Culture and The Sovereign


Some of you are undoubtedly familiar with John Austin, particularly if you took any classes on political or legal philosophy in college or post-graduate classes. For those who are less familiar with him, he is regarded as really the founder of legal positivism, though much of his theory was modified and ‘modernized’ by H.L.A. Hart in the 1950’s. Little is discussed in most academia about Austin and Hart, but these are perhaps the two most influential legal theorists to current US jurisprudence today. The utilitarian school of jurisprudence they developed has largely dominated law schools for the last three or four decades in the majority of the country. Austin represented a seismic shift away from the 18th century jurisprudence of Blackstone and other legal philosophers by rejecting the practical idea of natural law theory. He was contemporaries with Jeremy Betham, John Stuart Mill and his father, and Thomas Carlyle. Those familiar with Carlyle, particularly his Heroes, in my opinion will find him echoed in Yockey. Like Carlyle, Austin was influenced by the German school of philosophy, yet another victim to the fusion of Roman imperialism and Hegelian monistic thought. Austin really represented the legal application of utilitarianism, with minor differences. Bentham and others developed a philosophical framework which Austin subsequently developed a jurisprudential approach to. While not entirely misguided, his analytical approach and desire for internal consistency of codified law is admirable, his positivism approach to law leaves much to be desired.  Bentham in particular seems to be the closest ideologically to Austin, the moral compass of both being the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ principle. Couched within this context is Austin’s  most recognized principle, that of the sovereign. Below is included a relevant definition of sovereign in the context of what we now call command theory.


If a determinate human superior not in a habit of obedience to a like superior receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society…” John Austin, Lectures on JurisprudenceLecture VI p. 226


oczars_01

Austin has a flawed view of what law should strive to be, but he is correct about the actual implementation of it. The reality of whether a law is just or not does not change whether it is enforced by the sovereign. His purpose and implementation of the law is wrong, but the realpolitik aspect of his theory is correct. While discussing Austin and Bentham with a friend, a thought occurred to me that a vast majority of the US population has cultural as well as political sovereigns. The political sovereigns are quite evident to all, whether using Austin’s definition or Mao’s. Generally, the people who will send men with guns to come kill or imprison you if you don’t do what they say. Austin’s definition of habitual obedience without obedience to another can also be applied in a cultural sense. While soft power, there is little doubt that the Fourth Estate exerts sovereignty over a large percentage of the population. Similarly, the entertainment industry and the supporting industry exert massive cultural control. In Austin’s sense of the word, many of these are sovereigns and nearly all can be classified in Hart’s more broad definition of a sovereign by proxy.

Andrew Breitbart famously stated that ‘politics is downstream of culture.’ The homosexual meme created in the 90s was given an enormous megaphone by the cultural sovereigns and bore fruit. The most over the top estimate of homosexuals in the US is 8% by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and the more accurate estimate is around 3%. That fraction of the US population did not manage to organically turn our view of it as an acceptable lifestyle from 38% in 1992 to 51% in 2002. Gallup did a poll in which American’s overestimated the homosexual population by a factor of nearly seven. Such a feat did not happen without massive inundation by popular media, sitcoms, movies, news media and advertisements ranging from beer ads, to Pepsi to phone companies. The point here is that a minority opinion was changed into a majority through propaganda in a decade. We are seeing an identical process repeated with transgender people, who comprise an even smaller fraction of the US at an estimated .3-.6%. Regardless of your stance on the issue, it illustrates the influence of the cultural sovereigns.

runner_web

Those failing basic comprehension will be saying ‘I don’t believe none o dat propaganda, ain’t no tellin me what to do!’ Using Austin’s rubric of habitual obedience by the bulk of society, they are exactly that…sovereigns. The operative word here is bulk of society. The venom directed at the alt-right by the cultural sovereigns can be contributed to the cultural regicide they are engaged in. The power that the word racist exerted over Baby Boomers and Gen Xers has diminished considerably. The ‘fake news’ meme has directly attacked any credibility and relevance to current events the media once had. The gravitas of Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw lying to our faces with somber expressions and expensive suits has become the equivalent of a muzzleloader in the cultural arms race. It’s worth noting that just as the next generation of warfare has favored smaller, pseudo-independent guerrillas, so has the cultural war. For those of you who remember the influence of SNL in the 70’s, consider that 4chan and /pol with no budget have driven the modern political discourse far more than an iconic show on a major multi-billion dollar network.

