Who’s WE Sucka?

I enjoy picking on cuckservatives because it is so easy to wrap them up in logical contradictions.  When discussing politics with a cuck I often hear responses like, “All we need to do is follow the constitution.” Perhaps the cuck will say, “We should have a free market for health care.”  Statements like this ignore the simple political reality that there must be some WE which agrees with this point of view.

When discussing Hans Herman Hoppe’s work on the Daily Shoa, Curt Doolittle mentioned that a fundamental question of ethics is, “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?”  Such a statement might seem silly at first, but consider the origins of law.  A law proceeds from a gentleman’s agreement, and law is enforced with various physical punishment.  When two cave men met a few thousand years ago, you can bet that each of them thought, “I can kill this guy and take his stuff.”   At some point, they learned not to kill each other and law was born.

A high trust society is possible because of a system in which no one, not even the King, is above the law.  Cucks simply take this high trust framework for granted.  Visiting rural Baja California is an interesting experience.  Far from major towns enterprising fellows sell gasoline in plastic milk jugs.  What a great free market system!  What octane rating is it?  Has it been diluted with wood alcohol?  The transaction takes place far from the law, and it is buyer beware.  Much of the world economy consists of this style of bazaar economics in which haggling is expected, quality is questionable, and transparency is completely absent.

Transparency in politics is damaged when one side refuses to play by the rules.  Conservatives tolerated the gay marriage initiative because they thought, “Live and let live.”  A conservative could justify a pro-gay marriage position based upon libertarian principles.  Such a cuck should not be too surprised then when the other side, which proclaimed a desire to live and let live, then asserts a right to be married at the cuck’s church.  The situation is analogous to the buyer who agrees to buy a quart of milk only to discover that it is diluted with cat piss.

The first three words of the constitution are “We the People.”   What happens when there is no longer a we?  Judicial activism is a glaring example of this.  A law may clearly state that freed men of color may be citizens, but a judge comes to power and simply declares that this means that any baby born on US soil is a citizen.  There is no longer a we in most of the west.  A high trust society no longer exists when various factions decide that they are above the law and act to work around the law with any bit of power that they can acquire.

Black’s will vote for more social programs by a 90% margin.  There is no argument based upon law that will convince them otherwise.  A black person who gains power, whether in business or government, will typically act in his own interest and act to subvert the law.  Waves of immigrants are flooding to the west at this moment.  These people do not consider themselves to be part of the we.  The immigrants will often be from parts of the world where the low trust bazaar economy is typical.  The end result will be a low trust political system.

A question often debated in white nationalist circles is, “Are Jewish people white?”  The question seems absurd when asked about European Jews since they are from Europe.  The real question which should be asked of any person, or any ethnicity is, “Are you part of the we?”  In the case of Jews, a large percentage consider themselves to be a minority apart from the rest of society.  These Jews caused a disruption to the system of law and trust in the west as they gained power in the 1950’ and 1960’s.  Liberals have always been around in the west.  The American Board of Massachusetts was a religious organization which sought to school the Indians and otherwise improve their quality of life in the early 1800’s.   The abolitionist movement was certainly one of the left wing movements of its time, but the abolitionists sought to make changes to the law.  The temperance movement of the twentieth century also came from a Puritan background, but they also sought changes in law.  The temperance movement, and the female suffrage movement, were both successful in making legal changes to the constitution.

What has changed since the 1960’s is that the left learned that they can gain power through media, academia, and the arts.  This power is then used to subvert the law rather than change it.  No constitutional changes were made to allow tranny bathrooms.  A system has been put in place where political goods are offered for sale in the marketplace.  (Propaganda in the media)  Few of these goods are advertised truthfully.   The cucks need to get it through their thick skulls that the constitution and law in general do not matter.  Law is based upon the agreement to honor it.  When one side agrees to honor the law while another side’s mentality is, “I want to take your stuff”, the law is rendered impotent.

Considering all of the above it is possible to answer the question, “Are Jews white?”  The answer is maybe.  A Jew is white if he chooses to think of himself as white.  Does he consider himself part of the we?  For many Jews the answer may be no.

Moldbug and Wood Stoves

Cuckservatives have an amazing ability to tell themselves pretty white lies.  The conservative movement has long claimed to favor the rule of law, while simultaneously claiming to be against regulations.  Which is it?  A regulation is simply a rule—in other words a law for all practical purposes.   In the case of many regulations the congress simply empowers an agency to create all the regulatory details of a law.

A specific example may serve to illustrate the point.  A few years ago, my wife, a dedicated Glen Beck listener, informed me with horror that the EPA was creating new regulations which would outlaw all wood burning stoves.  Whether this is a bad thing or not is beside the point—I like clean air as much as the next guy.  She and Glen were more or less correct.  The EPA enacted new regulations in 2015.  These will be phased in over a five-year period and will dramatically reduce the amount of particulate (smoke) that a wood stove may legally emit.  These new rules probably will force a few companies to close their doors for good.

Consider the situation from the point of view of a small wood stove manufacturer.  Perhaps you do not like the new rules.  Whom should you approach with your concerns?  The EPA is not going to be very receptive.  You may choose to call or write your congressman, but congress no longer control the little details of law.  Your congressman is not going to be able to take regulatory power from the EPA once it is granted.  Perhaps you contact the media and try to raise awareness of your plight.  Well done sir!  You are petitioning the King.  As Mencious Moldbug pointed out, you could always petition the King even before all this freedumb and democracy stuff started.

When conservatives say they want to end regulations, but they want the rule of law they sound silly.  What conservatives should state is that they want rule of law that is accountable.  For law to be accountable some hierarchy must exist.   The present system in the USA is rule of think tanks, universities, bureaucracies, and media.  This system is not very hierarchical or accountable.  Conservatives are complaining about rule by Moldbug’s cathedral, but they do not recognize the nature of their complaint.

Conservative always lose because freedumb is their highest value.  A society governed by whomever is most successful at manipulating the masses is not likely to be a society governed by rational analysis of the problems.  I the case of wood stoves it might seem reasonable to ban them outright in Los Angeles, while permitting use in rural Montana.  This solution is not possible in a system where demotism means that a crisis must always be created, and then a blanket solution applied to fix it.