Tuesday, December 31, 2019

The Question of Whether The Deep State is Clever or Stupid

There is a natural instinct in all of us, I propose, that assumes that people in authority know what they are doing. More or less.

Thus, we tend to think that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must have a card up her sleeve when she omits to send the impeachment of President Trump over to the Senate. But suppose she doesn't? Suppose she is just playing the next card in her hand because she doesn't know what else to do? Maybe she knows that a) to send the impeachment to the Senate as is would end up as a disaster for Democrats, so that b) playing manipulative games at least puts off the inevitable.

My 70-year-old yoga teacher usually manages to blurt out some New York Times conventional wisdom about Trump at the beginning of the class. This week it was that Trump would easily win in 2020 on the economy: if only he wasn't so crazy.

Earth to liberal bubble: it was Trump's attack on the liberal Gentry that made him president! Millions of Commoners that had given up suddenly discovered a politician that seemed to "care about people like them." Whoa! Who'da thunk it?

Or the Deep State intelligence community chappies that let themselves be suckered into spying on a presidential campaign. Are we to think they are cunning Svengalis? Or just easily duped Barnacles and Stiltstockings hoping for preferment from the next admininstration?

Or the geniuses that gave us the Great Recession. Science says that the credit system needs two things: properly collateralized loans, and borrowers that can service their loans. So how come our governing geniuses gave us 100% mortgages and liar loans? Are they dumb or somep'n?

Whatabout the brilliant Democratic Socialists that want to bring everything under the aegis of the admininstrative state after a century of proving that it doesn't work? And 100 million dead slaves under Communism? Are they evil or just stupid?

The truth is that they are just humans and, as usual Nietzsche explains the whole procedure -- The Will to Power §517. Our lords and masters are just average Joes walking in the world assuming that the conventional wisdom and things-as-they-are explain the world.
The fictitious world of a subject, substance, "reason,"etc., is needed--: there is in us a power to order, simplify, falsify, artificially distinguish. "Truth" is the will to be master over the multiplicity of sensations:-- to classify phenomena into definite categories. In this we start from a belief in the "in-itself" of things (we take phenomena as real).
Of course, it's been a long road for me to accept the Nietzschean view. That, as animals in the world, we have to discriminate among all the welter of information coming in through our five senses that deluges us every moment, and filter out the things that might kill us! So we -- so much higher than the ordinary animals! -- conjure up narratives about the world to try and understand it: gods arranging battles from Mt. Olympus; spirits in trees; reason and logic; matter; energy; Four Elements; atoms and molecules; quarks; dark matter and energy.

And I wonder what comes next!

Truly, human understanding has gone through an astonishing transformation since, well let's say since Descartes and "I think, therefore I am."

The truth is that all of our knowledge is conditional and a likely story. Good until it fails to explain the world. And we have to edit out 97.2 percent of the possibilities in order to stay sane. So everybody lives in their comfortable bubbles paying attention only to the edited information that tells them comfortable things that confirm their world view.

But, of course, what is comfortable to you in your bubble may be a perfect hell for me in my bubble.

And thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenges.

And I suspect that James Delingpole is right with his analysis that "The 2010s were the Twilight of the Elites." Would that be Führungsschichterdämmerung, James? Or something shorter?

Happy New Year!

Monday, December 30, 2019

Is the Left to Blame for All the "Hate"?

We had a couple of shooter attacks against religious groups over the weekend: one in New York City against orthodox Jews and one against megachurch Christians in Texas.

I don't want to get into the gun control argument, because I think it is a politics-downstream-from-culture issue.

No. I blame the larger leftist project, which, in my view, is going backwards, by elevating politics to a sacramental level when we should all be "moving on" and relegating politics to the basement.

Politics/government is what we humans have developed to help us all come together to face an existential peril that threatens to destroy our community.

So, in my view, politics should be locked away in a glass cabinet with the notice "In Emergency, Break Glass."

