrictions on his lifting ability. He sued the city under the ADA for disability discrimination, alleging that he was constructively discharged when the city encouraged him to retire rather than be terminated because it regarded him as disabled. The plaintiff argued that he was capable of performing the essential functions of the HazMat Director position even with the lifting restrictions, testifying that he did not need to lift in his position and had never performed regular firefighter duties during his four years as HazMat Director. However, Judge Gorsuch and the panel discounted the plaintiff’s testimony and instead deferred to a state law listing the ability to lift up to 200 pounds as an essential function for all firefighters, regardless of specialized roles. Since the plaintiff suggested no potential accommodations other than being relieved of the lifting duty, the panel concluded that he was not a qualified individual under the ADA.

Being an ‘originalist’ and a ‘textualist’ seems to involve being deliberately absurd in ways that happen to be generally convenient for the defence. The addition of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States meshes with the thrust of the pieces of legislation, H.R.985 and H.R.720, which were described earlier and which are presently making their way though the US Congress, in a way that enhances their effect.

The addition of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court returns it to the balance that existed when Judge Antonin Scalia was still alive. It is not beyond possibility that sometime in the next four years another judge will be replaced, and at that point Donald Trump may even be able to appoint an additional ‘originalist’ and ‘textualist’ to the court, such as for example Judge William Pryor.

But it is sad that no one is paying any attention to these developments. Choices made during the Trump administration will shape the character of the American system for a generation or longer.

The elimination of all federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation

They suggested that it was going to happen, and now they are moving toward doing it. See here:

New York Times, ‘Popular Domestic Programs Face Ax Under First Trump Budget’, 17 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

WASHINGTON — The White House budget office has drafted a hit list of programs that President Trump could eliminate to trim domestic spending, including longstanding conservative targets like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, AmeriCorps and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.

Work on the first Trump administration budget has been delayed as the budget office awaited Senate confirmation of former Representative Mick Mulvaney, a spending hard-liner, as budget director. Now that he is in place, his office is ready to move ahead with a list of nine programs to eliminate, an opening salvo in the Trump administration’s effort to reorder the government and increase spending on defense and infrastructure.

[...]

Eliminating all funding for the Legal Services Corporation is the same thing as abolishing it. Some people may be wondering what it does, and such people would now be wondering about that at a time when it is too late to make a difference. Although the United States Constitution contains language that promises equality in the provision of justice, the language is operationally meaningless unless it can also be said that all people have the ability to access legal services and legal remedies.

Defendants in criminal cases are guaranteed the right to have a lawyer because of the outcome of the United States Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), but the same right to a lawyer does not actually exist for civil cases.

The beginning of the United States government’s effort to provide legal assistance Americans with low-income for civil cases, emerged during Lyndon B. Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty’, which gave rise to the creation of the Office of Economic Opportunity in 1964. In 1965, the office created the Legal Services Program, which provided assistance all over the United States.

However, the Legal Services Program was up for White House review in 1969, and the Office of Economic Opportunity itself was in existence because of the Economic Opportunity Act which was scheduled to expire in 1970.

President Richard M. Nixon, who took office in January 1969, asked the US Congress in February 1969 to extend appropriations for the Office of Economic Opportunity. The Ash Commission, headed by former United States Army Air Corps Captain Roy Ash, found “virtual unanimity that organizational improvement of the Executive Office of the President is needed.” Among the recommendations made on this issue, the Ash Commission advocated that Nixon ought to create an independent corporation which would receive funds from the US Congress to disburse to local legal aid organisations.

Nixon made the memo public in February 1971 and in May 1971 he sent a special message to the US Congress proposing the establishment of the Legal Services Corporation.

On 25 July 1974, Richard M. Nixon signed the Legal Services Corporation Act.

The Legal Services Corporation has not been without controversy during its existence, and several unsuccessful attempts to abolish it have been attempted over the years. The most recent unsuccessful attempt to abolish it was in 2005:

TexasLawyersHelp.org, ‘Eliminate LSC and Other Programs, Says Republican Study Committee in “Operation Offset” Budget Report’, 30 Sep 2005 (emphasis added):

A recent report issued by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of nearly 100 conservative House members, calls for the elimination of all federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation. U.S. Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN), RSC’s chairman, and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), RSC’s budget and spending task force chairman, issued the 23-page report on September 21, 2005. The report—called “Operation Offset: RSC Budget Options 2005”—urges Congress and the President to eliminate federal expenditures as far-ranging as Medicaid and Medicare, graduate school student loan subsidies, foreign aid, the National Endowment for the Arts, matching grants for presidential candidates, and LSC. [...]

