A Counterpunch writer is reminded of Henry Ford

In what categories does America lead the world? Two areas immediately come to mind: childhood obesity and prison incarceration. Addressing our burgeoning jail population, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) made this observation, “Either we are home to the most evil people on earth, or we are doing something very counterproductive.”

We also lead the world in drug use, lawsuits, graffiti, TV evangelists, junk food, gun ownership, cosmetic surgery, teenage pregnancies, energy consumption, and credit card debt.

Now let us consider China. The Chinese government’s response to the recent strikes in the auto manufacturing industry came as a surprise to veteran observers, particularly those with images of Tiananmen Square still fresh in their heads. Uncharacteristically, the government did not crack down when workers at Foshan Fengfu Autoparts, a Honda parts supplier in Guangdong province, went on strike in June, demanding higher wages.

Instead, the Chinese government stood back and watched. The government stood back and watched even as the dominoes fell, as Foshan Fengfu strike-fever spread throughout the factories of southern China’s manufacturing heartland, with tens of thousands of workers rising up and insisting on higher wages.

Liu Shanying, an analyst at Beijing’s Institute of Political Science, sees the government’s tolerance as significant. According to Shanying, China is looking to promote higher wages not only to close the gap between the rich and poor (which Beijing sees as a potential threat to the Communist Party), but to provide citizens with more cash to spend on domestic products.

Beijing wants Chinese workers to be able to afford more Chinese goods, reminiscent of Henry Ford’s innovative notion of providing workers with wages high enough to afford the Model Ts they were building.

“If incomes won’t go up, how can domestic demand be boosted?” Shanying asks. “Strikes for better pay are very much in line with the big trend of Chinese economic development.” Apparently, staggering, runaway credit card debt doesn’t strike them as a suitable “cure.”

Compare the Chinese view to the knee-jerk, anti-union sentiment found in the U.S. Instead of acknowledging the obvious advantages of a thriving middle-class—and recognizing organized labor’s role in sustaining that middle-class—there’s a scabrous, mean-spirited movement in this country, led by the Republican Party and corporate America, to attack unions.


http://www.counterpunch.org/macaray07202010.html

Advertisements

The Sipsey Street Irregulars don’t like the $PLC

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/07/meet-david-holthouse-premier-paid-liar.html

the interesting thing is that this is the first time that SPLC may be in real danger of paying up for one of their multitude of lies. If successful, even if settled out of court, this will encourage the cannibals of the lawyer tribe to eat one of the richest and fattest of their own in a death of a thousand damage award entrees. Nothing encourages the legal sharks like blood in the water. The race to see who will get SPLC’s palatial glass Taj Mahal in Montgomery will be fun to watch.

Couldn’t happen to nicer anal sphincters.

Has anyone told Kevin MacDonald about this?

Orwell on the right to tell people what they do not want to hear

http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2010/05/quote-of-day.html

‘Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban… At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals … If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’

George Orwell

Caesartort Comments on Abraham and Casanova

http://caesartort.blogspot.com/2010/07/abraham-vs-casanovas-game.html

When my grandma was born, adolescents envied Casanova. But when later in my life I read a little of him I realized that, like every Don Juan, Casanova was a loser. “He will spend the night with the most pitiful harlot,” writes Stefan Zweig in his psychobiography about Casanova, “rather than sleep alone.”
We can hardly be surprised to find that the quality of his feminine provision is not always of the best… Enough for him, generally speaking, that she should be woman, vagina, his polar opposite in matters of sex, formed by nature to enable him to discharge his libido… Casanova’s collection is anything but a gallery of beauty.
This is the antithesis of what I believe: a monogamous, lasting marriage inspired by Nordish female beauty. Casanova, on the other hand, was never really in love with anyone, and to boot he could not have bought women if we imagine him without his money. In fact, the Don Juan archetype, equipped above all with callousness, is the sworn enemy of women. According to Zweig, it is the person that women loathe and project onto the whole male sex. Like Casanova, the Neanderthals I happen to know don’t discriminate among women. “In wartime,” a Mexican saying goes, “any hole is a trench.” In Casanova’s maximum opus readers can see the same troglodytic view of women, from underage teenagers to shriveled women in their sixties: mere masturbatory objects. Awful…

Despite his countless coitus Casanova didn’t invest in his future in the traditional form of a warm family. We find him, in his old age, with syphilis at the shadow of an Austrian nobleman. Without his money women did not respect him. His last refuge was to write his memoirs, but during his lifespan no one pays attention to his manuscripts. The man wrote folio after folio for twelve hours a day for seven years only as a mechanism of defense. “It was the only way in which I could hinder myself from becoming crazy,” confesses the old hermit.
For seven years I have been doing nothing else than write my memoirs… I look forward to being rational enough in my last illness to have all the manuscript burnt before my eyes.
But Casanova didn’t do it and naive people glorified the adventures of this failed man after he died.