You can see the point of politics with our relatives the chimpanzees. The males patrol the borders of the troop's territory and attack and kill any male trespassers, and for good reason. The food that grows within the troop's territory is what sustains the females that bear and raise the young. The more territory, and more important, the more food, the better for the troop.

And thus it ever was until the day before yesterday, when trade took over the world: I mean, in particular, with wage labor in which everyone enters the cash economy, exchanging labor for money rather than growing food for the immediate family as subsistence farmers outside the market economy.

The market economy means that we should interact faithfully with anyone that behaves in a trustworthy fashion. This is a radical transformation from the old days when anyone outside your territory was an enemy just waiting for a chance to catch you unawares.

Obviously, this gigantic cultural transformation is not going to be completed by next week.

But still, the job of the educated and evolved, the people that have already absorbed the cultural memes of the post-agricultural culture, is to help people adapt to the new reality.

Only they don't. And that is why I write about a Great Reaction. It is an amazing thing, that the most educated and evolved are people that have developed a religious faith in politics in the Old Ways -- and have organized groups into ideological combat, from race to gender and everything in between, on issues large and small.

See, what the left did, starting in the mid 19th century, was to encourage newly arrived groups in the city to trust only their own, to condone urban gangs that recreated the old days of border warriors defending their turf from the neighboring tribe, and to teach workers that their interests and needs were diametrically opposed to the employers that hired and trained and paid them.

You can see how this works a treat for the power project of the educated and evolved. If you believe in the saving grace of politics then it makes complete sense to divide off lower-class groups from the national community and use them as shock troops for the wars of your religion of politics.

And then your educated and evolved gentry decide that the members of their client groups can't really be held responsible for their "rage," arising out of generations of oppression and marginalization, rather than from their inherited culture of defending the borders.

So, if you are a member of a scheduled victim group, you might get the idea that it's OK to act out your rage on other people. For instance the latest Crime Victimization Survey  says that whites are 62.3% of the population but are 50.2% of the violent offenders in violent incidents, while blacks are 12.0% of the population but 21.7% of the offenders in violent incidents.

In other words, whites are slightly underrepresented in the national violent offender community, while blacks are grossly overrepresented in the violent offender community. Talk about a crisis of diversity!

And what is the reaction of our liberal friends? To make victims out of blacks that attack "white Hispanics" and white policemen.

I think it is dirty trick for our liberal Educated Gentry to make excuses for blacks. It's hard enough as it is to make the transition from rural tribal culture to city market culture. But to represent the problems that blacks experience in adapting to the city culture as the fault of the majority culture is worse than an error. It is a profound injustice, and not particularly to whites but to blacks who are not getting acculturated to the trust culture of the city and its commerce.

I don't know where the left's culture of victimhood and activism, the raising of political activism to the level of holy pilgrimage and sacrament, will end up.

All I know is that at the very least, the activism culture has delayed the adaption of many millions of people to the culture of the market and its trust of anyone that demonstrates trustworthiness. At worst it has provoked millions of innocents into a cruel culture war where nobody will be the winner.

See, I think that our Educated Gentry has got everything wrong.. It has rewarded people that behaved like victims; it has sneered at responsibility, and it has ludicrously valued creativity as a human right.

In fact, the opposite is true. Victimhood is a miserable hell, and everyone should be encouraged not to think of themselves as victims; responsibility is the basic skill needed to navigate the market economy; and creativity is a very dangerous business that should only be attempted only by people prepared to make the Hero's Journey into the unconscious and battle with dragons.

The lesson of life in the world is that a single mistake is very often fatal. But when almost everything you believe is wrong, you have to wonder what the upshot will be.

So, to blame the left for all the "hate" it has created is to miss the point. The point is: what we can do to help the victims of the left's power project and help them graduate from subordination in the victim culture to responsibility as ordinary Commoners?

Friday, December 27, 2019

Nietzsche on Knowledge and Reality

For some time I have been reading people that tell me to forget the conceit of logic and reason. Everything in the world is "affect," or feelings.