Yes, that is the same Mike Pence who is presently the Vice-President of the United States. It’s interesting how that has happened to work out.

Another interesting fact is that the Heritage Foundation which submitted the list from which Donald Trump selected Judge Neil Gorsuch’s name to nominate him to the United States Supreme Court, is also visibly active in crafting and giving legitimation to the budget which will abolish the Legal Services Corporation:

New York Times, ‘Popular Domestic Programs Face Ax Under First Trump Budget’, 17 Feb 2017:

[...]

Stephen Moore, another Heritage Foundation economist who advised Mr. Trump during his campaign, acknowledged that powerful constituencies were behind many of the programs that are on the chopping block. But he said now that Republicans are finally in control of the government, they must make a valiant effort to fulfill the promises they have been making to voters for years.

“I think it’s an important endeavor to try to get rid of things that are unnecessary,” Mr. Moore said. “The American public has a lot of contempt for how government is run in Washington, in no small part because there is so much waste.”

If you know anyone who seriously believes that the Heritage Foundation along with all the other personalities I’ve mentioned here are just innocently trying to ‘get rid of things that are unnecessary’, send that person to me, because I have a bridge to sell them — and it’s on the moon.

Conclusion

Particular factions among the American ruling class are seeking to enhance their structural power, or to turn a phrase, they are seeking to make themselves great again, by weakening the efficacy of checks or dissents against their power domestically in an environment in which they have total power over all branches of the government and are receiving virtually no criticism from their own constituency on any economic issues. This would place them in the best command position imaginable, which would allow them the ability to then turn their focus to foreign policy and trade policy.

Everything that the American ruling class is doing to pacify and constrict the power of their own constituents at home, is a preparation and a prerequisite for them being able to efficiently conduct a trade war against European, Asian, and Latin American states.

Enacting a tariff regime as a necessary centre-piece of the trade war is an action which will raise the cost of inputs for all American manufacturers. One of the ways that they will offset that cost will be to enable American companies to act in cost-cutting ways that disregard the interests of American workers and families without having to worry about being subjected to lawsuits brought by those workers and families.

Passing H.R.985 and H.R.720, as well as appointing Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court and abolishing the Legal Services Corporation, are four key actions that are part of the process of them ‘moving the ball down the playing field’ in that regard.

Evidence has been presented here which illustrates that the entire edifice of ‘Make America Great Again’ is going to be constructed atop a foundation of socio-economic retrogression and misery.

It’s really great

Question. What’s the difference between:

• being a pirate running a multi-ethnic drug-ferrying operation to generate money which is kept off-the-books for the financing of covert operations,
• being a mercenary who is paid to attack slave-ships and liberate slaves,
• being a radically forward-deployed coastguard which defends the borders of Britain at the edge of someone else’s shores on extended lines of supply, and
• being a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire?

Trick question. They are all potentially the same thing, and that’s what makes Britain great.

The only people in parliament who seem to have any understanding of this history however, are the people in Theresa May’s wonderful cabinet.

Weaponised history

The difference in opinion between Amber Rudd and Justin Welby is very instructive:

ITV News, ‘Home Secretary faces backlash in parliament for capping lone child refugees’, 09 Feb 2017:

The Home Secretary faced a backlash in parliament after it was announced that the number of lone child refugees coming to the UK will be capped.

Amber Rudd insisted that the move to cap the scheme to just 350 children, far fewer than the 3,000 originally expected, closed to avoid encouraging people-traffickers.

Ministers quietly announced on Wednesday that 200 children had been brought in under the so-called Dubs Amendment and it will close after another 150 are settled in Britain.

[...]

Responding to the Commons, Rudd said: “I am clear that when working with my French counterparts, they do not want us to indefinitely continue to accept children under the Dubs Amendment because they specify, and I agree with them, that it acts as a draw. It acts as a pull.

“It encourages the people-traffickers.”

She also suggested that local authority funding had come into the equation when deciding how many child refugees would be settled under the programme.

[...]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby said he was “saddened and shocked” to learn of the Government’s decision to stop the scheme.

“Our country has a great history of welcoming those in need, particularly the most vulnerable, such as unaccompanied children,” he said.

“Refugees, like all people, are treasured human beings made in the image of God who deserve safety, freedom and the opportunity to flourish.”

He added: “We must resist and turn back the worrying trends we are seeing around the world, towards seeing the movement of desperate people as more of a threat to identity and security than an opportunity to do our duty.

“We cannot withdraw from our long and proud history of helping the most vulnerable.”

The Home Secretary is correct, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is incorrect, as per usual, because Christianity is stupid and will make you become stupid.