Casanova, I think, was addicted to salesmanship. He was addicted to persuading people. He was addicted to “making the sale” – whether he was selling occult ideas, his own sexual prowess, or something else.

In biology, success is measured by the number of descendants that an organism leaves. But since most of all of the descendants of a Don Juan who doesn’t care for his offspring may die prematurely, this definition is tentative and must be modified. Oxford zoologist David Lack argued that, for each species, natural selection favors the size of the offspring that results in the most of them surviving to maturity: a more accurate definition.

But we can further define fitness as the relative (i.e., compared to the other guys, including the so-called “alphas”) ability of a male to survive and leave offspring that themselves survive and leave offspring. This is standard biological theory, and what matters most is not the actual value of a male’s fitness in terms of the number of his progeny that survive to reproduce, but which individuals have higher fitness than others.

Here’s where the critics of “gamers” are right when applying this definition to Homo sapiens. From the fitness viewpoint, what is the quality of living for human bastards (David Lack studied birds)? In our species fitness is a relative measure, with the fittest humans in a population being assigned the value 1. Alas, our enemies, the Jews, are #1 according to this definition. But there’s a positive side to it: Take heed of their lifestyles! Traditional Jews aren’t Casanova-esque alphas!

If the fittest human male in a population is assigned the value 1, I would call that guy Abraham (“I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven”, Exodus 32:13). All other individuals have their fitness expressed as fractions or proportions of 1 compared to the Abraham paradigm, who was everything except a degenerate “alpha” male or a Don Juan. One of the reasons white nationalists must like Hitler and the Nazis is because they tried to turn Nordish people… into Number One.

I have a lot of criticisms of the Nazis. I try to love the sinner and hate the sin.

John Derbyshire’s pessimism is clouding his vision of history

John Derbyshire writes:

Some libertarians and hard-right conservatives subscribe to a kind of millennialism: soon, they dream, the contradictions inherent in the statist system—its demographic pressures and out-of-control fiat currency—will bring the whole thing crashing down. Then the proles will inherit the earth, and freedom will prevail by default. But there is another, likelier possibility: consider what happened to Rome or the British Empire once they passed the point where they were “too big to fail.” Whether the Inner Party maintains its grip on the nation even as it loses the world or the rule of law itself falls to barbarism, some boot will continue stamping on the human face.


http://amconmag.com/article/2010/aug/01/00035/

Derbyshire’s pessimism is obscuring his view of history.

Western Rome did in fact fall. Wolves howled in what had been marketplaces. The sandaled foot (boots were Germanic, not Roman) stopped stomping on the human face in those parts of Western Rome, at least.

To See Ourselves As Others See Us

Alex Knepper on Richard Spencer:

I happen to intermittently know Richard Spencer, the site’s director. … As the others faded into the background, he moved just inches away from my face, gave me a menacing look and yelled: “You little child. How dare you talk to me — me! — about the West! You don’t know the first thing about the West! You’re a little twelve-year-old who thinks he knows shit. Don’t you ever talk to me like that again or I will beat your face into the fucking ground!”
As with my infamous argument with gay-basher Ryan Sorba, my confrontations with collectivists always tend to end up degenerating into threats of physical force. Richard Spencer is a fairly tough guy, and I’m, well, kind of scrawny. So I kept my mouth shut. But I was frightened.

http://www.frumforum.com/alternative-rights-ugly-racism

Update: How I think this went down:

How Alex Knepper sees Richard Spencer – a fairly tough guy:

Richard Spencer’s take on all this:

Some might call this slander, though luckily, I’m a soft-hearted type who’ll overlook Mr. Knepper’s irresponsibility on account of his youth.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-right/print-the-legend/

How Richard Spencer sees himself – a soft-hearted type:

How Richard Spencer perceives the irresponsibility of youth:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion


http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/translations/552.htm

Is Enlightenment rationality and liberalism central to the West?

I have little patience for the pick-up artist who blogs at “in mala fide” but one of his commenters made an interesting argument that liberalism is central to the West.