Except that when I have a "feeling" it is the rising to consciousness of an event that took place in my pre-frontal cortex up to seven seconds ago. And the fact that I have a feeling is because, after the chaos of sense impressions bombarding my body, something unusual has tripped an alarm that has brought this something to my consciousness.  What is going on here?

What is going on is that the Freuds and Jungs -- and latterly Jordan Petersons -- peddling this stuff all go back to Nietzsche.

In The Will to Power: Book Three: Principles of a New Evaluation Nietzsche blows everything apart.

For instance, "everything of which we become conscious is a terminal phenomenon, an end", in other words the opposite of our common belief in understanding the world through "thinking, feeling, willing!"

Or this: "'inner experience' enters our consciousness only after it has found a language the individual understands". Thus, "'to understand' means merely: to be able to express something new in the language of something old and familiar."

Or this:
There exists neither "spirit," nor reason, nor thinking, nor consciousness, nor soul, nor will, nor truth: all are fictions that are of no use. There is no question of "subject and object," but a particular species of animal that can prosper only through a certain relative rightness; above all, regularity of its perceptions (so that it can accumulate experience)--
Knowledge works as a tool of power. Hence it is plain that it increases with every increase of power-- 
In order for a particular species to maintain itself and increase its power, its conception of reality must comprehend enough of the calculable and constant for it to base a scheme of behavior on it.
See what he is up to? That everything that we "think" and "feel" and "know" about the world is an epiphenomenon that wells up out of our body and its six senses and its sensors and its ganglia of nerves and brain cells and who-knows-what as part of its project of staying alive. And we really do not have a clue what is going on!

Whatabout the "ego" and the "subject" and "facts?"
There are only facts -- I would say: No, facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations... 
[Even the] "subject" is not something given, it is something added and invented and projected behind what there is.
"It is our needs that interpret the world." And we better hope that our interpretation is correct. This time.

Here's a concept that I find useful:
Everything that enters consciousness as "unity" is already tremendously complex: we always have only  a semblance of unity.
What is going on here? I think that it reflects our modern knowledge -- call it the paradox of our modern knowledge -- that things are a lot more complicated and a lot weirder than we ever imagined, and that we ever could imagine.

One of the things that helps deal with this unsettling thought is this piece from Nature in 2008: "Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it, according to researchers."

Because if that is true, that stuff is going on in what we call the "unconscious" that the "ego" knows nothing about, then what other stuff is going on that we know nothing about?

Here is Nietzsche on "words:"
We set up a word at the point at which our ignorance begins, at which we can see no further, e.g., the word "I," the world "do," the word "suffer":-- these are perhaps the horizon of our knowledge, but not "truths."
I guess Lewis Carroll knew all about this when he had Humpty Dumpty opine on "words."
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
But Lewis Carroll -- real name Charles Dodgson, academic and mathematician -- was not a student of Nietzsche; he wrote Through the Looking Glass in 1872, and Nietzsche was writing his late stuff in the 1880s. But the question is: were Charles Dodgson and Friedrich Nietzsche swimming in the same intellectual pond?

Because, when Humpty Dumpty talks about "which is to be master" is he not talking the same language as Nietzsche's Will to Power?

Thursday, December 26, 2019

Suppose the Dem "Resistance" is Not Just Wrong, but Stupid?

What is going on with the impeachment extravaganza? Or, asked another way, is impeachment all about Nancy Pelosi caving to the New Social Democrats, or is it about trying to hide the facts about FBI and intelligence community malfeasance?
A savvy politician, Pelosi is well aware of how the Clinton impeachment boomeranged on Republicans when they were in the majority...
The argument that Pelosi could simply no longer resist the agitation of her party’s leftist base makes little sense... If she could resist the leftist loonies determined to run her party over the cliff with impeachment over “Russian collusion,” she could certainly reject their calls for impeachment over the even more transparently ridiculous charge of an “improper” call, particularly when it distracts valuable attention from her party’s looming presidential primaries. 
Therefore we should look to something else.
No, the real explanation for Pelosi’s sudden flip is that those in the know — in the intelligence community, on congressional committees, and even in the Democratic mouthpiece media with their Deep State sources — warned her in early September of the potential political catastrophe that would ensue as a result of the devastating revelations in both the Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s abuse of the FISA process and U.S. Attorney John Durham’s more comprehensive investigation into the origins and perpetuation of the bogus “Russian collusion” narrative.
I suppose. But, really, do they really think it is going to work? That the CNN-MSNBC-Project 1619 effort is really going to crowd out the drip-drip of reports and indictments that will be coming out in the next few months?

