Amerika

Online stuff is great for radical symbolic change. The computer audience unlike normies understands that you re-assign values to variables and events change in response. For example, diversity goes from a “1” to a “0” and soon it vanishes from our future.

However, online people do not understand that the real world does not work through variables, but something more like a champagne tower, those big pyramids of wine glasses where you fill the one at the top center and it trickles down into all of the others.

Online works by induction; reality works by abduction, or understanding an optimized mean more than boundaries to each category. When you say “policeman,” you think of the best average policeman you can, not the fat ones or tall skinny ones.

Most people do not understand that the 14A fundamentally shifted this country from low-government/supply-side natural rights to big-government/demand-side civil rights (also called human rights).

For example, lots of people like to claim that evil politicians, evil rich people, and evil educated elites are bringing in the immivasion. Maybe those are the people implementing the policy, but they are merely following civil rights law:

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Convention”) and its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (“1967 Protocol”) prohibit the United States from returning refugees to persecution, and the 1980 Refugee Act set up a formal process for applying for asylum in the United States.

The barriers imposed by IIRIRA are significant. They include a filing deadline on asylum applications, which prevents genuine refugees from receiving asylum if they cannot prove they have filed the application within one year of arriving in the United States. IIRIRA also established summary deportation procedures, including “expedited removal” and “reinstatement of removal,” which block asylum seekers from even applying for asylum or accessing an immigration court removal hearing, unless they first pass through a screening process. Finally, IIRIRA imposed “mandatory detention” on certain immigrants, including asylum seekers who are placed in expedited removal proceedings upon their arrival at a US port of entry.

In this case, Bill O’Clinton designed the IIRIRA to save civil rights law by limiting its excesses. O’Clinton was a master at shaving off the abuses so that the bad policy could remain law, in many areas. This was fitting for a lawyer who was constantly under investigation.

But the big point is that without this law, the excesses imposed by international human rights law would have remained, and that the US is still bound by those globalist/internationalist laws because of the treaties signed in the wake of WW2.

That becomes important when you consider how under civil rights, government has shifted from a distant protector to a micro-managing nanny administrative-managerial state that controls all parts of our lives:

Roughly 100 years ago, the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt transformed the government’s role in American life. A generation of experts brought new ideas of electrification, education, and economics to the country.

This veneration was furthered by Kennedy’s assemblage of “the best and the brightest” and Johnson’s “Great Society” reformers.

Government no longer exists to protect you, but to shape you into the perfect tool for maximum productivity, since that way government can keep reaping the taxes and paying out Keynesian stimulus which is how it buys votes.

Democracy is, in this sense, its own industry.

The push toward shaping people with science into perfect producers so that society can fund itself comes to us from scientific management, or the idea that science can shape people into interchangeable parts for use in the factories of our bureaucracy and industry:

Or, to state the same thing in a different way: that the greatest prosperity can exist only as the result of the greatest possible productivity of the men and machines of the establishment — that is, when each man and each machine are turning out the largest possible output; because unless your men and your machines are daily turning out more work than others around you, it is clear that competition will prevent your paying higher wages to your workmen than are paid to those of your competitor. And what is true as to the possibility of paying high wages in the case of two companies competing close beside one another is also true as to whole districts of the country and even as to nations which are in competition. In a word, that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of maximum productivity.

If the above reasoning is correct, it follows that the most important object of both the workmen and the management should be the training and development of each individual in the establishment, so that he can do (at his fastest pace and with the maximum of efficiency) the highest class of work for which his natural abilities fit him.

Notice this jobs-reverence. The whole point is to be productive, therefore humans exist to have jobs, instead of jobs existing to keep humans alive (ideally, just the good ones). Humans design replacements for nature because they see nature as bad.

This mirrors the notions of dualistic religions, which see reality as a trash can worth setting on fire in order to gain a better life after death. This negative outlook makes their believers into despondent and despairing self-destructive people.

It invokes the debate of nature versus nurture, with liberals seeing nature as evil and conservatives seeing nurture as insufficient:

Hobbes and his contemporary, John Locke, described competing visions of man and his need for society but agreed, largely, that society exists to protect and promote order, to safeguard life (in Hobbes’s case) plus liberty and property (in Locke’s), from man’s otherwise animal instincts, which would entice him to deprive his fellow men of these.

This era also gave birth to a third, competing notion of man and society, a notion that inverted the Hobbesian view of human nature, depicting pre-societal man as happy and satisfied and civilization as the means of his oppression. This third view of man and society was advanced principally by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, often regarded as the intellectual father of the political left.

To Rousseau, society—the opposite of the state of nature—was and is problematic. Its creation was not an honorable endeavor undertaken to secure for man the liberties guaranteed him by his creator. It was, rather, the means by which the powerful accumulated more power and, as a result, was the source of all man’s troubles and worries. This, then, is the heart of the Rousseauian—and the leftist—endeavor: constantly to change culture, society, and institutions specifically to dictate better (i.e., more “natural”) behavior.

If you like how things work in nature, which requires understanding that they are designed to be resilient more than fair, you appreciate the idea of holding back government, popularity, and commerce so that people can have natural lives.

Those who dislike nature see it as necessary to have government to intervene and “correct” the inequalities of nature so that we can experience progress toward a Utopia of equality.

Ours laws under civil rights — arising from the 14A — become the precedent to which other laws defer. Now treaties are added to the mix, too. Instead of trying as O’Clinton did to manage this situation, we have to rip out the root and repeal civil rights laws.

Tags: administrative state, civil rights, natural rights, scientific management, socialism