The apparently long, proud history of British people ‘helping the most vulnerable’ in a scenario like the one that is presently unfolding in Syria, has only one historical precedent actually, and it is the historical precedent of the West Africa Squadron.

Philanthropic activities

The West Africa Squadron sprung out of the changing economic structural necessities in 1808 after Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807. The Squadron’s mission was to suppress the Atlantic Slave Trade by attacking slave ships off the coast of West Africa.

Letters of Marque were also issued to allow private security contractors, also known as ‘pirates’, to act on behalf of the British government under ‘false flags’ to attack Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arab, and American slave ships within the same mission scope. A particularly iconic practice was to approach a contact while flying the British red ensign, and then run it down the flagpole at the last minute and elevate the black Skull and Bones flag in its place before attacking the contact. Under the Skull and Bones, it was possible to exist in a parallel legal reality where you could do anything to anyone without a care in the world. This also happens to be the essence of what Ernst Junger would later refer to as the ‘dual state’.

The programme was later expanded by the 1840s to encompass North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Ocean, as Pax Britannica began to become entrenched across the major sea-lanes into the western hemisphere.

Notice how none of that involved inviting every single African into Britain. On the contrary, by taking the fight to the slave traders – both legally and extra-legally – it enabled the British to accomplish:

• a great work of humanitarianism,
• the pursuit of various geostrategic and geoeconomic objectives against Britain’s rivals,
• disincentivising the activities of the slave traders, and
• the ability to simply hijack virtually any ship and steal it, with popular support.

As Cecil John Rhodes once said, “Pure philanthropy is very well in its way, but philanthropy plus five percent is a good deal better.”

And really, it is, isn’t it?

Anyone who doubts can simply contrast the premiership of Theresa May against the premiership of Angela Merkel. Which is faring better? Exactly. I rest my case.

Related Articles:

• Dear monotheists: We will attack your semitic god. By what method? By all methods.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 10 September 2015.


• The Satanic Alliance: You really are ‘either with us or against us’.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 04 December 2015.


• Herding people into the institutions of the enemy is always a bad idea.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 10 March 2016.

Regarding your people’s history and future, the (((choice))) you get with U.S. politics is no choice.

The application of what are called human rights by what, these days, is adjudged to be the human rights industry is roundly and rightly deprecated by nationalists.  This isn’t news.  But it is not only us.  It’s fair to say that the white man in the street tends to much the same view.  By natural instinct alone he understands that none of the silvered words of the great panjandrums, those politico-corporate whores and criminals who wallow in their own faux-virtue at the UN and all the international conferences, and in the TV studios … none of their gracious, corrupt schtick is meant to benefit him.  He is not one of their designated victims.  He knows elitism when he sees it, and it isn’t deference he feels toward it.  Ask him about the Human Rights Act (or, if you like, dress it up as the European Convention on Human Rights) and he will tell you about some Pakistani hate preacher or African multiple rapist who says and does what he wants but, somehow, never gets deported.  Ask him about the human rights lawyers who work the courts and win these verdicts, and he’ll narrow his eyes and tell you he’d like to ship the lot of them off to Somalia for a little life-education.  It is the stubborn, abiding dissent of the sturdy yeoman, and it comes straight out of who he is, defiant and unabashed.

He’s probably far from alone, too.  I imagine that even in these neo-Marxised times there are plenty of perfectly liberal-minded lawyers operating in other, less rarified areas of the legal system who also have some mixed feelings on the subject.  They might say of their HR colleagues, “Good luck to them if there’s money in it”.  But classically liberal-minded lawyers and judges will care about the integrity and political neutrality of the law.  The judiciary, after all, is its custodian and interpreter.  Judges, if they have not grown political themselves, should tend to discomfort with any politicisation of the justice system.  The overt campaigning fervour for social justice which typifies HR progressives ... indeed, the whole idea of an intrusive hyper-egalitarian, internationalist political bandwagon really ought to offend against their professional principles.

That said, this essay is not one about signs of light in the darkness.  This essay is about the fundamentals of the life which our history has vouchsafed us, and which has brought us to the pass in which we now labour.  It is about a history of serial anti-identitarian developments, of which human rights and the universalism which underpins them are but a sign and a sadness.  My apologies for the length.  I hope it will prove interesting and informative.

Rights, but how human?