The culture war has continued to rage, Berkley and Auburn the opening skirmishes of what may very well turn into a hot conflict. The legacy media has taken serious body blows in the last year, but continues to command obedience from a significant minority, possibly a majority of the population. We need to have the situational awareness to understand even conservatives still remain hooked to their respective sovereign, notably Fox News. We must not make the mistake of projecting our mindset onto others, and realize many still consider information emanating from the TV to still be somewhat trustworthy. The entertainment industry is faring considerably better than the legacy news media, and continues to inundate the willing with messages directly contravening reality and freedom. Conservatives may never turn on MSNBC or read HuffPo, but have no problem taking their child to Zootopia, a movie with blatantly communist subtext. The sovereign states that we must subject ourselves to this sports program or that movie or this music to be relevant and belong. Our obedience to that is what grants them the status of sovereign, and the majority of the time we go so far as to pay for a hostile entity to come into our home and exert their influence.

Knowledge of the problem is half the battle, one many of us have been cognizant of for many years. The other half of the battle is actually committing cultural regicide. Mockery, skepticism and satire are powerful weapons and one needs only to look at the Shia LaBeouf ‘He will not divide us’ debacle to see how effective it is. We all have coworkers, family and friends who may very well be allies and totally ignorant to the fact that the battle is not simply a political one. In our interactions we need to be actively seeking to undermine, discredit and ridicule the cultural sovereigns. The power they exert is consensual in nature and can be mollified far easier than the state’s hard power. Additionally, we cannot simply leave a cultural power vacuum. It does no good to destroy without a plan to replace what has been destroyed. Yet another reason why developing a viable community and counter-culture is important. Save the negativity and biting commentary for those actually destroying the country and our people. The outcome of this cultural war will likely determine whether freedom and those willing to defend it to the fullest measure have a base of popular support. Political and physical retribution will come, and now is an excellent time to degrade your enemies ability to demonize and marginalize you. Every one of us enjoys the ability to communicate with more people than our ancestors every had. Let’s make the best of it and dethrone every last one of the kings of culture.

 

Jesse James

 

 

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Culture and The Sovereign

  1. Minor nit-pick

    “For those of you who remember the influence of SNL in the 60’s and 70’s,”

    SNL didn’t start until 1975.

    Like

    1. My mistake. Haha, far before my time but I loved the earlier decades. I do remember people thinking Chevy Chase’s portrayal of Ford had a measurable impact on the election. For some reason I had it starting in ’68-’69…the one thing I didn’t double check. 🙂

      Like

  2. I need to re-read this when I’m sober, but in my semi-stupor state of mind, all I can say is “them that has the might, makes right”. We may not like it, but root hog or die-that is the natural law of man……

    Like

  3. Ahh… The question of authority.

    The (classic) definition of sovereign is “supreme authority.”

    When King Charles I was on trial for his life he demanded of the Calvinist judges, “By what power?” was he being tried. (Kings are sovereign; Sovereigns are immune from judgment.)

    The revolutionist Calvinist judge responded, “The people.”

    “The people” in the gallery (who still had some diluted Catholic sense despite over 100 years of Protestant acid dissolving religion in England) rioted at that blatant and blasphemous usurpation and had to be cleared from the court at pike-point.

    Note that Charles I did not ask, “By *whose* authority?” His Highness knew neither the court nor “the people” it blasphemously appealed to had any authority over Him whatsoever.

    “…habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society…”

    And here we are. A “government” of “the people.”

    S//

    Like

  4. John Austin considered the Parliament the Sovereign, habitually obeying none yet itself obeyed while issuing enforceable commands to all. His framework is most likely due to the common law precedent noted above.

    I do think Baron Patrick Devlin would be good here however- recognize what creates moral fabric and thus disintegrates it over time. Which brings us to the question noted about the real homosexual population and the numbers misrepresented. That ‘acceptance rate’ comes from the General Sociological Survey. Despite what ‘other’ polling data may claim- as anyone who’s worked with the GSS can attest, the sample pool is both relatively small, heavily skewered to favor urban areas and generally regarded as a not wholly accurate data point (but ahhhh do they love those numbers when it favors a certain opinion…). Opinion is only regarded as an indicator, nothing more, without being a 100% accurate one at that.

