Thursday, December 3, 2009

Danny the Car-Wiper is on the Nod

I've always disliked Christmas, but in the last couple of years it seems like every twinkling light and jolly shopper is like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, every gayly wrapped package a reminder that no one really grows up, every shriek of delight and surprise a passive-aggressive assertion that all's well with the modern world and that Jesus didn't die in vain. Fed up, bloated with existential figgy pudding and heavy gravey, the stupidity and waste piling up like dead Asian catfish on a frozen Chicago beach, I want to spew the contents of ten thousand dead albatross chick-guts on the National Christmas Tree and fill every stocking with 'Cong ears and bandages from limbless Iraqi orphans.

Then, New-Years, the celebration of mindless drunken revelry, the passing and heraldry of another year of death-based consumption as Americans waddle into the future, fat, dumb and happy as cannibalistic chimps on a full moon, unknowing and uncaring of anything beyond what they can eat or fuck or stuff in their pockets. "On Dasher, on Dancer, Comet and Vixen", a turd down every chimney and a rotting corpse under every tree. Let the ball descend on cleaned-up Times Square squares and Williamsburg hipsters celebrating another trip around the old tired sun, while we Surge into another unenlightened Afgan pass; down through all eternity, the whining of humanity, a big mac in one hand and M-16 in the other. Thank god for Burroughs.

Merry Xmas to all, and to all a "Good Night!"

(Cross-posted on my team blog "No Short Counts"

Friday, November 6, 2009

Obama as Tough Guy - Lack of Nerve Makes Carter II

I don't have faith that the President can stand up to the war chiefs, but he needs to grow a pair fast, because every choice he has, except a smart and orderly withdrawl, results in political failure. If he escalates he can kick the can, but surely not past his second term - probable failure for which he will be blamed. If he treads water, and we continue to lose 10-12 guys at a time, he probably won't survive his first term, especially if there are reverses so bad that we won't be able to declare a (phoney, but I'll take it) victory.

He needs to go on offense. He's boxed in politically, and I don't believe he can buck his masters, but the military solution isn't that thorny. Declare victory, stand down and make it clear that the ground pounders are not expendable game pieces. Make sure that all blame, especially for any domestic economic chaos, is redirected to the previous regime that also managed to practically destroy the active military and reserves. If he can, he should get Schwartzkopf (who was a tool, but at least he looked out for his troops) back as SecDef.

Of course, he will dither and speak good things instead, so my only real hope is that the grunts concentrate on keeping each other alive and the spirit of healthy insubordination works it's way up the chain-of-command, until President Paul can straighten it back out.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

There's a Reason There's No X Street in DC

Philip Giraldi, one of best and most honest minds of our era, has a good idea, A Manifesto for X Street. A lobby for the interests of American-Americans, what a concept.

"What this country needs is a new direction, possibly driven by a new foreign policy lobby that recognizes that while all nations have an inalienable right to be treated fairly by the United States, Washington has a clear and compelling responsibility to avoid involvement in other countries’ quarrels so it can put its own people and interests first. "

I'm totally there:

"Membership in X Street will be open to all American citizens of every race, national origin, and religious belief. It will be guided by a unifying principle, that preservation of the liberties defined in the constitution and support of the national interest of the United States should be the sole objectives of any and all foreign policy. It would be the modern embodiment of George Washington’s warning to steer clear of foreign involvements and to be a friend to all."

The Constitution, Congressional declarations of war, staged withdrawal from Iraq and Afganistan, all good stuff, but then he twitches,

"X Street understands that the United States has no abiding national interest in staying in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but it recognizes that Washington has done a great deal of damage to both countries and their people. The US will arrange for a staged withdrawal from both nations after first convoking a conference of all countries in both regions to discuss mutual security issues in a bid to create a workable and sustainable regional security environment that will benefit everyone. The current bilateral security agreements dictated by Washington will be replaced by multilateral arrangements in which neighboring countries work together to combat international terrorism, drug trafficking, and human rights abuses. The United States will support such efforts but will commit itself to strict non-intervention in both the Middle East and Central Asia." (my bold)

My first question; does multilateral include the US, and how will we "support such efforts" beyond well-wishing?