For our part, we nationalists are bound to ask how, in practise, that seminally Christian ideal of an overriding and overarching love of one’s fellow man, and compassion for his suffering, degenerated into an instrument of global political activism undertaken for the purpose of solidising and advancing a new technocratic elite whose priestly function is to stand over the world and make moral distinctions between “the rich north” and “the poor south”, or “privileged whites” and “oppressed non-whites”, or “narrow-minded, xenophobic racists” and “suffering refugees”, etcetera.  The answer, of course, is that love has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Indeed, these men and women who affect to love everyone love no one but themselves.  Their self-interested political activism is the inevitable precondition for regulating and maintaining a panoply of positive rights which are, without exception, contingent upon other values and sensibilities about what is just and fair.  Even the perfectly understandable claim in Article 3 of the 1948 UN Declaration, that “everyone has the right to life”, is not actually natural in kind (something I will come to later).  It, like the other twenty-eight articles, is grounded in Western presumptions and preoccupations, and interpretations which are quotidian, fluid and highly susceptible to political fashion.  Consider Article 22, which states:

READ MORE...

Part two of Kumiko Oumae’s critical examination of Matt Parrott’s Christian traditionalism.

Subjects covered included: Global baptism, Christian universalism, homosexuality, Africa and the population question, Syria.

58 mins, 52.6 MB

Matt Parrott at NPI.

Summary: A two-part critical examination, conducted by Kumiko Oumae, of many areas of Matt Parrott’s Christian traditionalism, from Matt’s faith fundamentals as an Orthodox Christian traditionalist and nationalist - in that order - to Matt’s views on freemasonry, the relationship of Judaism to Christianity, the pagan past, how religion renews, global baptism, Christian universalism, homosexuality, Africa and the population question, and Syria.

Can I just say, from a personal perspective, that I thought the interview was a success, notwithstanding any hostilities which may have existed prior to it (and since). Kumiko was very well prepped and she did a great job of maintaining a high tempo of relevant and close questioning, to which Matt responded generously.

My thanks to you both.

This is part one: The fundamentals of Matt’s Orthodox Christian traditionalism examined, Freemasonry, Judaism and Christianity, the making of religions.

1 hr 22 mins, 75 MB.

  “There is no such thing as society”

In that act of being mistaken, anyway - let’s leave a way out for people understandably reacting to the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms, “left” and “post modernity”.

Internal Relation and Emergence

You don’t have to take a position which places your people (praxis) as the central gauge. You can go on like a right wing fool for Jews and place a “quest for truth, facts and universal foundations” (and “inequality” even?) above all - even wreck your own people in that “noble quest;” but you’d be an unnecessary fool, a dupe for Jews and Jewish thinking in so doing. You don’t have to put our people at the center - but you can, as factual verification and reality checking are available in an instant if you are not dealing with reality; whereas the principles upholding our people took many centuries to create and are much more precious and difficult to reconstruct, if ever they can be. It isn’t necessary to place facts at the center - people are born of facts and if afforded correct principles, proper agency and accountability, our people will come to continually adjust their interests with the facts. Hence, the right’s whole arbitrary-making quest for facts and episodic verification at the expense of principled interest in our people is the height of folly.

Chasing mere facts and perfect verification away from “faith” in our people will tend to take them into runaway, beyond our people’s systemic interests - as opposed to taking the White post modern turn into its facilitation of the preservation and reconstruction of our people - where the facts are ensconced in the sufficiently deep emergent reality of our people’s systemic history to afford re-framing at their authentic place in relation to our human ecological system.

Right and Altright reactionary fan club - scavenging the wreckage of continued reaction.

The right, “alternative right”, those in their orbit, lay in wait as vultures for things like GW’s latest surprise: as I stepped aside from a discussion of British politics, he applied the theoretical wrecking ball again to “THE left” and “post modernity” at their behest (he isn’t so lame as to have to do it for himself); ill-prepared for the surprise in that context, I put up a threadbare defense against what I’ve come to see as a part of GW’s autobiography - “champion of the right, universal foundational unifier against the left’s class divisiveness.”

GW - working class hero who sees their classification as a critical problem of imposed nationalist division.

If you are coming here, like myself, chances are that you appreciate GW’s ability - you delight as he wields a scalpel on behalf of White/ethno-national sovereignty, more often a wrecking ball to the pretenses of academia and scholarship that are working against it.

We value this, want him to continue, want him to be satisfied with his part and his contributions. 

What follows here is going to show little appreciation for that, which is abundant and shows forth in spontaneity for the surfeit of his intelligence - often yielding indispensable flourishes and insights that I myself cherish. This piece is rather an ungrateful piece in that regard, given that he has stood by me as I set about chartering a new platform for Majorityrights; and I sent scurrying many who had deep appreciation and respect for him as well; but it is neither for myself nor “his own good” that I proceed not feeling particularly guilty about that - nor is the matter of face saving a pressing matter for either of us - the sake is proper theoretical grounds, which is always my central motivation. Still this will appear rather like a hit piece - as it takes aim, focuses on the clumsier props of GW’s worldview, philosophical underpinnings and aspirations - not on better sides and ideas, which will emerge cybernetically in balance of fact.

