Translate

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

The ultimate conservative position


That is, the position I think conservatives are going to arrive at, ultimately. (The Republican Party, having ceased conserving anything for some time now, will not.)

The perennial political question is what to do with the left side IQ/time-preference distribution. After all, we don't need to bother with what to do about people on the right side distribution. They don't need government; they fund government. They police themselves. As Sheriff Bell puts it in No Country For Old Men,
It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people cant be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.
Cormac McCarthy has read Plato.

The debate continues to this day. It's practically all that's debated in domestic politics, anywhere, anytime.

The welfare state solves nothing. We have tried it in enough iterations to arrive at the conclusion: taxing K-selected producers to support r-selected consumers results in less of the former and more of the latter. The welfare state ends in universal impoverishment as the K-selected withdraw or shut down. The left-side tail is literally devolving thanks to welfare.

Free trade was supposed to equalize global living standards, but the Western prole class is getting absolutely creamed, and the Third World remains corrupt and violent.

Vox Popoli has posted again on free trade, reiterating his view that there's no such thing. I'm coming to the same conclusion.

So what is to be done with the left-side tail? I'd say abolish welfare, abolish the minimum wage, abolish the income tax, and protect the employment prospects and cost of living of our less endowed citizens with immigration restrictions and tariffs. Romaine lettuce will cost more, there will be some sclerotic industries, but you are going to pay at the cash register or you are going to pay welfare bureaucrats and their constituencies. One of these two is less dystopic and dysgenic.

Anybody got any better ideas?

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why not just pay the r selected not to breed?

I mean even at $100k per head it would be a bargain.

Anonymous said...

What you also pay for in our current system is not only the housing and feeding of illegals, but an entire, multigenerational system of welfare culture, and by that I don't just mean the WIC, Section 8, EBT, and other stuff like that, but a list of the deeper things that don't make it to the ledgers of autistic libertarians: a loss of a work ethic, a serious deskilling of the workforce, a loss of faith in our own people's ability to feed themselves and to be productive, crime in all of its forms, including the "underground economy" that brings severed heads to Mexico and shootouts here, a fatter, more sedentary people and their attendant health needs, a spiritual sickness that seeps through every facet of this society. There's no need for me to list it all- the readers on this post know it. The problem is that somehow people just won't discuss the latter list- it's the former that is always discussed. This is where so many pundits have really lost the thread- the cultural issues that are staring in everyone's face but no one will discuss.

Gyan said...

Is goodness defined by IQ?

Bert said...

Oh fuck off Gyan.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Is goodness defined by IQ?

Welcome back, Gyan. 'Preciate ya begging the questions nobody asked.

The issue under discussion is how best to care for people who barely make their own way in life.

Toddy Cat said...

"Is goodness defined by IQ?"

No, but intelligence is.

Anonymous said...

"Is goodness defined by IQ?"

Probably even the rich wouldn't mind sec. 8 residents living in their neighborhoods if sec. 8 folks weren't violent and abusive. The real problem is the crime. Yes, we are annoyed at dependency, but as Ferguson, MO shows US, the problem is the crime, violence and general destructiveness.

Anonymous said...

Citizen's Dividend apportioned via revenue from Georgist land rent tax. All law-abiding adult citizens get it, under the condition that they provide the necessities of life for themselves and their children (food, health insurance, etc). Everyone gets the same amount whether rich or poor, whether you have no kids or seven. Even more eugenic pre-conditions could be introduced to the arrangement, but would probably be unnecessary.

Obviously, the entire welfare state would be abolished under such a scheme.

Ingemar said...

I don't know how to answer this question.

Since you once lamented the fact that European slave owners didn't sterilize their males like the Turks did, I thought you'd have some answers.

Of course such a course of action runs afoul of that whole "Bible" thing so maybe the best thing to do is to discard religion and obtain the Will to Power so that we (or, I) could become Superm(e/a)n.

Toddy Cat said...

I didn't know that there was anything about either sterilization or welfare in the Bible. I must own a defective edition.

The Voice Of Reason said...