Especially when "paid media" starts in the presidential election campaign?

Really? Nancy Pelosi is doing impeachment in order to lay down smoke to hide the horror of using the FBI and the intelligence community to spy on a presidential campaign?

Has Admiral Pelosi forgotten that we now have radar that can see through smoke?

Hey, I know, Nancy! How about you come clean, and declare that we are all Americans and that there are real, substantical questions about the behavior of the FBI over the last few years and that it is time to put partisanship aside and do a bipartisan investigation of just what went on, and find out who used the powers of the government to swing an election, and how, if it all turns out to be true, we must make sure it never happens again.

After all, remember what you Dems have been reciting from your Watergate prayer book for the last 50 years? It's not the crime, it's the coverup! That's what you geniuses have been teaching us since forever.

Well. Whatabout the coverup of the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign? "What did [fill in the blank] know and when did he know it?"

See, I think that the really big downside for the Dems is to allow Trump to make the case that the whole Democratic Party knew what was going on, knew that the whole idea that the Trump campaign colluded with Russkies was a hoax, knew that Steele was an unreliable source, knew that the whole Comey-Mueller-Ukraine thing is balderdash. And that the awful truth is that they flat out used the government's surveillance capacity to swing and election and then try to force a duly elected president out of office. Because they could.

So I think that the sooner that some Democratic genius comes forward and say, look, this was worse that a crime it was a blunder, the sooner that Democrats can get back to normal politics instead of playing with smoke and mirrors and pretending that their raft is not heading straight for the waterfall.

Look. What the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media have been doing for the last three years is one cover-up after another. Just like they sneered at Nixon for doing. And, I suspect, they are getting in deeper and deeper. Hey the latest shoe to drop is that, after the FBI dropped Steele as a reliable source, he started leaking stuff to the now-deceased Sen. John McCain who leaked his stuff to the media. Hey, Mr. Patriot McCain. Thanks, pal!

And I just think, because I was brainwashed by the media back in the day over the Nixon coverup, that the longer this coverup goes on, the worse it will be for the Democratic Party and for Democratic Party officeholders.

And I think that the one person that ought to confront this is Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But because I am a "far right misogynist" I don't think that Our Nance has the cojones to fall on her sword as the Sacrifical Hero. Because women don't do Sacrificial Hero; it's a guy thing.

Just sayin'.

Wednesday, December 25, 2019

"A Healthy Appetite for Free Stuff"

The woke patrol at Patheos recently noticed me for the hate crime of being a "far right misogynist," God bless @EdBrayton.

But what I am really interested in is the profound differences between men and women, and, as Steve Sailer says, "noticing" them, or rather, "Noticing" anything you are not allowed to notice.

And this is at no time more obvious to me than at Christmas, our midwinter festival of feasting and gift-giving.
  • That women have been shopping for gifts for family and women friends for over a month, while men run out and get gifts at the last moment as they realize they have to reciprocate, at least a little, the tidal wave of gifts being heaped up by the women.
  • The internal decoration of houses, and perhaps an uncurtained window to let passers-by get a glimpse of the perfect jewel of a home within.
  • The gathering of the family, from all across the city, or the nation, or the world.
  • The feast, to celebrate the comfort of abundance.
  • Santa Claus, the gift-giver.
I don't know about you, but every year I stand back and marvel at the remarkable energy of the world's women.

And then My Man Kevin Williamson writes about the mess of Obamacare, and the "healthy appetite for free stuff" both from Republican and Democratic voters that prevents either proper repeal or proper paying for the benefits.

Can we stop ourselves and our fellow Americans from gorging on free stuff before it takes the very food out of our mouths, like our friends in Venezuela?