If you are coming here, you probably appreciate and identify with GW’s rogue path: as a completely disaffected outsider to the academic fray, he early on rejected the nonsense coming out of there, particularly from fields dealing with social issues. And you delight along with him as he continues to apply the wrecking ball to their cherished liberal ruses under cover of “The left”, their wish to open important borders and boundaries, to bring down individual merit, to drag others down into primitive individual and group failure - instinctively, you sense him taking down liberal bullies who are smug enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of the unsupportable concepts of social “justice” that they wield against those native White populations least responsible for others problems, most likely to suffer from liberalism and least likely to gain from the applications known as “The Left” - applications which can recognize just about any collective unionization of interests except one kind - White. Certainly a (((coincidence))).

Most people who’ve come here, myself included, have also experienced mystification over GW’s not being satisfied with that. You have been at least temporarily mystified as he evades into the arbitrary recesses ever available by the empirical philosophy that underpins modernity; and as he continually applies its wrecking ball, secure in the faith that it will leave in its wake only that which is fine and good; a wrecking ball summarily dismissing scholarship, conceptual tools and principles that others set forth to guide social action.

I have been stunned as he sends the wrecking ball my way as well, summarily dismissing even carefully culled and profoundly warranted philosophical ideas, eminently useful conceptual tools and important rhetorical positions that I have geared to his same White ethno-nationalist interests; while his modernist philosophy willy-nilly casts me into the role of the “lefty academic” foil in key moments.

I am no longer mystified by this.

A reactionary position is mostly retreating (evading) and attacking - whatever looks like an enemy or Trojan horse - but for its instability, it is susceptible to chase after the red cape.

An early contentious streak in the autobiography over-reinforced by circumstance, ability and admirers.

GW is wonderful, we love GW, but like the rest of us, he is not perfect. There is a residual strain of contentiousness in his autobiography that stems from his early disaffection and precocious disregard of liberal prescriptions coming from academia. It’s a part of his autobiography that he takes a great deal of pride-in. It is also socially confirmed enough so that he continues to chase its red cape known as “THE left;” and keeps applying the modernist wrecking ball to any concepts the tiniest bit speculative in circumscribing social interests; or adopting any terms also used by liberal “left” academics - even if used in different ways, he will understand it in THE left way that he is familiar with - and summarily dismiss it as such or apply the wrecking ball.

Unlike most people disaffected of liberal academia, he is not of the working class sort content to shake his fist at academic pomposity, to find solace in a beer and the pragmatism of his working class buddies, allowing the union misrepresentatives to negotiate his interest with their fellow liberals of academic background; nor is he content to join in with the White collar and middle class who typically denounce the worst of academic socialists as unrealistic, while they go along with the liberal anti racism of the academe, signaling their one-upness to the lower classes by denouncing as backward superstition whatever defensively racist discrimination they might even require.

He does share a few things in common with the typical middle class perspective however. Naturally, he has a bias toward viewing his success in positivist terms, as having come about from his gray matter and personal initiative, not because he derived any benefit from artificially imposed social bounds against competition and to circumscribe cooperation. 

Though he can relate to the working class “xenophobia”, he maintains that their maintenance of who they are among a collective “we” (i.e., particular native European nationals) and their choice of whom to intermarry with (same particular native European national) is something that should and can emerge naturally from their genetics - an identity that will emerge naturally, provided they do not have liberal, Fabian and Marxist ideas imposed upon them; the last thing GW wants is to impose another artifice upon them, one which he believes could divide them against their upwardly mobile English brethren, and in turn, divide the middle class even more against them. I.e., the “left” and “right” is normally taken as an economic divider and unifier of class, not a racial nationalist one as I am proposing. The middle class, as much as any, might be reluctant to ‘get it’ and not identify with a “White left,” in which case we would be back to the divisive issue, not the uniting issue that both GW and I seek - we may not agree on terminology but we do agree on native nationalism.

Thatcherite obectivism a means for personal advancement and foundational unification of nationalism.

In fact, GW is a native nationalist, deeply offended by the class system which has long hampered English unity. Thus, he is not content to disavow the worst of liberal and Marxist academics, writing-them-off as the idiots that they are, while leaving the working class to the fate that liberalism will bring to them, and, if left unabated, to all of us eventually. Like a few, more ambitious among us, he set about to get things right, to open a platform for White nationalists, even before it was quite the immanent practical necessity that it is now.

He aspires to identify the ontological connection between all English classes which, if unfettered by artificial constructs, would have them acting as native nationalists in loyal unanimity to their interests.