"X Street believes that there is no security justification for maintaining hundreds of US military bases worldwide at an annual cost of hundreds of billions dollars. Many countries in Asia and Europe have become wealthy due to the US security umbrella that has been in place since 1945. They should now take over responsibility for their own security with the United States reverting to the role of good friend and trading partner. NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the United States to dissolve the alliance."

No complaints, here, but then the horizon darkens again,

"The United States will advise Israel that its settlement policy is in violation of numerous UN resolutions and that it opposes on principle the continuing denial of any rights to West Bank and Gazan Palestinians. Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies. As Israel is now the twenty-ninth wealthiest nation in the world per capita, all US economic and military assistance will cease immediately. The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection. The purpose is not to punish Israel but to make it like every other country vis-à-vis the United States – a friend and a trading partner, but there will be no free ride and no presumption of a "special relationship." There will be no special relationships with anyone."

I'm troubled by the implication that we would inform Israel of UN resolutions and urge them to join the NPT. If x street doesn't call for the US (and any other country that cares to) abrogate and anull all international treaties and withdraw from the entire Fabian structure, I can't see the point of the exercise. One of the only things I admire about Israel is it's defiance of the UN (while, like us, also gaming the UN whenever that might serve it's own interests). The lobby is far less dangerous to Americans than the cathedral (the military-industrial-educational-financial-congressional complex. See Moldbug, et al.) In foreign affairs, Israel should be a model of real Realism for us, shorn of the bristling paranoia and hysteria, of course other than that minor quibble, Sign me up!

Sunday, November 1, 2009

The Efficiency of Evil, Pt.1

Sorry for the long gap between posts. That was a long period of very nice weather, I got a lot of small things done, while I stewed and sulked about what a crappy world full of fuckees and fuckahs it is, but, stoically kept my bitter opinions to myself, except to the extent necessary to irritate my loved ones. Sorry about that also, so rather than resuming my kvetching, I'm going to try for a more questioning approach. Rather than simply state my belief that Evil has a permanent advantage because good people cannot do evil, but evil people can do good when it suits them, therefore Evil can never be defeated on this side of the Apocalyptic divide. An even grimmer prospect for those who may doubt this divide exists, is that Evil can never be defeated without total collateral damage, because "they" are so intertwined with "us". For all practical purposes, they is us. (h/t - Pogo). I have to put aside the whole revealed religion thing here, because I'm unqualified to comment, and have to go with the Natural Law test whether one knows in his heart if a thing is wrong. What a child or a dimwit or an average person without Sophistic training would see as wrong. Overly simple, I know, but I call Occam in defense.

My question is, why is Evil so devilishly smart and aggressive? Couldn't it survive and thrive all laid-back and hippy or partying like it was 1975. If it only wants our souls, why does it have to kill everyone in the village and all their livestock as well? All it really needed for souls was a liquor store and a lottery, besides it would lose a lot of young and innocent souls by harvesting prematurely, so to speak. It just don't make no sense.

Gravity's Rainbow V-2 guidance system
V-1 guidance system complexity Wiki
war as technology spur
Analogue computers wiki
use for astronomy in the ancient world
use as weapons in modern world
complexity and sheer numbers of terror weapons, opportunity costs for reich
tech boost to british to defend, intellectual horsepower applied to breaking codes

tie to dearth of military tech at GW seas

Friday, April 24, 2009

They Were "Too Graphic" Then, but Now They're So Last Year

I remember when the second batch of Torture Fotos were first rumored to exist (about '04?); that they were too graphic and inflammatory to release to the public. We may speculate that they were not released because they weren't already on the net. So "more than 400 individuals were disciplined" (mostly enlisted men and sergeants, I'm sure), but I'd further bet that none of those disciplined were CIA agents known to have been present.