The solution, of course, is for the armchair warriors here to practice what they preach. I mean, if America is harm’s way, you all have a DUTY to protect it from her “enemies”.

Go Breivek! When we look at the magic eight ball, the future is stained with blood between blacks and whites and conservatives and liberals, right?

So, who do you target first, the children of liberals to snuff out future degenerates, or the elderly who are liberals because they have the “wisdom”?

That is the CHRISTIAN response to the ultimate conservative position.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Now that you've gotten that off your chest, I look forward to you actually engaging the points under discussion.

The Voice Of Reason said...

You asked, "so what is to be done with the left-side tail?"

I offered a legitimate response. I'm simply echoing Tom Kratman.

So, who do you take out first? The elderly liberals (the knowledge) or the children of liberals (the future)?

We are already a decadent land, an immoral country. And liberals (and, it goes without saying, women) ruin everything as evil-doers.

So, if liberals are evil, it is justified to kill them. That's what God wants. So listen to Him.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

I don't know Tom Kratman, but looking at his Wiki page, I doubt that's his position.

Hysterical bitchiness is frowned upon here. Please tighten up.

Your Kakistocracy said...

AG you're requesting more than his programming can accommodate.

Here's how this play-doh parley works...

There are enormous problems that must be addressed.

So I guess that means you're going to start killing people to address them, huh? Huh?


If no, then: That's right, you won't do shit, so STFU.

If yes, then: Murderers!

Their operators consider this to be clever.

Of course what they do not consider is ever applying this infantile rhetoric to those actually inclined toward option #2.

The solution for you Ferguson protestors is to practice what you preach. I mean if whites are actually
cutting down your innocent children like grass you have a DUTY to protect them from their enemies.

Go Zebra murders!

So who do you target first, the children of white conservative oppressors, or the elderly who erected the system of "white privilege?"


This to be asked at safe distance for fear of a likely too-honest response: We'll start with you, white boy.

The Voice Of Reason said...

"I don't know Tom Kratman, but looking at his Wiki page, I doubt that's his position."

First, as a contributor to Vox Day, you are familiar with Kratman's handiwork. Claiming otherwise makes you look foolish.

Second, Wiki is unreliable.

So, let us go to the heart of the matter. Tom stated, "The solution, of course, is to kill or exile progs and nail feral black common law felon teenagers up as a sharp reminder of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Same for feral whites, of course."

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/09/repatriation-is-off-table.html?commentPage=2


Hysterical bitchiness aside on Tom's part, do you agree with his assessment?

The Voice Of Reason said...

Your Kakistocracy...

Nigger, please. The question is NOT exclusively designed for one group; nay, it is for ALL ideologies to consider.

Tom, however, put the target in his crosshairs. The question still remains--babies or old folks?


"So who do you target first, the children of white conservative oppressors, or the elderly who erected the system of "white privilege?"

Again, the blacks have a tough choice, just like the Christians, just like the Muzzies. So, what say you--Babies or old folks?

And you can wipe the salivation from your chin.

Your Kakistocracy said...

Sure it's for ALL ideologies to consider. That's why you drones present it to one exclusively. Get in the NBPs' faces and demand an answer--on behalf of ALL peoples, of course.

Tom put the target in his crosshairs

"Tom?" That's a cute name for the mouse in your pocket. Though there is no one on this site but you obliged to speak on his behalf.

What say you?
Depo provera for your "hos."

Your Kakistocracy said...

Question:
What are rational policies for managing the left-half of society's bell curve?

The left half responds:
Tell me who "Tom" would murder.

Thus illuminating the original question.

The Voice Of Reason said...

" That's why you drones present it to one exclusively."

The drone you refer to is Tom Kratman, renowned sci-fi author, who presented one side of the coin. I merely submitted his statement into evidence.


"Though there is no one on this site but you obliged to speak on his behalf."

I am simply making an inquiry regarding whether or not you find this philosophy intellectually intriguing or morally appalling.


"What are rational policies for managing the left-half of society's bell curve?"