In that regard, Margaret Thatcher represented to him a liberating moment from the incredibly burdensome artifices of liberal, Fabian and Marxist Left union delimitations and by contrast an opportunity to unite as nationalists on natural positivist grounds.

Normal first reaction that doesn’t take Post Modern turn as it fails to see liberalism flying under left colors.

Indeed, most anybody of this ambition, myself included, who cares about our race and its ethnonational species, starts out in reaction to the absurd, contradictory and destructive liberal rhetoric coming out of academia and reaches to grab hold white knuckle to foundational truths, particularly scientific fact, which cannot be bamboozled by the rhetoric of liberal sophistry (which we later come to recognize as more often than not, Jewish in original motive). And we do grab hold white knuckle - that is to say, scientistically, in rigid over and misapplication of hardish science to the social realm, as we cannot trust the social realm, its rhetorical caprice if not deception - its ongoing disordering effects that apparently threaten to rupture social order anew with every agentive individual. Coming from a non-Jewish, Christian cultural perspective, where our bias starts, if not Jesus, we first liken ourselves to Plato and then modern scientists seeking to gird and found our place and our people’s place, whereas “they” are Pharisees and sophists, wielding the sheer rhetoric that we are going to debunk with our pure, native ability and motives. In a word, we are going to do science against their dishonest bias against us - they are indeed being deceptive and biased on behalf of unfair people; we see it as our objective to establish universal foundational truth that will be unassailable to this sophistry.

That is the normal first reaction of a White person who cares about themself and our people - it was mine and it was GW’s - a nascent White nationalist in response not only to the anti-White discourse coming out of the university, but in response to the very frame of the discourse - that is to say, taking on the frame [Jewish and liberal social stuff and lies versus White science and truth] - against accusations of privilege, racism and exploitation, we sought pure innocence in truth beyond social tumult and disingenuous rhetorical re framing. We (understandably) acted with absolute revulsion to anything like social concern and accountability - why should we be accountable to ever more alien imposition? - itself neither offering nor asking for an account sufficient to maintain our EGI - and where our people are eerily unconcerned or antagonistic to our people as well, we are only more compelled to take on the task ourselves - to pursue pure warrant. Our first reaction to the liberal chimera called “THE left” is: “I” noble servant of postulates - theorems - axioms - upon universal foundational truth.”

Beyond our people’s relative social interests even, we must save ourselves from the lies of “The left” (never minding that their first lie is that they represent our left) and found our moral/ontological basis where Jews, other tribalists and our selfish liberals, who only care about themselves, can never again manipulate it. We hold white knuckle, rigidly, in reaction to Jewish sophistry.

History will show that our people who pursued and secured sovereignty, health and well being found a philosophy advanced of that - competent and able to secure their social interests. They’d taken the White Post Modern turn from this reactionary position.

For reasons unfolding here, including reasons of his personal autobiography, GW has yet to appreciate and take the post modern turn.

Personal ability and interpersonal circumstances have facilitated his carrying-on in a typical first philosophical position of an amateur outsider in regard to academia - the epistemological blunder of “they are just sophists who provide nothing but nonsense while ‘I’ and my pure thoughts in relation to ‘theory’ am going to set the world aright” - an epistemological error in the relation of knower to known that is born in reaction and puerile hubris, carried on by being strong, smart enough to persist long after most people would shrink back from the signs of its limitations; going further uncorrected as it has been endorsed by “no enemies to the right” (a dubious principle, if there ever was one); it has grown into a surprisingly big and audacious ego wielded as a wrecking ball against “post modern philosophy.” We are supposed to rest assured on his faith that in the aftermath of wreckage, that the emergent qualities of his mind are all that is required besides the occasional foil to play off of in order to clarify and carry the modernist program forward to unshakeable, universal, foundational truth - unassailable to any social reconstruction. Never mind that we are already willing to agree upon most of the fundamental rules that he would seek - our agency is not necessary if it is going to suggest anything like planned social construction of systemic defense. No, that’s all impure stuff to be cast aside; and by contrast of true Platonic form, if you are freed from that ignorance and come to know the good he will secure, you will do that good.

He is not satisfied to simply negotiate, reason-things-out and reach an understanding among his people, he is not even particularly concerned that it won’t be a damn bit of good if people can’t understand his philosophical yield - he wants to secure that good on ontological foundations beyond praxis - beyond the capacity for manipulation. Most sophomores abandon this, their freshmen objective, as not only obsolete philosophy, but in fact, come to recognize it as destructive philosophy - a destruction which GW continues, with tremendous faith, without need of Aristotelian compass, that tremendous confidence to persevere where Wittgenstein failed.

The boomer generation - libertarianism and egocentrism.