    It must also be noted in support of your assertion that the media used this data to, in effect, ‘deem it passed’ in the parliament of public opinion- wholly unsupported, mind you- replete with celebrity mouthpieces to sell you the bill lock and stock. There has been no check and balance on the fourth estate until this point.

    The pendulum swings both ways; Devlin gave no timeline on the disintegration of those moral fibers nor those indicators aside from people no longer obedient to mores. What he left out was that the fabric is recreated…by what is Sovereign.

    Like

  5. Without the political polytheism created along with the power given by the instrument of administrative tyranny the US Constitution created, none of those latter day political scientists would have a leg to stand on.
    The moment they took God and Scripture out of fealty to republican form of government aka will of the governed aka the compact theory of small individual nation states, everything fought and bled for prior to 1778 became a dead cause as far as the political class was concerned.
    Looks to me from my position it has been a down hill slope to today. In other words the USC worked, still is working, exactly as intended.
    And all those guys like Austin leave two crucial things out of their theories, Scripture and will of the sovereign governed individual, that those who went to Philadelphia with the mandate to amend the Articles of Confederation, over stepped their bounds, their job was not to create a system of polytheism and administrative centralism over the member states of the confederation. All the proof required is the war of northern aggression and yankeedom’s pogrom upon the South that has never stopped to today. If Liberty was the object, why aren’t those later political theory guys telling any of us directly without dissimulation or waffling why we have the administrative leviathan breathing down our throats today? All those guys who fought and won against the greatest empire this world has ever seen didn’t bleed and die just to jump right back into the same empire of administrative tyranny, seriously!
    I believe Blackstone, Montesquieu, Mason, and Henry where uncannily prescient, Henry summed it up perfectly in that he was even more correct than he knew, about giving power now is almost impossible to take back without use of arms, without obedience to scripture as a prerequisite for public office, those arms and the natural right to them he and Blackstone spoke of, along with Montesquieu’s theory on size of a nation state having critical effect on personal and a states liberty, would be all that has stood in the way of the political system of polytheism, how the gods of money and power has usurped the entire form of republican form of government promised with ratification of the USC.

    Thus expedient political defenestration CA mentioned in his link to this here post would not exist as it does today.

    Like

    1. Your point on ‘political polytheism’ is wrong. If anything, we have a uni party system veiled as a dichotomy. Neither are considered deities to anyone except possibly yourself. There is no mention of ‘latter day’ political science, whatever this is, at work here either- only legal positivism, which evolved over time from ideas predating the exalted US. Austin was concerned with Lex Britannia and his writing reflected it; his definition of law reflected the belief that either a Monarch or deferment to a Parliament could issue Commands, but nothing more. That is the root of ‘legal positivism’- the underlying morality of law was not forgotten as you suggest but omitted as not measurable in any quantified way. Positivism sought pure empirical measurement to define everything, in this case law. The ‘constitution’ is neither an Individual nor a Group, the three branches of government have certain checks and balances, with nothing in the US meeting his definitive requirement of sovereignty. If anything, its a temporary agreement provided everyone converges upon it as a source for law as Hart’s Rule of Recognition would suggest. They don’t.

      “The will of the sovereign individual governed” is absolute nonsense. A sovereign is habitually obeyed but obeys no one else, issuing enforceable commands. A sovereign is a source of law. Therefor to be sovereign, you must wield power to exercise enforcement of your commands and be obeyed by those within your bounds. This does not and cannot apply to just anyone, certainly not to those simply labeling themselves as such. Mill granted this concept to the individual with his essay On Liberty, which most libertarians appear to be confused by however still grants justification of coercion for the public good, as even he recognized a certain limitation upon the individual must exist. Devlin had a far superior answer, and he died in 1992. None of these legal or social theorists were at all concerned with the American Civil War; it was neither relevant to defining law in the positivist sense nor a habitual issue, thus outside of any relevant framework.

      What you and a good lot of others wholly do not understand is the difference, or lack thereof, liberty and liberation. If you did, you’d never make statements the way you do. That’s the problem with ignorance to questions previously asked and answering them simply as one sees fit- it resolves nothing. The echo chamber effect is why the Marxists have not recognized identity politics are their undoing and similarly, why they have yet to be answered from either outside or in. You’re in the same dire straits lest you not challenge your views.

      Now in bringing your comment back to relevancy, the original question posed (and not addressed by your response in any way) regarded how a sovereign, as a group, recognizes the basis for convergence upon ideas; the roots of what you call culturally acceptable or not. That answer is singularly defined through the media. A media, as the observation suggests, being challenged and eroded through innovative praxis.