Why did those knuckleheads photograph themselves, unless they had been totally assured that their conduct was approved by the wraiths, and why do the spinners suppose the public is just as stupid and gullible as the hillbilly guards, just because we are. "It's the same all 'round the world, big man gets the meat, po' man gets the bone"

Sunday, April 19, 2009

On "Traced" Mexican Guns

I posted this comment on AR article, "The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come from US"

Those weapons “traced back” to the U.S., to whom, pray tell. They’re obviously not coming from Bubba’s Gun Shack or any other retail outlet or Homeland Security, the DEA, BATF, FBI, The State Dept., State and local police, HCI and the media would all be there the next day. Someone (sorry I don’t remember the site) speculated recently that many were from weapons supplied to the Mexicans by the USG, as military aid, diverted or stolen. Who knows ain’t saying, but I would be very surprised if any legitimate, federally licensed dealer is ever even indirectly linked to any of these weapons, and it would be child’s play to determine who the manufacturer and wholesaler sent them to.

Now I’m really curious how far back they traced; if their systems are so disconnected or incompatible they can’t even keep track of the info that they already have (which I don’t believe to be the case) or they don’t want to release the info for “reasons of national security”, that is, something that would embarrass or incriminate themselves.
I would like to know the results of the trace. Who were the last Americans to own these guns. “Remington shipped serial # xxxx to U.S. Dept. yyyy on zzz date”. Show me the money, I mean, bill of lading. Put up or shutup, already, Hoover and Co.

Then I read in an unrelated article about the pre-existing (to this issue) law that makes it illegal to divulge the trace information EXCEPT for Law Enforcement or National Security purposes, so they get to release the data or not as whatever fits their purposes.

From the NRA
"For more than five years, cities suing the gun industry and anti-gun organizations have sought access to confidential law enforcement data on firearms traces. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) compiles these records when it traces firearms in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.

Every year since 2003, the U.S. Congress has passed increasingly strong language to keep this information confidential. The legislation—a series of "riders" to the appropriations bill that funds BATFE—is widely known as the "Tiahrt Amendment," after its sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.)."

Now, putting my tinfoil hat on backwards, I assert that the prohibition on release of data is a good thing unless it is used by the government to avoid proving their allegations, especially if the Tiahart amendment was designed to protect "officers, informants, and other witnesses", and further, that "every year since 2003" this has been the main purpose of the amendment rather than the protection of innocent gun manufacturers and merchants. Holder & Co are merely playing the cards they have been given, in pursuit of their own goals, but it might be more trouble to pursue this strategy if someone forces the release of the data. Otherwise their assertions are no more valuable than mine.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Farewell to Alms

I saw this site featured on two very different sites, (exiledonline and counterpunch,), and thought it might be of some interest. They are looking for volunteers and running a "webinar" (stupid, dorky term, imo) Wednesday - April 15th at 6PM Eastern. I'm going to check it out, although I'm more interested in bringing down the public-sector criminal enablers than the gang-bankers themselves, what with the revolving door, the distinction is not that clear.

Eliot Spitzer, please call your office. All is forgiven and revenge is best served cold, no?

[UPDATE - I went to Spitzer's wiki page just to get his photo, but noticed this. In a nutshell, why he had to go.]

"He most notably pursued cases against companies involved in computer chip price fixing, investment bank stock price inflation, predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders, fraud at American International Group, and the 2003 mutual fund scandal. He also sued Richard Grasso, the former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, claiming he had failed to fully inform the board of directors of his deferred compensation package, which exceeded $140 million."

Lucky thing for him they got him for boinking a prostitute; beats sleeping with the fishes! Also from the wiki;

"Later in the month, The Washington Post published a Spitzer opinion piece conveying his analysis of the financial crisis of 2008 and suggested remedies. Spitzer concluded the piece by saying that he hoped the Obama Administration would make the right policy choices, 'although mistakes I made in my private life now prevent me from participating in these issues as I have in the past.'"