I think that the appetite for free stuff and for loot and plunder comes from this, that I read in Arabian Sands by Wilfred Thesiger. In the deserts of Arabia humans lived by grazing sheep. The problem is to find grazable land, and that is not easy, because in the desert rain will fall, and stimulate plant growth, in a particular area perhaps once in two years.

You can see that finding grazing for your animals is not just a matter of skill and experience, but outright luck. And sometimes you run out of luck. Then what?

Then, what you do in the Arabian desert is you raid a neighboring band that has had better luck than you, and you steal their livestock. But, interestingly, the rules are that you don't touch the women. You just rob the other guys of a grub-stake, to get your band restarted.

So loot and plunder does have a sensible survival value. In pre-agricultural human bands. Of course, sometimes it can get out of hand. See Mongols, invasions and conquests of.

And you can see that this applies to the agricultural era. If our food-growing lands are afflicted with drought and our people are dying of hunger then it only makes sense to make a last go-for-broke effort and plunder the neighbors for food.

However, in my reading of The British Conquest and Domination of India by Sir Penderel Moon, we begin to see the modern experience of drought and famine is different. As the 19th century advanced the Brits -- eevil colonial rulers in India -- started to experience famine as a failure of government, a scandal. And you can see why. With steam transportation, rail and water, the means are at hand to relieve famine.

Let us understand the earth-shattering importance of this. It means that for a people to wive and thrive and survive it does not have to occupy food growing land. Not any more, because food can be obtained from across the world for mere money.

But it takes a while for humans to adapt their instinctive culture to the new reality. Evidence: Adolf Hitler, leader of the most advanced country in Europe that invented everything from modern philosophy to modern relativity and quantum mechanics. He felt that, of course, the Germans needed Lebensraum in eastern Europe. No, Adolf, they didn't! All they needed to do was to be able to trade for food and let the Mittelstand do its thing.

Here's another thing. Back in the 19th century the big surges of labor-union membership were in the Great Depression that went on from 1873 to the 1890s. Do you know what that was all about? Mostly, the aftermath of the US government getting back on the Gold Standard after the inflation of the Civil War, which threw debtors and workers for a loop. So the debtors and workers attempted to seize the means for survival.

Then there was the Great Depression of 1929-39, caused by the Allied nations getting back on the Gold Standard after WWI and then the new Federal Reserve totally effing up the Crash of 1929. More growth of unions and also of left-wing politics until national hero FDR led us into the War of the Ages and needed manfacturies to churn out tanks and planes and Jeeps for his glorious war.

But guess what. In the aftermath of the 2008 crash we did not have a surge in unions or in left-wing politics, even though the crash was another classic bungle by the ruling class. And even though Little Ben Bernanke broke the first rule of central banking, to be the lender of last resort to the banks, like, you know, Lehman Brothers, whatever. Oh Ben. And we now know, Little Ben, that if you had bailed out Lehman instead of whining that you didn't have the legal authority, the Deep State would have rallied round and made sure you didn't go to jail. Hey, they might have given you a medal. Silly Ben. Cowardly Ben.

My analysis of the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2006-08 is that the social safety net actually worked. The people thrown out of work got tided over by the welfare state with its unemployment benefits and its food stamps. So no mobs in the street. No surge in union membership. And no left-wing revival.

Therefore no need any more for desperation efforts to stay alive by plundering the neighbors.

But it will take centuries for humans to adapt our culture to the new reality.

Meanwhile we free spirits can start thinking about how to imagine the new human world in which dawn raids and loot and plunder and "a healthy appetite for free stuff" are no longer needed.

That is what my Great Reaction notion is about. It proposes to understand the present as an attempt bythe educated gentry to recover the past -- the good old days for political elites when rulers really ruled -- with socialism as neo-slavery, the welfare state as neo-feudalism, identity politics as neo-tribalism, etc. When what we need to do is to get away from those cultural echoes from the past.

