A reactionary analysis of the war on drugs.

This post is apparently serious.

How to view the past.

Vox: "If Barack Obama were to come out of the closet and marry Reggie Love tomorrow, this would permit the United States to finally catch up with that epitome of modern social progress, the Roman Empire of Nero and Elagabalus." That’s funny, but frankly, I’m fine with gay people getting married. Gay people have done more to re-civilize DC than any other group.

Dalrock: "The irony here is that the safety valve which feminists and others fought so hard for to avoid women being trapped in unhappy marriages has made women both less happily married and more likely to be unhappily divorced." This goes nicely with the essays that Mangan recommends here, which are worth the time.

Yglesias chides Herman Cain for wanting to turn regulatory over to the regulated. I work with one or two federal agencies that are more lenient with industry than industry would be with itself.

Sailer: "Jose Antonio Vargas, the self-proclaimed poster boy for illegal immigration, isn’t even Hispanic. He’s Asian. He’s from the Philippines. After decades of trying, the MSM couldn’t up with a real Mexican!"

34 Responses to Randoms

  1. Gurf says:

    I work with one or two federal agencies that are more lenient with industry than industry would be with itself.

    Yglesias doesn’t care about that, any more than he cares about welfare having an effect opposite to its stated intent. He cares about keeping the Official Line comfortingly orthodox.

  2. […] Polyandry and Its Enforcers Posted on June 27, 2011 by Dalrock By way of Foseti and Mangan, F. Roger Devlin’s Rotating Polyandry – and Its Enforcers, Part 1 and  Part […]

  3. Alrenous says:

    Somalia. Or as I prefer to call it, “Haha, oops!”

    I only need one line from a related story. All the facts about Somalia follow the same pattern.

    “The figures in the table above do not tell the full story. The relative stability in living standards may in part be because of the work of international aid agencies.”

    Well, every measure of the standard of living has gone up, but clearly that’s because of foreign aid. Which is of course completely new. Didn’t exist twenty years ago.

    Notably, there are horror stories about Somalia. One of the main sources is the capital, where a UN-backed government is struggling to re-conquer the place. Another is,

    “In the latest decree by the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab group that governs most of southern Somalia,” (From a comment on the Mises post.)

    Err, did David use the word ‘govern?’ Oh hey! He did!

    I would note this doesn’t actually prove that anarchy is better than neocameralism. But it does go a long way to prove that anarchy is better than all extant forms of government.

    • Handle says:

      Which is why the frustrated citizens of the globe are all frantically beating a path straight into Mogadishu – the immigration capital of the world – so desirable do people find it’s present condition of freedom and economic growth. Right?

      • Alrenous says:

        That’s just kind of insulting and I’m not dignifying it with a proper response.

      • Handle says:

        No offense intended. I was trying to be humorous and I obviously failed to hit the proper tone. I hope you will accept my apology.

      • Alrenous says:

        I’m also humour impaired – not entirely your fault. Apology accepted, of course.

        So, I explicitly call out Mogadishu for being a seat of government and source of horror stories. How was I supposed to take your comment? (Hopefully I’m not myself hitting the wrong tone here… The curiosity is genuine.)

  4. a says:

    While it’s true that gays have done a lot of the boots on the ground gentrifying, somehow i think ordinary whites had gotten the same sort of favorite pet status from the federal government they would do the same, or rather dc would not have needed re-civilizing at all.

  5. Handle says:

    I don’t care much about the gays except, again, to note how successful they’ve been politically and that, as pragmatists, we should learn as many lessons as we can and how to apply them from those successes.

    One of the things gays do not presently expect, but will learn is the unintended consequence of their full and open integration into mainstream society, is that, like other previously ghetto-ized minorities, that the non-NAM ghetto has its strange advantages, and with its disappearance they will lose that certain cohesiveness and solidarity characteristic of truly functional social communities.

    I do regret the fact that PC will now conclusively forbid the expression of discomfort with or disapproval of anything related to homosexuality. Saying something like “I believe marriage should be only be between one man and one woman” – which for some time was considered a tolerated exception to the instant dismissal as an evil homophobe in at least half the country – will now gradually become the mark of Cain and cause for social ostracization, excommunication, and the two-minutes hate.

    • AC says:

      I see the gay movement as operating along the same dynamics as modern race hypersensitivity: it’s a way for one group of white people to feel superior about another group of white people. The concerns of the minority in question are of secondary importance.