Left-half, right-half, doesn't matter. The shitstorm is coming. By 2033, America is going to be at war, a house divided. Blacks vs whites, low class vs. high class...it's going to get ugly. So, why not accelerate matters, right? Liberals are evil. Christians have the moral high ground. Thus, there is justification to start the purge now to avoid a complete meltdown. Makes sense!


"Tell me who "Tom" would murder."

The progs. You can read, right? It's all right there at 7:42 p.m.

Again, the blacks have a tough choice, just like the Christians, just like the Muzzies. So, what say you--Babies or old folks?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Will somebody please go get Tom Kratman?

Gyan said...

there are plenty of low-iq people that are non-violent, non-criminal and actually are more decent than many high-iq people.
For example, people in Indian and mid-eastern slums.

Can our host point to any causation going from low-iq to criminality and obnoxiousness?

The Voice Of Reason said...

Your response, AG, demands dialectic, rather than rhetoric.

Again, the blacks have a tough choice, just like the Christians, just like the Muzzies. So, what say you--Babies or old folks?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Lower T-levels inherent to their particular ethnic group? Chew on that for a bit.

Otherwise, low IQ is abundantly correlated with poor impulse control and criminal behavior. Contrary to the myths from pop entertainment, criminals are generally violent dimwits, not insane geniuses.

All that being said, you are throwing your usual hissy fit over a question that nobody has actually asked. The point being debated is not whether we should march the low-IQ into the ovens, but how best to provide them a dignified life. You apparently lack any constructive input on that point.

Gyan said...

"how best to provide them a dignified life."
Certainly not by erecting a Servile State.

Why are the examples of low-IQ poor countries with low crime-rate ignored?

Bert said...

Fuck off Gyan.

"Again, the blacks have a tough choice, just like the Christians, just like the Muzzies. So, what say you--Babies or old folks?"

Oh yeah, I know you. You're that shithead from Vox Day who argues with everyone for no real reason. I suppose trolls will be trolls.

The Voice Of Reason said...

Ernie says Hi, Bert,


AG, for someone who talks shit, you certainly can't handle it when it is shoved right back at you.

"The solution, of course, is to kill or exile progs and nail feral black common law felon teenagers up as a sharp reminder of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Same for feral whites, of course."

It's a really simple question. Do you agree or disagree with this course of action, regardless if the group doing the killing are conservatives, liberals, socialists, atheists, etc.?

Tom Kratman nearly wet his panties saying "Yes, progs should be killed".

Ok, fine. Let's murder progs. Where do you start, the children or the elderly?

Ok, fine. Let's murder darkies. Where do you start, the children or the elderly.

Etc. etc. etc.

Your Kakistocracy said...

Rainman continued through the night, I see. Hilarious.

Babies or olds

Tough choice

Morally appalling

Doesn't matter

Nigger please


His summary.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Why are the examples of low-IQ poor countries with low crime-rate ignored?

What are you purporting to show by the example, other than that sub-continental Asians are generally less prone to physical violence? India is filthy and corrupt, and has plenty of appalling crimes.

Has welfare worked out anywhere? All markers of social pathology among the poor are worse since the Great Society.

The Voice Of Reason said...

Your Kakistocracy...

Dialectic, not rhetoric, please. I know, I know, I am asking a Herculean effort on your part.


"India is filthy and corrupt, and has plenty of appalling crimes."

Does that include the murdering of one's ideological enemies? I imagine, as an alleged expert in the area of IQ and T-levels and r/K selection, you are able to shed considerable light. Do those filthy Indians kill the kids or the old folks?

Anonymous said...

Do those filthy Indians kill the kids or the old folks?


They apparently like to kill kids.

Your Kakistocracy said...

lol dialectic Tyrone wants.

Q: Anything
A: Babies or olds? Babies or olds? Babies or olds? Ad infinitum....

Youth dialectic.

The Voice Of Reason said...

[Laughs] Kakistocracy, will a virtual handkercheif help? You're drooling uncontrollably.

At least anony at 9:16 a.m. stepped up to the plate.


