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!
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.
"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?
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."
[snip]
"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.)
"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."
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?
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?"
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.