      Relevant: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10646/

    • samsonsjawbone says:

      Saying something like “I believe marriage should be only be between one man and one woman” – which for some time was considered a tolerated exception to the instant dismissal as an evil homophobe in at least half the country – will now gradually become the mark of Cain

      I understand this concern, but I am not convinced of it. Unlike racial integration (which Christians are largely on board with), religious folks will continue to oppose the concept of gay “marriage”, much like they do with, say, pornography, even though that has been legal for a dog’s age. Even here in Canada where we’ve had gay unions for a while, it is still very much recognized that not everybody is comfortable with or endorses them. Legal does not necessarily equal socially acceptable.

      Foseti, I’m disappointed that you’re a homosexual union supporter. I’m not going to fight you about it (for one thing, I don’t have time), but I would’ve expected you to grasp that popular support for homosexuality means societal end is nigh.

      • Foseti says:

        I didn’t say I was a supporter. I just can’t get worked up in opposition to it. Societal end is indeed nigh, and gay unions are a sign of the end (but not a cause of the end).

  6. Leonard says:

    Somalia is anarchic only with a strained definition of the term. The State Department (and thus “international community”) sees it that way because in their vision, there can only be one legitimate state per territory: one that they recognize. Anything else is anarchy.

    Well, Somalia does have that kind of anarchy: whatever warlord in Mogadishu who is currently in favor controls only it, and get a slice of the river of UN cargo. But elsewhere, governance has reverted back to the clans, who predated colonialism. And it works, more or less, to the degree that the UN stays away.

    Sure there is something to learn there, but it is not that anarchocapitalism works. The lesson is that the absence of the State Department works, and especially in Africa (where all the countries are unnatural in terms of human groups). It works the via magic of decentralization and its ability to find natural human authority structures.

  7. JohnK says:

    Forgive this, friend; you are seriously in error.

    So: you understand that contraception, abortion, and “no-fault” divorce have had cataclysmic consequences. Count your posts to this very point.

    Yet you have “no problem” with ‘gay’ “marriage” — which, to begin with, commences, and MUST commence, by draining the word “marriage” of all meaning, so as to insinuate a vague wish in place of a definition, all to advance simple willfulness by political power as a replacement for long-standing social, sexual, psychological, and cultural realities?

    The meaning is clear: You sir, are no reactionary. Your reading has been unavailing. It was pretense, a callow intellectual pose, for you have no instinct for it. You do not breathe it; you don’t live it. You are, at best, a tourist. If you inhabit reaction at all, it is on the very surface of a small corner of your cerebral cortex, and no more than this.

    Now, an issue has scratched the surface, and now anyone — perhaps even you — can see what you have “no problem” with.

    When people, today, right now, point out that insanity has no ‘natural’ limit; and that willfulness in this today allows complete moral and political sanction for polygamy, NAMBLA, bestiality, even less concern for children, and the active repudiation of marriage, tomorrow, so long as television shows and movies show such favorably, and so long as the right people and the right money are involved; none of this, and none of the numerous similar historical insanities that you yourself have encountered in your reading and written about, matters to you. At the crucial moment, these ‘lessons’ are not even worth considering enough for you to dismiss.

    Because Gays gentrify better than anybody!

    YOU were one of those people who said, and wrote, much the same things about contraception, abortion, and “no-fault” divorce 30 and 40 and 50 years ago. The answer would have seemed just obvious to you. You would have had “no problem” with them. YOU.

    Retarded, Infinity.

    • Foseti says:

      I think gay “marriage” is a symptom, not a disease. It’s really no more complicated than that.

      I’m not going to back off my claim that gays do make good neighbors. At some point we’re going to have to figure out how to re-civilize large swathes of the currently civilized world. I find it interesting to note that gays seem particularly good at re-civilizing smaller urban areas.

      • K(yle) says:

        The issue is that “Gays” in this context basically refers to middle-class white homosexuals. I’d hazard to guess that homosexuality is more prevalent in its’ closeted form among the ungentrified urban core.

        So it’s not an aspect of ‘gayness’ that makes people good neighbors. You have a selection bias. The gays that are good at gentrifying DC are good at gentrifying DC. It’s a chosen group of middle-class white people. The young hetero SWPL and aging Hipsters are just as good at this task for the same reasons.

      • Foseti says:

        Fair enough. That very well may be true.

      • Handle says:

        I think Kyle is on to something here. Gays in the core of elite-urban cities do tend to be wealthy, intelligent, and non-NAM, and present in much higher concentrations than anywhere else. This is because many of them want to live in “gay neighborhoods” and aren’t really desirous of the suburban family lifestyle (despite what the propaganda says).

        Pioneers (usually without much wherewithal) who first establish the “gay Chinatown” (usually through an emergence of spontaneous order rather than any initial plan) have to do so in cheaper areas because they are poor – but once the trail is blazed by the pathfinders they then attract others with means who get to work fixing up the joint. There is also something about a “gay neighborhood” which tends to naturally discourage the non-homophilic from staying or entering, and by consequence pushes and keeps outs incompatible folks. This preserves cultural homogeneity and the resulting strong-community characteristics of solidarity and cohesiveness.