Come back and fight, Eliot, nobody wants to live forever.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Better Days are Coming

I, Ectomorph is losing faith in Blogging, and he even has readers. Although he writes mostly about Canadian politics, which might not be as exciting as it seems.

To make the urgency of the situation clear: if the federal government isn't forthcoming with an industry-wide "new topics" blogospheric bailout pretty soon, I, Ectomorph may be just one in a catastrophic explosion of blog failures that will threaten the very existence of ill-informed half-witted punditry as we have known it.

Have a bit more patience. I've been reading a lot of comments by the Hopeful (mostly on the Huffpost video of various stars "pledging" to Obama [if you've missed it, check it out; jawdropping - literally defies Parody.]) It's like a Galactic cruiser full of thousands of naive My Little Ponies and Bratz dolls just starting to cross the event horizon of reality's black hole, holding hands and singing the theme song from Exodus with Pete Seeger on banjo. So much stupidity it would make Mencken have to call his doctor with an over-four-hour boner and give any half-witted blogger enough material to seem like the bastard son of Oscar Wilde and Virginia Woolf.

Do you like spanking, and who doesn't? It's going to be like the Superbowl and World Series combined of naked, gleaming Victoria's Secret-class dumbasses and that's just the Washington D.C. tent, not to mention Hollywood, Wall Street, London and Tel Aviv! Hang in for just a little longer. the world that Groucho told us about is coming into sight, right around the old sigmoid bend!

You Say Potatoe

The recent shooting of fish in a barrel in Gaza has managed to push our own barbarism in Iraq down the memory hole. I've been labeled a " paleo dilettante " for comparing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to that of the Hutus and Tutsis.

(She nailed me as a dilettante, but I'm not really a paleo, having no romantic attachment to a world that has ceased to be, and can probably never be recovered). It is an intra-tribal dispute going back to pre-history, and discussions of who hit who first are pointless. Ilana favors the Tutsi because they are "tall and better looking" and I favor them because I loved the Orlons. Whatever. She also links to a manly man...

There, I’ve said it: Afrikaners make the most spectacular paleos. “The modern Boer,” wrote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the popular British writer of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, is “the most formidable antagonist who ever crossed the path of Imperial Britain.”

And the modern paleo Boer is Dan Roodt. Roodt recently paid tribute to his Afrikaner ancestors’ “miraculous victory over the Zulu forces of Dingane during the Battle of Blood River on 16 December 1838,” when “450 Afrikaners defeated an army of at least 13,000 Zulus without any losses in their ranks.” Roodt’s coda:

“The Day of the Covenant should be internationally celebrated among all those who believe that our Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian civilisation is still worth fighting for.”

No (unmanly) weirdness there.

Maybe, but it seems sort of strange that he would remember the slaughter of a large contingent of over-confidant natives armed with spears and hide shields and forget about the treatment of the Boers by the British, pioneering the modern technique of anti-guerilla warfare by rounding up and starving the Boer civilians until the fighters gave up, a bright marker on the road to the end of the "West". Generals Sherman and Custer, call your office. Again, whatever.

 As an American I'm far more concerned with our own moral and strategic blunders. America, like Israel, has an enemy within that is lazy and parasitic, resentful and dedicated to our destruction and is much more numerous, powerful and better armed than the Palestinians. To avoid any confusion, I speak, of course, of the U.S. Government.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Fear Itself

From The Daily Burkeman1:

"Yet they continue to behave like children, rather than the semi-super-humans of Zionist lore. " not to mention the evil geniuses of anti-semitic lore.

This really jumped out at me when I saw the street-party in NYC celebrating the Gaza incursion. Dancing and singing, they reminded me of a college football pep rally. Children, exactly.

It seems that they really believe their own propaganda, and for the first time I'm actually starting to fear for the Israeli people, who are instructed to be "as wise as serpents". Wouldn't it be smarter to at least pretend to be magnanimous in victory; iron hand/velvet glove kind of thing. Don't they have any doubts about American power and support, and America's track record of turning on it's allies?