I only noticed the comment because Hunter Wallace was patient enough to slog through the original argument at:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/06/28/which-white-nationalism/

At the original “in mala fide” comment page, Brendan writes:

Liberalism “comes from” the core of the Western tradition,… liberalism *is* the West –… the West became disconnected from the ancient heritage – a heritage of culture and tradition…

Of course, the West “rediscovered” this patrimony, through Moorish translations of it, with the rise of scholasticism in the West. However, this “rediscovery” was disastrous because it did not reflect the attitude that the early Church – which was intimately familiar with the Greek philosophical patrimony – took when approaching thinkers such as Aristotle. The Western scholastics, through no fault of their own mind you, were basically “reinventing the wheel” when it came to understanding the relationship between faith and reason – and reinventing it in a very unfortunate manner. The scholastics are the source of the beginning of the dictatorship of reason in the West, as well as the layers of the roots of the subsequent antagonism in the West between “faith” and “reason”. By exalting reason to the degree they did (claiming, for example, as the Roman Church still does today, that the existence of God is deducible by reason), they forever compromised the faith of the West by laying the foundation for the subsequent, relentless challenge that reason would pose to the existence of faith in the West.
The “rediscovery” of the ancient pagan world did not stop there, of course. The humanities were next to be “rediscovered”, resulting in the rise of humanism. …
The combination of scholasticism, with its ever-increasing weirdness (delving with philosophy into such mysterious matters as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the precise nature of life after death), and humanism, with its increasing impatience with anything “imposed from above” beyond the level of the human person, led directly to the Protestant Reformation – a development which was the beginning of the end for the West in spiritual terms.
How so? The core problem of the Reformation was the nature of authority. The slogan regarding authority that was popularized by the reformers, and embraced by most of them, ranging from Luther to Calvin and beyond, was “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – as the source of authority. …
Following the Reformation, the balance of power, in terms of determining the course of Western culture, shifted decisively to the Protestant powers. …
If the truth of faith was to be found by reading the Biblical texts with the aid of human reason, it was only a matter of time until thinkers began to expand upon that and come to the conclusion that human reason itself was the critical point.
….The thinkers of the Enlightenment were simply following through on the “idea” of authority which was hatched by the Reformation, and simply asked the question: “Why need we confine ourselves to that text?”. It was only a matter of time until that question was asked, and only a matter of time until human reason became as exalted as Descartes did (cogito ergo sum) – a breathtaking reduction of humanity as much as it is the exaltation of human reason.
It will be objected as to why this is a bad thing. It’s a bad thing because once the Enlightenment got going down that track, it was again only a matter of time until it began attacking religion, as such, outright, as being “contrary to reason”. Thus was laid the foundation of the contemporary secular state. At the same time, many of the old “moral rules” championed by Christianity were retained, to the extent supportable by reason as such. That’s the essence of why contemporary “liberals”, who are the enthusiastic heirs of the Enlightenment for the most part, often see themselves as being deeply moral – they are following *certain* of the moral teachings which the West has inherited from its Christian period to the extent that these do not contradict reason, or the idea of the supremacy of the individual and the individual’s autonomy – something that follows from the exaltation of reason to the degree of being the sole arbiter of truth. At the same time, it explains the degree of what many “conservatives” would view as “moral decay” in the contemporary society – because, following human reason as the sole arbiter of moral truth, it goes without saying that much of what used to pass for “moral behavior” can be subject to disagreement by reasoned debate – it’s these areas that the contemporary liberal does not seek to regulate, because the moral rules in these spaces are subject to reasonable debate, and reason does not provide an obvious, universal answer – in such cases, according to this way of thinking, moral rules are something of a “jump ball”, and therefore should be left to the individual autonomy to be resolved. Hence the enthusiasm of liberals for the “social gospel” and “social morality” and their famous disinterest in any universal *personal* morality on issues such as sexuality.
The problem for the West, therefore, is that liberalism directly follows from virtually all of Western history for the past 1,000 years. It’s not an aberration – it’s the logical outcome of the developments of the past 1,000 years, and particularly of the Protestant Reformation and its aftermath. …

Fundamentalism, then, is fundamentally modernist in its assumptions about the nature of truth, … by claiming that the text meets the standards for truth claims accepted by the secular world – the scientific method and positivism.

It’s for all of these reasons that I believe strongly that the only “cure” for liberalism and scientism and positivism and secularism and so-on in the West is for the West to turn its back on itself, and choose a new path. A path that is not based on the developments of Western culture of the last 1,000 years. I do not think that this will happen, however – it’s too much to ask of any culture, really, and particularly one with the spectacular degree of self-hatred and self-annihilating tendencies as the contemporary West has. But the issue certainly is not skin-deep … it is *bone*-deep in the West. The West *is* liberalism, full stop. It can be nothing else, unless and until it gives up on being the “West”, and embraces again what it once was many centuries ago.


http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/06/28/whats-wrong-with-white-nationalism/#comments