The likes of Bowery and GW will be slower, if ever, to make the turn in direction, not because they are stupid, of course, quite to the contrary, but because they have the mental horsepower necessary to keep patching and operating the antiquated and obsolete technology that is modernity; and stem predilection both motivates them and enables them to do that; they are more self sufficient, less immediately reliant on the social (why carry others weight?); more confirmed by females by being reliable as such (concentrating on how to do things, not stepping on the toes of females by asking questions of social control - as long as you are at one end of the competition you are OK - liberal or the right wing end); confirmed by non academic workers in their more pragmatic concerns; and confirmed by right wingers in their penchant for anti-social theory beyond social manipulation - exactly, they are also slow to take the turn, of course, because they have an understandable lack of trust in liberal-social narratives; this unwillingness to suspend disbelief may be increased inasmuch as they have benefited as baby boomers, less harried for their identity in the parts of their life-span experienced prior to the culture of critique and in their personal initiatives after its reprieve - in Bowery’s case, with aspects of the objectivism behind Ron Paul’s libertarian “revolution”; and in GW’s case, during the Thatcher years (Thatcher’s initial backers having discovered her reading Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, who obliviously carried forward upon the Tractatus) - years of brief, partial liberation from liberal-left union fetters - “there is no such thing as society” - in either case, a false friend facilitated as false opposition - viz., an expression of steered objectivism derived of Austrian schools beginning with Wittgenstein.

The title is a projection of objectivism. Subtitle: look who else is reading it.

What is confirmed to me - in a roundabout way, when GW dons his powdered wig, grabs a quill pen, does his best John Locke or whatever voice serves, and says oh, “that’s just Aristotle and his rhetoric,” “all of the good ideas are coming from the right”, “based in nature, none of this praxis stuff”, says that he “never loses an argument against academics”, etc., then continually re-applies radical skepticism of the empiricists and their forerunners - is that he is showing an ego driven and confirmed desire to carry-on the “pure” modernist project; viz., in his ontology project and his destruction of everything in its path, even treating Aristotle and William James as utter morons, GW is revealing a vain desire to do something all alone, like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosphicus and Heidegger’s Being & Time: “The world is everything that is the case” meets “the worldhood of the world” - without the post modern implications of the latter. All that is required is the emergent qualities of his mind to set the world’s ontology aright - it will be “unassailable” by liberal, social, “left” rhetoric.

His reaction, confirmation and penchant for empirical verification against Jewish rhetoric has apparently caused him to disregard the post modern turn that was occuring also in Heidegger’s philosphy, albeit in Heidegger’s case, in that somewhat rigid, German way (which I find endearing).

GW appreciates Heidegger, so why does he not move forward from 1927 and why does he retreat to 1921 and the Tractatus? That he consders “OF being” the better starting point than Heidegger’s “There Being” provides a clue to ego centrism and Cartesian anxiiety - he not only proposes the reconstruction of the Cartesian starting point, “Of being”, but proposes it as an exclusive position, not even taking hermeneutc turns with Heidegger’s non-Cartesan starting point, “There being.”

“Unassailably” proclaiming that “The world is everything that is the case”

Whereas Wittgenstein himself was forced to yield-to, if not recognize the necessity of, the post modern turn - so much so that he was embarrassed by his effort at a complete ontology in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - having proclaimed its logic “unassailable” at once upon completion, he later repudiated it, even took to referring to its author as if a different person.

The Motivation for Post Modernity

Part of the craze for “post modernity” is that people (correctly) sense that modernity is destroying their differences, their traditions, their ways of life, their people and their very lives. And yet they frequently found traditional societies destructive as well. Therefore they were happy to have not only backing of cross cultural studies, vouching that different ways of life are valid, but also some confirmation from the very foundational math and science which modernity pursued to an apex that finally turned back on itself.

Kurt Gödel had demonstrated that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous.

Neils Bohr had priorly announced that there is no instrument fine enough to resolve the wave/particle distinction.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle elaborating from that was subtler still - that the observer is engaged in interaction and has reflexive effects upon that which he observes.

Confirmation of Aritstotle’s Praxis and suggestion that it should be the radical basis of assessment, not pure objective facts.

These findings confirmed Aristotle’s premises as set forth in Nichomachean Ethics - on the nature of Praxis - people are in reflexive relation, mostly requiring a degree of practical judgement as they are less predictable than the theoretical causality which the hard sciences pursue. It also would suggest placing praxis more in the center than theory - i.e., a socially based perspective where people are the arbiter, as opposed to “I think therefore I am” in relation to mere, indisputable facts and non-interactive third person behavioral units; a pursuit even outstripping the subject ultimately in favor of fixed theoretical facts - the Cartesian relation (pursued non-relation, as it were) of knower to known.