        And yes – the SWPL hipster class does the same thing in precisely the same way, but with the difference that they tend to hit their age-limit and flee to suburbs as soon as they start to nest and breed and need good schools, so their staying power and duration is limited and their willingness to make long-term investments in real estate improvement is mitigated.

        The SWPL neighborhood survives mostly through rapid turnover and stays perpetually young *unless* the SWPLs are *so* successful (for mostly external reasons – like a city’s evolving wealth and eliteness) that they seize control of the three major local public civil institutions – politics, law enforcement, and the schools – and solidify their gains and entrench their control.

        This is what Sailer is getting at when he talks about his second wave of SWPL community-improvement hope. The first wave was the crime-reduction-through-incarceration (but let’s not talk too much about the details) phase – which seems to have been mostly figured out outside the ghettos. He hopes the second-wave will be the schools, and maybe it will be, but I maintain it’s not possible unless you live in a place where you’ve got a sustainable majority of the kids going to the local public school.

        Now, both of these phenomena work precisely like colonization in savage territory or the Westward Expansion into violent, dangerous Indian Country. The same goes for certain non-NAM ethnic immigrant neighborhoods.

        My gentrification-related point is this – that this seems to me to more of a particular fact pattern of a particular spontaneous human process which relies on on something unrelated to “gayness” or “SWPLness”, but which, only by coincidence given the particular characteristics of our present society, we mostly see happening with these groups. This is good news for us – because it means that we can actually apply the lessons of our observations since they should work generally and not just for the gays or SWPLs.

        What is really going on here is that these people, like birds of a feather, really want to flock together to concentrate themselves, and despite all the diversity blather, they really don’t feel comfortable living as dispersed, isolated, atomized minorities in a vast suburban sea. They have a particular social-community-lifestyle vision that depends on something like a “nation” – a particular culturally-compatible population set of shared-values that gets to determine its own destiny on a particular patch of geography, something I call a “Zion”.

        In the past, when income was largely land-based instead of wage-based, and groups stayed together in close proximity, peoples like the Mormons could go find some uncivilized (so, “cheap”) piece of land out in the Mountain West frontier to establish their own confessional Zion where they wouldn’t constantly be massacred (or counter-massacre in response). At the very least – a place where they would be in the majority – which is in the end what really counts.

        Once you’ve established civilization, the land you got cheap and improved suddenly becomes very valuable, and the whole group enjoys capital gains as a result of their collective action. British-derived America similarly began as a potential Zion for the Pilgrims. Suburbia was also originally cut out of farmland to build a secure and affordable Zion for the White Middle Class Family.

        Today – the cheap, but potentially highly-valuable, violent and dangerous land on the frontier of civilization, and where any particular group could potentially establish their own Zion is … the urban ghetto! The problem with gentrification is really just the old “Coordination Problem” of organizing collective action for collective gain – which we are only seeing being spontaneously resolved among groups which naturally have a particular “urban concentrating tendency”.

        So the real answer to Sailer’s second-wave urban re-civilization project is how to resolve this Coordination Problem to establish new Affordable Family Formation colony islands in the ghetto given that the typical non-NAM Middle Class family won’t ever go there until they’re practically guaranteed a decent community full of people just like them – their own new Zion (since their old American one is rapidly vanishing).

        In a sane world – solving coordination problems like these would precisely be the job of the government – and this particular one would be the top priority for one concerned with raising property values. Alas, in our country, this problem will only be solved by private parties.

        So, off the top of my head, I would guess one would have to form an AFF-Colony Corporation that, starting with a large amount of venture capital, surreptitiously buys up all the land (since it doesn’t have the “anti-blight” eminent domain power, and can’t rely on the local government’s Kelo-authority to overcome predictable local political resistance). Once it buys up a critical mass of the land – which, again, I think is enough to establish majority representation in the local public school – it can get to work gentrifying, raising prices, and passively using the power of those prices to cover the (politically touchy) selectivity in new residents.

        My guess is that this venture, if successful, would be awesomely profitable if it can avoid political troubles and/or counter-organize its own special interest group into an effective lobby. As for what happens to the displaced population once they’ve sold out, well, they can take their gains and establish their own Zion elsewhere. I nominate Mississippi.

        Finally, as for all this Zion stuff, that’s part of my own private political philosophy that I regard as the antithesis to the Blue Orthodoxy of “Multiculturalism” and which I call “Multizionism” (hence my email). I can tell you more if you’re curious, but this is already too long.