My reductive Three Peoples theory and Little Darlings notion are all about taking the next step in understanding, to try and understand why the educated gentry is doing this to us. I am attempting to think about how we can first understand and then find a way of neutralizing the edcuated gentry's exploitation of the proles to advance their reactionary power project.

Part of that process is understanding what drives the left's Activism Culture and enumerating the Left's Errors,

Also, we can explore how The Road to the Middle Class is paved with the cultural moving sidewalks of monotheistic religion, education, law, and mutual aid, which teach the workers and peasants just off the farm and the feudal estates how to wive and thrive in the city.

And we can construct An American Manifesto to imagine life after liberalism where the coercive dominations and oppressions of educated gentry rule are replaced by a new culture of responsibility and voluntary exchange, and yes, exciting cultural adventures for the children of the educated gentry: something for everyone.

But perhaps the most important thing of all is the greatest challenge and adventure for creative spirits ever conceived by the mind of man. To create great seminaries all across the world to induct the young sprouts of the educated elite into a great spiritual movement to teach their fellow humans how to rise above "a healthy appetite for free stuff."

Wow! Someone ought to write a book about that!

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

If Discrimination is Outlawed, Then Discrimination is a Police Problem, Not a Moral Problem

One of the marvelous things about our era is that, fifty years after we made discrimination on the basis of race and sex illegal for governments and for institutions, we are more worked up about racism and sexism than ever.

This is something I marvel at all the time, and was brought to my attention in a video about Christianity and Critical Theory featuring mixed-race Neil Shenvi.

Now, I agree with Neil that racism is a moral horror. But as a legal question, it ought to be done with, finished. Because 50 years ago the government declared that racial discrimination is illegal.

(OK, I know. Ever since, the government has been discriminating on race and sex, just like in the old days of Jim Crow. Only now the government and big corporations are discriminating in favor of historically marginalized races and sexes. What world! But let that pass!)

The point is that first, everyone is a racist. We are human; we prefer our own kind, and we are rather appalled at people not like us. For instance, I read recently that liberals are much more offended by people that vote differently from them than conservatives are. In other words, liberals are more groupish that conservatives; they cannot abide being around people that don't think like them. No surprise really. Liberals think that voting is a moral act; conservatives rather believe it is a civic duty.

Now, I am perfectly happy with religions railing against the moral horror of racism. Very good idea. Let's "nudge" everyone towards a more inclusive moral framework.

But, of course, nobody is content with mere moralizing. We all want to make a difference! If we are women we want to name and shame and shun the immoralists. If we are men we want to teach 'em a lesson: right in the solar plexus.

But I say, look. We are all nasty pieces of work. We all do nasty things, not just to strangers of another race, but to our own kith and kin. It is notorious, for instance, that at holiday gatherings we Americans tend to get into political arguments with each other instead of just celebrating the season.

But the main thing is to keep government out of the discrimination game. Because that, I suggest, is 97.2 percent of the problem. If government can't discriminate and can't, like in the Jim Crow era, force private instittutions to discriminate as well, then we are half way home.

And let us note the mechanism that gets around discrimination. If, say, good conforming employers won't employ members of a certain race, because racism, then there is money to be made from hiring those folks!

And here's a thought. Suppose some woman in a think tank commits the moral horror of saying that women are women, thank you very much. Now really, think tank, is it really the best solution to fire her? Is it really a good idea to get a judge to rule that the two-sex view is "is not worthy of respect in a democratic society"? Is it a good idea to let her make herself into a martyr and get the whole thing publicized by Harry Potter's mom, J.K. Rowling? Or would it be better to take her in hand and have everyone else in the think tank explain to her at coffee breaks and at the water cooler how morally reprehensible she is? Normally, that is all it takes to sort a woman in the traditional community of women.

Because I thought that witch hunts and expulsions from the community was the sort of thing that they did in the bad old days of Puritan New England, and the McCarthy era right at the beginning of the Cold War. Why, they even got Arthur Miller all riled up enough about witch hunts to lift his head from bonking Marilyn Monroe and sneering at salesmen to write a play, The Crucible, about the horrors of witch-hunting back in the day in Salem, Massachusetts!