      Like

    2. “The moment they took God and Scripture out of fealty to republican form of government aka will of the governed….”

      There is nothing more un-Godly and nothing more un-Scriptural than “republican form of government” and “will of the governed.” Although, “republican form of government,” and “will of the governed” is perfectly Freemasonic.

      One would have to be a Christian to know these things.

      S//

      Like

      1. Dude, You are throwing comments at me for the sake of commenting. Do you even know what political polytheism is? Never mind the context of it in regards to how to was used to supplant liberty?

        Like

    3. “will of the sovereign governed individual” No such thing.

      A Sovereign is habitually obeyed yet obeys no one else. No laws bind the Sovereign but His own. Individuals can only thus be Sovereign if they meet this criteria; thus cannot be governed nor simply be any common individual.

      “will of the sovereign governed individual” uncannily echoes “Do what though wilt.”

      Like

      1. Speak for yourself.

        What where you as a piece of cannon fodder to be sacrificed for the benefit of the elites who enrich themselves on invasion of a sovereign country and have been there for 14 years?
        Did you not kill sovereign people, against their will, their beliefs, in a foreign land, uninvited, at the will and whim of elites who are not subject to your or my will, (or those in that other country, their ideology not withstanding?), as sovereign men who at least at one time believed in being governed through a system of trust of elected representatives in a republican form of government, guaranteed to us by The US Constitution?
        Aside from the fact it was all a lie?

        Like

        1. Now it’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about. It is also abundantly clear you don’t know the definitions of the terms you use (or where they come from). Austin defined the Sovereign which I stated; you, not so much.

          Instead of attacking me for simply pointing out flaws in your position, to which I could care less, you could take a critique and sharpen your views.

          Of course you didn’t do that, showing everyone you’re exactly the snowflake we suspected.

          Like

          1. You been suckered into revised history. You will figure it out one day.
            Too bad your hubris blinds you to have an open mind. I used to think you where a better man than that.

            Like

            1. Come on now Brothers we can have discourse while still being civil can’t we…We don’t need to let anger creep in and hinder our quest for Liberty…I hate seeing Brothers in Arms fighting when the it should be directed at our real enemies…Be the Brothers in Christ you were meant to be…

              Like

            2. Not only did you miss the larger point made but you failed to understand the definitions contained therein. However for whatever reason you were compelled to add in your two pennies. You were only offered definitions where your “response” faltered. When corrected you resorted to insults.

              No one cares what you think. Contribute something other than to the problem for a change. You are not entitled to anything much less your own ignorant opinion. This is not stated as an insult but fact- you are factually ignorant to the concepts of which you speak. The wise correct their position, formulate a new counterpoint, and above all do it respectfully. You fail in this task as well, out of intellectual inferiority. Where your logic falters, as it always does, it will be corrected. If you’re insecure, don’t comment.

              Further, quite interesting was your pointed insult noted above- those of us ‘pawns’ in the great game you despise and yet you seek our knowledge. And yes, it is ‘us’. You’ve offered no skin for anything yet you graciously take the fruits of that labor- and believe me, we know and we think little of you; less so now.

              Now this is where you attempt to make amends. It is an ultimatum, Mr Cook. That is of course, unless you cannot articulate why you are superior to the snowflakes you mock so often- also incapable of objective thought.

              Like

              1. I stand by what I was trying to convey in my original comment.
                If it doesn’t fit your world view that is your business.
                Remember it is you who stated I was incorrect. If you do not care for me not agreeing with your criticisms nothing I can say too you really matters, as evidence in the first instance.
                The difference between us originates in your comments to me personally. I was not criticizing you or anyone on this blog, I was making counter argument against the people who have written revised history, which we all are guilty of falling for.
                Why it was so important for you to discount my premise out of hand regarding North’s theory of Political Polytheism and his subsequent outlier work Conspiracy in Philadelphia. I take as a measure of your character, and now you want to appear all justified because you do not like being called out for being aggressively critical.
                If you do not like a fellow commenter defending himself from your out of hand criticism I suggest you look before you leap.
                You wrote those words, not I, and like bullets you can not take words back.
                Personally, I have no doubts now you where looking for a fight.
                And I stand by my observation about you fighting in another country for the interests of Gen Eisenhower’s warning regarding the military industrial complex. You took that personally, which is your want, but you missed the entire object of my original comment, that suffering from revisionism is a terrible thing which has led us all to this point. It doesn’t matter if either of us are right on details, or who has the better viewpoint on history, that damned revised history is killing us who want to be free. I’m no less guilty of falling for it than you.
                You just had to take it personally, which falls right into the revisionists trap.
                I baited you on purpose because you totally missed what I was trying to convey. And your pig headedness is keeping you from rejecting the revisionist trap or seeing how you where sucked in.
                This isn’t about your or mine honor or duty, our commitment you dumb ass, it is about the very crux of the intent on why revisionism’s intent to remove us from our principles, our values our faith in the Lord, because that is how they have worked to destroy us men of the west in the first place.
                And your so fucking pig headed, you can’t take a moment and stand outside yourself and see who the real enemy is you and I need to be fighting instead of ourselves, which by the way, suits the sonofabitches purposes as well or better than revisionism.
                So tell me something, if all that duty and honor is so far superior than my lowly lack of not being cannon fodder for the elites, what about that Oath you took?
                What did that mean then?
                I’m not busting your balls.
                It is a dead nuts serious question?
                If my argument about the destructive nature of revisionism is wrong as you state, then that Oath you took is inviolate isn’t it?
                That none of us have been hoodwinked by revised history. Right?
                Don’t have to tell me why, I think I know, but do you?
                Can you admit to yourself it isn’t your honor and duty that has been contaminated by the use of it for political and monetary gains of people who could care less about duty honor country, about the sovereign nature of man, of primal God granted rights, but you as a Freeman, that in simplest terms you serving you became a two legged instrument of those special interests and less than noble and honest intensions?
                There’s no need for you to answer that. That’s a matter of the heart and soul.
                But I put it to you to try to convey to you, buddy, you seriously missed the point I was trying to make.
                We all been suckers.
                And it’s time to stop being suckers.
                It is how we win.

                By the way, you didn’t impress me with you hint you got personal info on me.
                All you have to do is ask.
                I’m not afraid of you, or the fuckers, or anything trying to destroy my country.
                I don’t hide.
                I want them to know I’m not afraid.
                Because fear is how they wage their long march. Totalitarianism 101 brother.
                And FYI, I also took it upon myself to do my duty, for I believe as a natural born American that Oath comes automatically with the blood of liberty in my veins I was born with.
                I was the direct object of actor’s within the obama regime. From literally the day of his “inauguration”, because my research and investigation, and subsequent publication of citizen journalism regarding many truths and history of those in and behind that regime, something the regime did not appreciate.
                I took great risks, alone, no support, no financial backing, no allies, just myself. I had the FBi on me, the regime sent things to my home to threaten me, (who I’m happy to state I got the drop on and gave them the offer you can’t refuse), they broke into my home on multiple occasions, followed friends, hacked my computer, even set out stakeouts on me, which to convey to you the import of this, was an IP in the executive wing of the whitehouse. They had operatives working inside HughesNet North America main IT Department, hoisting servers where threatened if they hosted me. Some very serious stuff.
                I wrote about those sonsofabitches and what they where doing before anyone, and I was called a nut job, a radical, I was investigated as a highly dangerous Nazi white supremacist skin head, called deranged, a nut job, and things you imply here. I was right before, I been right all along on many things, I’m right also about the deep and insidious effects of revised history and revisionism, and what it is doing to us. It is such an insidious strategy, we may never know or find what the true history was.
                Take that or leave that as you will.
                But honestly and sincerely, I hope you figure it out.

                PS,
                Old Proverb:
                Don’t throw rocks in class houses.

                Like

                1. DOUG COOK, you were given a mere correction to help your argument. You responded with insults because apparently you cannot wrap your head around the actual definitions of the stuff you write.

                  Obviously this is beyond your intellectual capacity, and hint- you neither know what you don’t know and you’re around half as smart as you think you are. No one was disrespectful to you and we’ve tolerated you long enough.

                  You were given a chance to let it go, including that hubris you exhibit. Since you failed, you gotta go. Oh and something else- I had to set a word filter on my comments just to block your racist diatribes about Blacks. You neither know any of us personally but we know PLENTY about you.

                  PS- it’s glass houses, retard.

                  Like

  6. As the English philosopher Roger Scruton wrote in his book Modern Philosophy, “A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s