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Will Obama Hit the Ice Running?

Yesterday I posted "Some Questions...", the second of which concerned Mike Whitney's contention that Obama needs to start writing large checks to stimulate the economy as soon as his hands warm up enough from the Inaugural ceremonies. Fortunately my research (that is casually reading my usual morning blogs) led me to a satisfactory answer without even using google, on LRC, Scott Rosen "Has a Stimulus Ever Been Necessary?". In a nutshell:

"Even this pseudo-recovery did not last for long as the economy fell back into a depression in 1937. New Deal advocates insist that this was the fault of reduced government spending. In part, they are correct because so much of the "expansion" was merely a reflection of government expenditures. The decline in government spending, however, did not retard private commercial growth which, had never really recovered in the first place. Even if this was a true recovery, Keynesian theory calls for budget reductions during a period of expansion. Moreover, if five years of government spending truly resulted in economic recovery (as the New Dealers claim), it seems far-fetched to believe that a slight retreat in the growth of the government would plunge the economy back into a severe depression."


"The fallacy behind the call for economic stimulus is that declining aggregate demand is the mother and not the daughter of economic contraction. When left to its own devices, the market will return back to prosperity (consumer demand and all). Government intervention oftentimes has the effect of actually prolonging the crisis. The new administration would be wise to let the market adjust on its own and spare us the additional debt and debased currency that an active fiscal and monetary policy will yield."

I'm satisfied. (Except that I'd still like to know if Witney considers the massive Defense budget stimulus as effective as any other public works spending, or more generally, if some spending is more "effective" than others, questions of morality aside. For instance, a bridge or hospital may be used for many years while a cruise missile is only used once.)

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Some Questions that Require Research (groan)

I. Norman Finkelstein in Counterpunch

"And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas.

As was documented in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair by the writer David Rose, basing himself on internal US documents, it was the United States in cahoots with the Palestinian Authority and Israel which were attempting a putsch on Hamas, and Hamas preempted the putsch. That, too, is no longer debatable or no longer a controversial claim."

What does he mean by "signaling"

II. Mike Whitney in Counterpunch

a. While a fairly good exposition of the economic problems facing Obama, there appears to be no discussion here about the Defence budget, it's effect on the deficit or its inflationary effects. Is any and all spending good for the economy?

b. "Still, many people think that stimulus is a waste of money that will send deficits into the stratosphere. Libertarians, for example, argue that the cure for a credit bubble shouldn't be more credit. They want to see debts written down and balance sheets back in the black. Their prescription is similar to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's in the 1930s who said : “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers – purge the rottenness from the system.” Mellon's rant may sound consistent with free market dogma, but following his advice would lead straight to catastrophe. The markets would crash and there would be riots in the streets. It's better to err on the side of caution and give the economy a badly needed boost of stimulus.

Forbes recently ran an article which disputes the effectiveness of stimulus. According to the article, the European Central Bank (ECB) produced a working paper, entitled 'The Macroeconomic Effects of Fiscal Policy' which states:

"The empirical evidence suggests that government spending shocks have, in general, a small effect on GDP,' and 'can have a 'have a negative effect on private investment...Hiking government spending does little for economies, has a minimal impact on consumer spending, hits stock prices and can put off private investment." (Forbes)"

He does assert that the libertarian position "would lead straight to catastrophe", but doesn't explain why or how. Incidentally, Keyseians never seem to mention the Keynes recommended fiscal stimulus in downturns but also backing off when the economy is doing well; using the brakes as well as the throttle, which we haven't done since Clinton and arguably, since Nixon.

III. (need source) Supposedly, Gov. whatsisname was investigating sub-prime lending in 2003 before he was thrown out for diddling Ashley DuPre (funny I can't remember his name but I do hers ) but the investigation was shut down by the Feds. Seems pretty explosive if true. Anything to this?

Anybody? Bueller?

