Antinomy/politics

From the page: "Short notes and observations by Ilkka Kokkarinen." This is a blog by the computer scientist who used to write the delightfully infamous Sixteen Volts until he was apparently silenced by the powers that be. This blog isn't as controversial, and the comments are shorter. Still, he finds interesting ideas to share.

If you are doing your democratic duty and trying to rationally discuss public policy, you should be aware of the things that are in this report. At least look at the main graphs.

Conservative politics are divided into two broad camps: neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. Neocons, as their leadership of the disaster in Iraq demonstrates, aren't really conservatives. They are Jacobins. Paleoconservatives are closer to what the mainstream of the American conservative movement was like before the neocons rose to power. The American Conservative is intended to have a paleoconservative viewpoint. In this it well succeeds.

I myself can't really be described as a conservative. I'm more of an empiricist with libertarian leanings; call me a free thinker. But I find paleoconservatives to be more congenial countrymen than I do neoconservatives or modern liberals. At least, outside matters of religion, paleoconservatives make an effort to examine all of the data and tell the truth about what those data indicate. For this they deserve commendation.

A case in point is Steve Sailer, a frequent contributor to the magazine. The man is often tarred by his opponents and the invincibly ignorant as a racist. I have read a great deal of his work, however, and I can state without reservation that I don't find Sailer racist in the least. He simply states the truth about the findings of mainstream psychology (and old-school physical anthropology.) He then makes policy recommendations based on those findings. Such courage is rare in media infested with public intellectuals constantly looking over their shoulders in fear of accidentally transgressing the strictures of political correctness. We could use more like Sailer.

Of course, another example of such courage is the founder of the magazine, Patrick Buchanan. Buchanan is an unreconstructed Roman Catholic, so some of his ideas are constrained by religious taboos, but he is well educated, intelligent, and seeks the truth. I find myself disagreeing with his conclusions 40 or 50 percent of the time, but that's OK. Considering the reasons why I disagree with him is in itself enlightening.

The site is worth a regular visit.

I have a hypothesis that a few tens of thousands persons--at most--rule the United States. These persons include the politicians and their staffs, of course, but also religious leaders, top general officers, presidents of major universities, leaders of charitable foundations, and, most especially, corporate officers and boards of directors. This site provides an excellent tool for graphically displaying the interlocking boards of directors that have such major influence on the U. S.

This is a nice primer about power structure research, that is, research on the ruling class. The site contains many links to other sites useful for said research.