Ok, ok, I see you and your BF are not going to respond whether you agree with the solution as to "what is to be done with the left-side tail" offered by one of the greats in Science Fiction today.

I'm not surprised. You lack the intellectual horsepower to pull it off.


Finis...

Your Kakistocracy said...

It's interesting that, despite the "handkercheif," he didn't display any actual awareness of dialectic.

Resolution of disagreement through rational discussion? Search for truth? Laf.

Perhaps he and "Tom" will continue their search elsewhere.


The Anti-Gnostic said...

It would be nice to get some actual engagement instead of incoherent drive-by's. All I get are scolds like Gyan and bipolars, and all you right-wingers stockpiling the Zyklon-B.

A.B. Prosper said...

Gyan's point is a bit lateral and trollish but marginally valid.

The answer is yes, to a high degree goodness or a least the ability to operate within a high complexity society which is to a high degree the same thing is related to High IQ

Smarter people and those with better impulse control (this excludes sociopaths) are better for society and are therefor good.

As for a solution, the 12:32 anon has it right.

We are already entering a post labor era and sooner than later a sufficient number of jobs can be done better and cheaper by machines to implode the current connection between work and living.

Frankly if only well off people with 120 IQ's or people that are little better than servants or playthings of the rich,modernity is over.

You choices to prevent this aren't all that great,

#1 a welfare and regulatory state designed to provide "jobs" for men combined with strong incentives to not hire women would be conservative, reactionary really but its a sclerotic mess more akin to some kind of Chinese Tianxia bureaucracy than any kind of modern or mid 20th century Western state

#2 Eliminate the welfare state and accept the consequences in terms of economic loss (the State is 40% of the US economy) unrest,crime, violence and diseases. You might get revolution on the other side as well and remember virulent universalist memes like Islam and Communism are still flourishing

#3 Open engineered population decline. The first part of that is graduated repatriation of some 50 million people and closing the borders. New immigration would require an IQ test, special science skills (no art visas) and be strictly limited to 5k per year.

After you do basically as 12:32 suggested, pay people minimum wage plus health care and whatever benefits not to reproduce.

Women get either Norplant or an IUD and regular check and men get Vasagel (its in testing and assuming its safe) or its successor. After 10 years, you can get sterilized for free.

This scenario sounds monstrous and probably is but its not as big a disaster as you might think.

You see in the event public order can be maintained in a #2 scenario one highly probable outcome would be a Japanese style fertility rate anyway.

A semi-permanent 1.3 fertility could go on in the US for many decades with little harm if we had closed borders and in the end say the US ended up with say only 60 million decently productive citizens we'd be on par with UK population wise which isn't bad.

However it would be resisted heavily,

1st this would cause every growth based business, business that depends on youth and pension scheme to implode.

2nd Most religious organizations are hungry for converts and highly natal.

3rd Baring heavier use of automation, the military would not have anywhere near its capabilities since it would lack young people and manpower.

4th The cheap labor crowd for jobs that can't be automated would be out of luck

5th This bothers the ethical sense of many people. Its probably more moral than no welfare state and so long as its voluntary, is ethical it just feels wrong.

However it would end up the Conservative and stable posture.,

Bert said...

tl:dr

Compress your thoughts dumbass.

Anonymous said...

"After you do basically as 12:32 suggested, pay people minimum wage plus health care and whatever benefits not to reproduce.

Women get either Norplant or an IUD and regular check and men get Vasagel (its in testing and assuming its safe) or its successor. After 10 years, you can get sterilized for free."


Calling Margaret Sanger, Calling Margaret Sanger...

A.B. Prosper said...

Bert, if you didn't read it, why do I care what you think of it?

A.B. Prosper said...

Bert, if you didn't read it, why do I care what you think of it?

A.B. Prosper said...

eh, sorry for the double post.

As the anon at 5:06. Well yeah but so? I did say it was pretty monstrous

Anyway there are several strands of conservatism, some more natal than others.

The core assumption that eugenics is wrong and that moar babees is the "Conservative" posture is questionable.