Monday, January 12, 2009

I'm (Barely) Ashamed of Myself

I posted the following as a comment to a post at Barely a Blog, “Paleos Must Defend the West, And That Means Israel Too.” that she had originally posted on VDARE. I regret that I didn't make clear that I wasn't speaking as or for "Paleoconservatism", since I'm not conservative hyphenated or not. I admire and respect them, especially paleos, but I lack the philosophical and especially historical knowledge that may someday lead me to consider myself one. If pressed, I would say I was a paleolibertarian, brought into the light by Rothbard, Rockwell and Raimondo, but I still haven't come far from nihilistic anarchism and my god is still Conan's, Crom, who created the world and walked away. I'm also really sorry I called Hagee a fat fag, in that it was offensive to a really smart and sophisticated lady, the hem of whose skirt I am not worthy to touch, and that I also thereby cheapened my own argument, which was really that Americans need to concentrate on the huge beam in our own eye before we save the rest of the world.  Of course, I was referring to the pig as a fag in the South Park sense, of one who couldn't do a pushup to save his life and has never fought for anything beyond the last piece of pie, and meaning no offense to actual homosexuals, who have never harmed me in any way, especially compared to porky chickenhawk fake-christian rube-herders and their numerous allies, many of whom call themselves "conservatives", but I digress. Here is the post:

“Have you noticed how socialist the U.S. has become?”

“The Jews” are among many who have found a way to exploit a fatal security flaw in the U.S. Constitution that has resulted in the death of our Republic and the growth of the One World State.(For the record, I don’t blame the Zionists for taking advantage of our government, I blame our government).

This project (Imperialism) must fail, will fail. Since we are evidently unable to re-establish the Republic we can only pray for the destruction of the Empire by the barbarians. It’s unfortunate that Israel has chosen to be the tip of the spear while counting on the support of fat f_gs like Hagee and his ilk, traitors to their own God and Country, while reaffirming that might makes right and giving no quarter to those they conquer. Reap the whirlwind, or not, but don’t expect loyalty from slaves. If I were free to choose, I might support Israel, since I’m not, it’s just Tutsis v Hutus to me.

I wish I were a more sophisticated writer, or could just shut up, but you make war with the army that you have, as a famous man, now forgotten, once said.  Here's the deal; No one needs to defend the "West" which committed suicide no later than about 1914. It is a dead parrot. It has ceased to be.  I would like to see it's return (hence my growing interest in Monarchism) but what we now have is a post-civilized, post-Christian order that utilizes many of the tropes, memes and concepts of the Christian era, (debatable as to however much they were actually followed in the good old days), to legitimate what is clearly a return to barbarism. The Iron Rule: "Do unto Others that which you would not have done to you", and it's corollary: "First, or they will." This is not Christianity, (turn the other cheek) or Judaism (as far as I understand it, which is an eye for an eye, but not preemptively, as now seems the case.) Personally I like the eye for an eye approach, or even turn the other cheek. Once. But no one seems to be familiar with the concept of asking for trouble, and never understands why the other guy is so edgy. 

I understand the existential danger facing Israel, and can understand their anxiety, but this does not come close to explaining how it is my problem. If you fuck with the bull, you get the horn. The Israelis are starting to realize that slapping it and sticking a few needles in doesn't help, now they need to kill it, but I'm not sure if they have the cojones to dispatch it, short of the Sampson option. I also don't understand all the weeping about "the right to exist" when it's stipulated that right is might, which is what they most hate about Islam. I hope their G_d will help them. I know Crom won't. If you have to live in an Empire, you "might" as well enjoy the games. After all, you're paying for them. "Right?"