Vico was first to take the hermeneutic turn against Descartes, to bring ideas into historical context, the relation of knower to known into the social world of praxis

A relation knower to known other than the Cartesian model is required by modernity’s recognized failures and impervious destruction.

Those who care about people, who see the destruction of Descarte’s “relation” of knower to known, understand the wisdom of Aristotle, and realize that Vico -  Descartes’ first major critic - was in fact, proposing the taking of theoria into praxis: i.e., correctly placing people and praxis at the center of his world view. He was setting forth the historical, hermeneutic world view, the post modern world view. And, in turn, those who understand Heidegger will see that he was following in that same direction, which may be called “existential” and which is centered in praxis - the social world.

The White Post Modern turn is, of course, the best and most moral perspective for advocating people - Whites especially - Jews don’t want that and so they fool the uneducated masses and most of the educated masses as well by reinterpreting the terms by which people - viz., White people, might understand this - and they get them to react against didactic misrepresentation. That is, they are getting them to react in aversion to what is good and healthy in racial advocacy by having made it didactic in misrepresentation - e.g., the highly sensible Post Modern is presented as “dada” (whereas I have secured its sensible form in White Post Modernity).

Bowery and GW were impelled on, for the didacticism of the (((liberal-left - contradiction of terms))) and for the (((misrepresentation))) that was this false opposition and its false promise to liberate us from The left, among other reasons. Objectivism, the neoliberalism and libertarianism of the Austrian school of economics, Thatcherism, is merely a false opposition that (((they))) set up against “(((The Left))).” It is a product of late modernity, derived of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which in turn was derived of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Again, that was Wittgenstein’s attempt to set-out a comprehensive and “unassailable” ontology - “The world is everything that is the case.” He would later say that the Tractatus was “not a very good book”, lest he be mistaken for one not recognizing that those who had taken the post modern turn had left this philosophical quest behind. Nevertheless, the Austrian school of logical positivism founded upon the Tractatus lived on through his cousin Hayek (who Thatcher was discovered dutifully reading); it was then taken up by von Mises et. al, who would conveniently and explicitly adopt this no-account modernist program against any one of subsequent generations who was the least bit reflective, who had any social complaints about how they and their people had been left without social capital after this generation of egocentric locusts devoured all social capital in their path. Waiting generations of right wing reactionaries, ensconced in their well protected Internet bubbles, were ready to look up to these libertarians for their lack of social concern, conveniently blaming the socially conscientious of prior generations for the problems - “The Left”, where not “hippies”, were the ones asleep at the wheel and leading us over a cliff, “but not the objectivists” and not (((The YKW))).

One-up intransigence of boomers meets generation Internet bubble for a right-wing cocktail, silencing socially conscientious voices between.

Because of GW’s unwillingness to trust anybody but himself, he takes recourse in the one aspect of the post modern turn where his first person account of all the world’s foundations might be claimed - emergentism. He has a problem, however, when I say that the world still interacts.  He has to take recourse to the absurdly arbitrary claim that “life doesn’t interact.”

Emergentism, in fact, is one of the key contributing factors to the post modern turn - it challenges the reductionism and fixedness of the modernist ontology project in an important sense - the emergent whole being greater than the sum of its parts means that significant referents are changeable in complex systems, thus qualifying Bowery’s criticism - “there is either a referent or there is not” - as this charge must yield to the fact that facts can be re-framed as they emerge physically, as they are designated by individuals and as they emerge in social consensus. And yes, what emerges still interacts in a myriad of ways.

Gen Xer’s were a bit late for the ride

“There is no such thing as society”

Their lack of faith in the social narratives as they are applied by YKW is understandable, the faith they show in the guiding principle of modernity to leave only what is fine and true in the wake of their wrecking ball is not. There comes a time to suspend disbelief. To draw a hypothetical boundary around our people is as good a time and place as any. “Wise men see lines and they draw them” - William Blake. And its not so hypothetical.

Perhaps because their boomer generation was early in line and they were intelligent enough to position themselves by means of objectivism for a deck chair on the higher end of a sinking Titanic, they can take some solace in writing-off those who might be going under first, if it does go down, as hazards of nature, having not acted “naturally” in EGI - Bowery in particular, being motivated by an affinity for the individuality of northern Europeans, abandoned ship (MR, anyway) when Dr. Lister and I began raising criticisms of “individualism über alles” and raising social concerns against that.

In fact, for this reason, Bowery issued an ultimatum (“either him or Lister”) which defaulted to Graham’s more social side, upon which Bowery expressed his “revulsion” for Majorityrights.

READ MORE...