Most of what see seems to espouse if Wikipedia is to be believed is almost doctrinaire for most Neo-Reactionaires anyway , i.e soft eugenics, human bio-diversity , thinking that masturbation and homosexuality are bad things and best avoided.

I've seen all of these positions articulated by Conservatives and NR alike

Even her non racialist attitude, that is wanting Blacks such as W.E.B DuBois to work for the betterment of their own community fits in well

Frankly I think the disdain for her ideas comes from an ideological hijacking by the anti-abortion crowd and the Lefts fondness for her and ought to be reconsidered.

Abortion is not pleasant but unless you have religious scruples or racial demographic reasons, both understandable its generally a good thing for society as in the cold equation lower quality babies with less prospects tend to be aborted more often than quality kids

Anonymous said...


"The core assumption that eugenics is wrong and that moar babees is the "Conservative" posture is questionable."

Man does not have the liberty to forcible sterilize someone against their will.


"Frankly I think the disdain for her ideas comes from an ideological hijacking."

The disdain from ripping a woman's uterus out or cutting off a man's testicles stems from its utter inhumanity.


"cold equation lower quality babies with less prospects tend to be aborted more often than quality kids"

That may be true, but it is not your decision to make.

A.B. Prosper said...

12:06 I never suggested sterilization should be mandatory and to the best of my knowledge Sanger espoused voluntary eugenics, not compulsory eugenics which is a separate issue.

Now I can grant you that its unpleasant to consider paying people to not have kids but what option is better?

Do we keep giving people money and continuing the same problems or do something else.

Now its possible that there is a slippery slope but again its a separate issue.

Anonymous said...

Margaret Sanger argued for mandatory state-sponsored sterilization programs.



“not compulsory eugenics which is a separate issue.”


And it is an issue that is morally abhorrent.



“Now I can grant you that its unpleasant to consider paying people to not have kids but what option is better?”

Absolutely, some people are not ready financially or emotionally to have children, and may even view children as the means to receiving “free stuff”. Regardless, government does not have the liberty to unilaterally decide who is “eligible” or “ineligible” to have children.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

government does not have the liberty to unilaterally decide who is “eligible” or “ineligible” to have children.

If you are going to socialize the costs of raising your children on to the taxpayers, then don't be surprised when net tax-payors demand a say in your reproductive practices.

Feeble-minded women have sexual desires and can be easily seduced or coerced into intercourse. There is a good argument they should be sterilized to avoid pregnancy and children they are not equipped to handle.

Not saying that's the answer, but the debate is more complex than you're making it.

Anonymous said...

"There is a good argument they should be sterilized to avoid pregnancy and children they are not equipped to handle."

Then you are sleeping with Satan by acknowledging the legitimacy of the socialistic and demonic practices espoused by Margaret Sanger and her cronies. Because the one entity designed to handle such an undertaking is...THE STATE! So much for your enmity and disdain toward centralized authority.

Besides, who gives YOU and your cronies the liberty to make those decisions? How do you propose to put forth this plan in light of the immutable fact that men and women have the liberty to procreate?

You see, you are making a play at utopia, which I thought was the exclusive domain of progs.

For all purposes, you ought to join forces with those radical Muslims who echo the same sentiments. Two peas in a pod...


"If you are going to socialize the costs of raising your children on to the taxpayers, then don't be surprised when net tax-payors demand a say in your reproductive practices."

Praytell, please show me this wellspring of American taxpayer agitation that today advocates forced sterilization of "undesirables".

Anonymous said...

"Feeble-minded women have sexual desires and can be easily seduced or coerced into intercourse."

Perhaps the PUA's ought to keep their dicks in their pants rather than take to heart the advice offered by Roissy and his cousins over at Return Of Kings.

"Pump and dump", baby!

Harold Lloyd said...

I have a house. It has a door that locks. If I want to keep people out of my house I lock the door. I do not wage an elaborate campaign directed at potential criminals attempting to shame them from entering my house. I don't do that because its not effective relative to keeping my door locked. However if I had government funded insurance which replaced the items taken from my house, I may think differently.