Once upon a time there was a wise old bird that said that there should be a separation between church and state, between the world of morality and the world of force. There was another wise old bird that expanded this notion into the idea of a Greater Separation of Powers, to keep the three sectors of force, of work, and of moral/culture from ganging up on each other, two against one.

You can see why those wise old birds might have had a point. Because people, all people, just cannot resist the temptation of legislating morality, their morality, and forcing their moral beliefs on other people. And the beginning of wisdom might be to make it difficult for people to do that.

On the other hand, let us marvel that, in the descent of man, there have actually been geniuses to suggest to us that our normal way of making morality and conformity to social norms all into one coercive culture is defective and oppressive, even dominatory. It is really astonishing that anyone should ever have proposed to tease apart moral disapprobation and criminal wrongdoing and suggest they we humans should insist that the priests should stick to morality and the jailers should stick to incarceration: in other words to differentiate between the raised eyebrow and the raised execution axe.

But while you and I inhabit the ethereal realms of glorious tolerance and merely shake our wise old heads about the follies of the fools and knaves among the lower orders, the fact is that we live in a fallen world, and there are people out there convinced that the only way forward is to fall on moral lepers like a ton of bricks.

And teach 'em a lesson they will never forget!

Monday, December 23, 2019

My Three Peoples vs. Yarvin's Three Layers

It was pretty exciting to read part one of Curtis Yarvin's "Clear Pill" a month ago. He has a three peoples theory just like I do. Here is how he describes it.
As Orwell wrote, all societies have three human layers. We may call ours gentry, commoners, and clients. The gentry are urbanites, cultivated and ambitious; the commoners are suburbanites, educated and independent; the clients are Marx’s proletariat and lumpenproletariat, uneducated and/or dependent.
He inspired me to catalogue all the three layer systems that I knew about, thus:

George OrwellInner PartyOuter PartyProlesPolitical
Karl MarxBourgeoisieCommunistsProletariansPolitical
Auguste ComtePositiveMetaphysicalTheologicalCultural
New LeftRacists, etc.ActivistsVictimsPolitical
Woke Left White oppressorsAlliesMembers of
oppressed groups
Charles MurrayBelmontEverybody ElseFishtownCultural
Curtis YarvinGentryCommonersClientsPolitical
J.R.R. TolkienElvesHobbitsDwarvesCultural
Joel KotkinClerisyYeomanrySerfsPolitical
Z-ManZ-manCloud PeopleDirt People[lower classes]Political
Dennis PriceCloud PeopleDirt People[dependents]Political
David GoodhartAnywheresSomewheres[Inbetweeners]Political
John DerbyshireIce People??Sun PeoplePolitical
VikingsEarlsPeasantsThralls (slaves)Political
freed men
Christopher ChantrillCreativesResponsiblesSubordinatesCultural
Christopher ChantrillRuling ClassMiddle ClassLittle DarlingsPolitical
Christopher ChantrillHero (sacrificial
or ego)
One GodMany GodsReligious

When Yarvin gets into part two of the "Clear Pill," he sets forth what I think is the key to understanding our liberal friends in the educated liberal gentry. Yarvin says that the ruling class obtains the support of the gentry class by playing "thymotic anthems" to the gentry, where "thymos is somewhere between ambition, honor, and vanity."

Update 2/3/20: See also Yarvin's latest on pistos (loyalty) and thymos (ambition) in a later piece.

And it's not just anthems, but cold hard cash delivered to supporters. You are ambitious? Easiest way forward is to help the ruling class with one of its projects. You want honor? Well so do we all, but the short way to get it is to help the ruling class. You are vain? Of course not. But if you were it sure would help if you joined the ruling class and made out that you were helping fundamentally transforming America from its shameful past of racist sexist homophobia and bending the arc of history towards justice.

My maxim that "there is no such thing as justice, only injustice" is supposed to poke a hole in the above conceit. Because the point is that everything any ruling class does is force. Of course it is, because otherwise it would happen on its own. And so everything a ruling class does amounts to injustice. And so all the gentry in the ruling class's officer corps are conceited creeps promoting injustice.