Saturday, January 3, 2009


  I've recently come across several sites that discuss Monarchy as a potential alternative to the obviously flawed and increasingly failed democratic experiment, and have reached the point where my only real objection to monarchy is that I don't see any way to get there from here. William Lind has claimed to be a monarchist, although I haven't seen any further elucidation by him on this point. (I intend to do a lot more "research" on this, but at this time it's just an interesting itch on my consciousness. I remain a Stoic, the philosophy of slaves, because slaves are what Americans, if not humanity in general, have become for various reasons, not the least of which is "democracy". For purposes of this discussion I will drop the scare quotes and capitalization of various systems of thought because it's not clear that any of these systems are more than generalizations, except at the highest levels of discourse which I am not close to approaching, and may never reach. Nevertheless...)

  My first exposure to this point of view was probably from J.K. Baltzersen on LRC, which lead me to his Wilson Revolution Unplugged blog. At the time I considered his interest in monarchism as either tongue-in-cheek speculation or a kind of nerdy casual fandom like "Lives of the Rich and Famous".  The sort of thing that still makes me yearn for the return of the Guillotine, although I have come to realize how much of my political thought is simple romanticism combined with fatal doses of class envy and hatred. My conservatism, as far as it goes, is what's left after going down every other philosophic rabbit hole I could find without turning up any rabbits. I expect that any rabbits I find here will be long mummified, yet, dig we must.

  The most powerful and persuasive arguments I've seen along these lines are those of Mencius Moldbug at Unqualified Reservations concerning the restoration of the Stuarts. Since he doesn't use labels on his posts you'll have to dig a bit to find these. but it's well worth the effort, although almost everything he writes is (I would say, except for my unfamiliarity with the material) rather overlong and windy. His style is very eighteenth century, but doesn't really require that much familiarity with the background. It's very self-contained and he more than explains himself, but you will have to dig for it. Twitter it ain't. I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't even know what Jacobism was/is.  Thanks to public schooling my knowledge of history pretty much begins about 1776, although luckily I went to school in Virginia and was taught Virginia History which is the most important part of American history, apart from Damn Yankee history, which one needs to know to defend against, at least.

  More or less by accident (chasing back commentator's profiles somewhere) I came across Theodore Harvey's Royal World blog, which is totally fascinating to me. He claims to have debunked Jacobism, and is a big fan of the Windsor's and especially Elizabeth (whom I like) and Charles (not so much, but I'm unfortunately easy to persuade. We'll see...). He is very anti-republican, which is counter-intuitive to me, but I have to keep an open mind on matters about which I know very little, and claims to have voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, so there may be a lot of common ground.  He lost me in his defense of Caroline Kennedy as being part of an American aristocracy and his defense of nepotism in politics as being part of the monarchic ideal, which seems completely wrong and part of what I most hate about our system. I would like to see an Amendment forbidding the close relatives of any politician from elected office. No more Kennedys, Clintons or Bushes, please. The fact that Joe Kennedy was able to parlay his background in smuggling and his mob contacts into a Presidency for his otherwise unremarkable and feckless son is hardly a qualification for the appointment of his valley girl granddaughter to the Senate and launching her on the quick path to the Presidency, although the Senate is pretty much of a bull-pen for unqualified nepotistic scoundrels. At least Obama and Jim Webb got in on their own efforts and wrote their own books, but maybe it's just my democratic roots showing.

  This is the heart of my reservations about monarchy and aristocracy in general.  Every royal line can be traced back to some mud- and gore-covered thug who was able to best his equally thuggish rivals and establish dominance and eventually legitimacy over his vassels. The strongest and smartest were able to bring in the most able of their subjects to cement their positions for their families and eliminate rivals, and I'm sort of okay with that.  I've come to regret the loss of the European royalty and what has become of the various revolutions and it's clear that we've reached the end of the democratic experiment.  I've long felt that a king would be better than rule by common clowns; a king could decide as a matter of policy or whim to give the serfs a break and a democrat simply cannot, but I can't see how we can re-establish some kind of actual aristocracy, so at this point the best I can say is I'm a loyal thermadorian and hope for the worst, loyal only to my own family.  If Charles can eliminate the scum in the Commonwealth (which he is unlikely to attempt) I'll bend the knee. Until then, subvert, withhold, sabotage and endure.