    • Pano says:

      JohnK perhaps you’re right about Foseti.

      • Nathaniel says:

        A reactionary and not a Neocon? Just because someone believes that Progressive governmental, law enforcement, and leadership policy is bankrupt doesn’t mean they believe they’re wrong about EVERYTHING?

        You think Hitler was evil? What are you, a PROGRESSIVE? God.

    • Nathaniel says:

      A reactionary and not a Neocon? Just because someone believes that Progressive governmental, law enforcement, and leadership policy is bankrupt doesn’t mean they believe they’re wrong about EVERYTHING?

      You think Hitler was evil? What are you, a PROGRESSIVE? God.

  8. Gian says:

    “I’m fine with gay people getting married.”

    Then what kind of reactionary are you?

    • Handle says:

      If we were to make a Reactionary Mission Priority list – as if the Genie were to pop out of the lamp and grant us only three policy wishes – would the prohibition of gay marriage be the subject of one of them? I think it’s small beer compared to our major problems. If it doesn’t make the top-ten, it’s not worth making it a litmus test for whether someone is an adherent to a particular Weltanschauung.

      • Foseti says:

        Agreed. More to the point, if you could fix marriage and make it what it used to be, gay “marriage” would disappear.

      • Jehu says:

        The biggest one I’d wish for would be the ejection of all illegal immigrants from the US and the rigid enforcement of such laws going into the future, coupled with the retroactive elimination of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals and in most cases, the children of legals who possess another citizenship. If we win the demographic hegemony issue, all the other fights will become winnable because the more reactionary segments of the population are actually reproducing themselves. If I had a second policy wish, I suppose I’d roll back marriage to its 1900 or so status, elminating no-fault divorce. I’d be willing to allow for fairly easy construction of non-sacralized civil unions—basically a corporation of N participants with some consideration granted to it by the government (an equitable handling of taxation and inheritance mostly), but with no requirement on the private sector to privilege it.

    • Foseti says:

      One resigned to defeat, I suppose.

      • Pano says:

        While I also have your views Foseti that just like white liberals enable black mobs, heterosexual liberals enable gays and transgenders, to say that homosexuality or transgenderism isn’t a perversion is way off. I suppose it’s because you were once an atheist? I’m not saying to make it the number #1 focus but for sure it’s like any other ill or perversion and approve of it is a disgrace. Yes sure gays “recivilize” urban areas except they don’t.

    • Leonard says:

      A libertarian reactionary. These are libertarians who’ve come to see the inevitability of the state, and therefore want it to be small and strong, exactly so that the people can have liberty under its umbrella. Mencius Moldbug goes on about this all the time, but this article is a good example.

      • Gian says:

        Is an oxymoron. A reactionary is one that recognizes that the social contract model of state is wrong and a better conception is State as a development of ancient patriarchy, ultimately to Adam’s authority over his sons.

        Thus State is not an employee of people as the libertarians particularly believe and the State can have authorities beyond which delegated by individuals. In particular, the State can act as a guardian of morals.

      • Leonard says:

        I don’t have a firm definition of “reactionary” so I am fine with yours. I find your definition of “libertarian” restrictive. It is true that most libertarians subscribe to the delegation model of the state. However, that is not what defines libertarianism; it’s just a bit of progressive political ideology that everyone these days believes — except reactionaries. I would say that a libertarian is someone who wants more individual liberty in society in general, especially with regards to the state. As such, it is compatible with reaction, if you perceive that a reactionary state is likely to be smaller and less intrusive than our current regime.

  9. […] Handle on gays and gentrification. […]

  10. Gian says:

    The libertarians dislike moral legislation and generally find it unjust per se. Their stand can not be reconciled with the fact that all states that ever existed imposed moral legislation pretty freely and still do.

    Reactionary states have been smaller in past, partly because it was not technologically feasible to have a large intrusive state.

    • Leonard says:

      You are right that libertarianism reject morals legislation. But I don’t think the same is true of libertarians — they are humans, so they can be inconsistent if they want to be. I think most real-world “libertarians” are not really ideological about it, but rather are just people who think the state is too big, there’s too much regulation, etc.

      Contra your assertions, the libertarian ideology is easily reconciled with every state has done historically — all those states were wrong, and libertarianism is right! All this demonstrates is that libertarianism is a species of idealism, and we knew that. All idealists think in absolute terms; that is what makes them idealists.

      The libertarian reactionary is not an idealist.

      It is true that all states were smaller in the past, as a function of both wealth and technology. The question is whether one today would be. I think it would be, but this may depend on what we allow as a “reactionary state”. A neocameral state would be smaller, and since that is what I propound, I can defend it. I also think a monarchy would be smaller.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: