The Prerogative State

Ernst Fraenkel, a lawyer in pre-Hitler Germany, called the Nazi regime a “dual state.*”  There were actually two sets of laws operating simultaneously, he said: The normative, which is your standard black-letter law, and the prerogative, which is the law of the Party apparatus.  The second, of course, always outranks the first.  It was possible to get real, objective justice in the 3rd Reich — the legendarily efficient German civil service carried on after the Nazi seizure of power just as it did before (this is one of the key supports in the “they all condoned the Holocaust” school of historiography — if principled bureaucrats didn’t resign after Hitler took power, then there were no principled bureaucrats).  But if your “justice” crossed any of the Party’s political or cultural imperatives, you’d find yourself on the business end of a visit from the men in the leather trench coats.

America has been in the same boat for a long time.  We all know who our real rulers are: The SJWs, and their enablers in government and the judiciary.  For a recent example, see here:

[Portland bakery owner, John] Blomgren’s chronology matches and corroborates [his employees’] version of events. However, having established that his staff had done nothing wrong did not alter Blomgren’s decision to fire them. “In this situation it doesn’t really matter that the two staff members working are not themselves racist because the call they made to deny [student and activist, Lillian Green] service caused her to feel like she had been discriminated against,” his statement explained. “Sometimes impact outweighs intent and when that happens people do need to be held accountable.” The bakery has since deleted this statement and denies firing the employees to “save face or to appease anyone.”

Which is baloney — of course they fired people to appease the SJW lynch mob.  The whole thing is clearly and obviously a racket:  “Nice business ya got here, would be a shame if anyone accused you of racism:”

“I think he’s actually a sociopath,” speculates ‘Alex,’ a Portland-based social justice activist who has worked extensively with Whitten and witnessed his strategic use of baseless accusations of racism to take down opponents and manipulate allies. Fearful of retribution given Whitten’s growing influence, Alex spoke to me on condition of anonymity but provided evidence of their relationship. “He’s created a chilling effect in Portland. People are scared of him and no one knows how to intervene.” Alex expressed sympathy for Blomgren and said Whitten selects his targets carefully — mainly white progressives who are likely to trip over themselves when accused of racism. Some of them offer him money or career opportunities.

That’s the prerogative kicking in.  Blomgren’s employees did absolutely nothing wrong; an objective judge would throw any suit against him out of court.  But there are no objective judges in Portland.  Nor, apparently, are the police willing to do anything about this Cameron Whitten guy.  Justice? Fughettaboudit.  The Left can violate normative law with impunity, because they have the prerogative.

Another great example: The Masterpiece Cake Shop decision.  The decision was not based on whether or not the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of free association applies to private businesses.  Rather, the Court ruled that Colorado’s “civil rights commission” showed undue bias toward the bakers.  The normative law is pretty clear: If you don’t have the right to turn away customers, you’re not really running a business — every former business in America is now a “public accommodation;” the former business owners are, in effect, just employees of the state.  I’m pretty sure a junior high debate club could’ve ruled on this one.

But the Court, obviously, wanted to preserve the Left’s prerogative.  Had they made their decision on normative law, badthinkers from sea to shining sea would have legal cover to spread their badthoughts, in the form of carrying on their daily business activities.

And we can’t be having that.  So the Court made the most ambiguous possible ruling, to make sure it could never be cited as a precedent.

Which brings us to the question the Z Man posed today: What happens when the majority of us wake up to the fact that we’re ruled by midgets?  As Hobbes said, “The power of the mighty hath no foundation but in the opinion and belief of the people.”  What happens when the “opinion and belief” of the people is that we’re really ruled by a few dreadlocked blue-haired nose-ringers and their black-robed peg boys?  A king whose knights refuse to ride to battle on his behalf is just a weirdo in fancy clothes.  There’s even less majesty to a GS-7 down at the courthouse.

It’s really not going to end well… and Our Betters are doing everything they can to hasten the end.


*The Dual State is what I call, for lack of a better term, a “skimmer.”  It’s full of irrelevant-to-us detail from 1941, so it’s easy to get lost in that stuff and miss the point.  It’s actually far better to read (as I did) a review, to get the main point.  We really need a better word for this than “skimmer.”  Suggestions?

Loading Likes...

8 thoughts on “The Prerogative State

  1. P_Ang

    I lived in Portland for eight years, and currently live NEAR Portland. I notice the “official” Narrative on the whole thing keeps changing, but I’ve been following it closely and I hope (although I doubt) that the truth is CLEAR to anyone who adjudicates this case:
    The “offended party” is suing for money.
    The “offended party” noticed white women going into the bakery BEFORE THEY CLOSED and ordering.
    The “offended party” went in six minutes AFTER they closed and demanded service while the individuals who had placed their order before closing time had been served.
    The “offended party’s” order was refused as it was after closing time.
    The “offended party” is black and is a self-described “activist.” She has a BA in Sociology and an MAT, and is an “Equality Director” at the Early Learning Division (preschool/babysitting for children of minorities) at a local community college.
    Here’s where the story changes. Originally, the articles report that the “OP” came INTO the store filming her interactions with a camera, clearly showing intent to create a scene. Now the story has changed to the “OP” running out to her vehicle to get a camera (not a cell phone) to record her interactions after being refused service. Still a blatant attempt to extort money while exacerbating racist tensions (which should itself be a crime), but not QUITE as obvious as walking in with a camera in the first place.
    The owners IMMEDIATELY fired the employees who turned the “OP” away at 9:06, six minutes after closing but before the two women who ordered PRIOR to 9:00 had been served (as in called the next day and told them not to come in for their shift) and as listed above immediately attributed it to RACIS’!! but has since started waffling.
    I sincerely HOPE that a jury does not give the OP a penny, and instead hammers the OP for litigation with intent to cause racial hostilities, and fines the store for firing the two employees without cause.

    1. Frip

      “A king whose knights refuse to ride to battle on his behalf is just a weirdo in fancy clothes.” I’m dying. If you ever get your shit together this will end up in the Oxford Book of Quotations.

    2. nightfly

      What will inevitably happen in some such case is that someone trying one of these deals will be caught on outdoor cameras waiting outside, patiently, until after closing and THEN going in to be denied service, making the fraud plain to all.

  2. Frip

    I hope someday you will compare the Alt-Right vs. Dissident Right. Including a brief bit of how their histories converge. There’s surprisingly *little on the web about this, and what there is, is shoddy and often Lefty biased. From what little I can gather (as newcomer to the far Right), the Dissident Right feels they’ve been fighting the war for truth for a long time, and see the Alt-Right as flashy not-always-bright interlopers who screwed up what the D-right had been building for decades.

    *The subject has probably been covered well in comment sections, but that’s not easy to find.

  3. Frip

    The confusion for me is:

    1) Some use the terms Alt Right and Dissident Right interchangeably. Is it just semantics? Does it matter?

    2) Many Dissident Rightists really want to stress their differences, and even disavow/disparage the Alt Right. Do they do this out of pride (“WE didn’t fail, THEY did. WE are not THEM.”) or are their real differences?

    1. Severian Post author

      I have no idea — all that stuff is too “inside baseball” for me. And besides, that way lies madness. I spent many years in and around academia, where tiny doctrinal differences got turned into Sicilian-level blood feuds. You can’t beat faculty politics for viciousness — the Feminist Marxists would cheerfully slit the Marxist Feminists’ throats, and vice versa, though nobody without a PhD would have a clue what the beef’s about.

  4. Frip

    Thank you. I understand.

    One question. Do you considerer Alt-Right and Dissident Right to be separate things?

    No matter how you respond, or choose not to, I will drop the subject now.

    1. Severian

      I honestly don’t know enough to say. There’s a whole bunch of history there I just don’t have the time to look at, and the people who use those labels on themselves take them VERY seriously, so I just duck the issue.

Comments are closed.