I've been having a lot of fun with Yarvin's three layers in the past couple of weeks, and the only problem is that I'm not happy with "clients." I converted "clients" into "victims" in a piece for The American Thinker over the weekend, but that was really about "fake victims" or gentry people -- such as feminists and gays -- defining themselves as victims in order to beat up on the commoners. But identifying the "clients" as "victims" doesn't quite do it because, after all, most of the lower class are not victims; they are just dependent. So I think the best word for the lower class is "subordinates."

So I'd define Yarvin's three layers as: gentry, commoners, and subordinates.
The gentry are urbanites, cultivated and ambitious, and interested in power; the commoners are suburbanites, moderately skilled and competent; the subordinates are dependent and tribal, candidates for victimhood.
 But how does Yarvin's layers intersect with my Three Peoples theory? When I think about it, I reckon that my three sectors do not exactly match his but rather overlap.

I think that my People of the Creative Self is the top end of Yarvin's gentry layer, who I expect, see themselves as more responsible than creative. There are, for a start, a lot more people that think of themselves as "creative" than are really creative, in the sense of Nietzsche's "free spirits" or Bronze Age Pervert's "pirates." If we think of the educated liberal Subaru-driving gentry, we would expect most of them to experience themselves as responsible citizens, concerned about justice issues, rather than as creative free spirits.

I think that my People of the Responsible Self overlaps the low end of Yarvin's gentry layer and the top half of his commoner layer. We see that in the Trump phenomenon. In my view, the enthusiastic "white working class" are clearly commoners, but barely responsibles. Trump supporters clearly see President Trump as protecting people like them. On the other hand, Trump has clearly driven away educated gentry women from the Republican Party, for he clearly offends their sense of honor and vanity.

I think that my People of the Subordinate Self tracks pretty well what Yarvin calls clients. The point about subordinates, clients, proles, victims, whatever, is that they expect to be protected at a closer level than the nation state. Since they are not really literate, they conduct their lives at the person-to-person level. They really need to have personal contact with some leader or patron to whom they owe fealty. The bureaucratic welfare state is not the ideal way to socialize such people.

One way of understanding the Three Peoples, or three layers, is through belonging. Creatives and gentry clearly feel they belong to something higher and better than nation states. Their world is clearly supranational, although not quite global. Responsibles and definitely commoners are nationalists, they identify with and belong to the nation state. The reason for Trump and Boris and the other national populists is that they have exploited a hole in the world view of the oh-so-sophisticated suprnationalists in the gentry.

The thing about the subordinates and clients and proles is that they cannot relate to being nation-state citizens. They need a loyalty closer to home. However, I would say that they are suspended part way between sub-national tribalism and nationalism. For the left found out long ago that their working-class supporters identified themselves as German workers, and British workers, and never identified with "workers of the world unite."

Notice how clients, victims, and my Little Darlings track. In all cases we are talking about how the ruling class or their gentry supporters enlist the subordinates into their political battalions -- in return for free stuff -- where the subordinates in their ranks-and-files are to be the shock troops of the ruling class's power project. And the whole point is to use the clients and victims to keep the commoners from getting any ideas above their station.

Friday, December 20, 2019

Soldiers Sending their Officers "Over the Top"

Remember back in the good old days, when the ruling class sent their sons "over the top" in another Big Push on the Western Front in World War I?

You don't? Well. It's part of the Narrative. That's why all those poets were writing meaningful verses about life in the trenches. And why everyone, after the war was over, agreed "Never Again."

Only the geniuses wrote a peace treaty that humiliated Germany according to the good old rules of loot and plunder, and so when a cheeky chappie called Adolf objected, the German people had to agree with him.

But, on the other hand, would J.R.R. Tolkien have written his Middle Earth fantasies if he hadn't been sent to the trenches?

Still, sending the young men to defend the border is part of the collective unconscious of mankind. Right there in the middle of our archetypes.

But here is an interesting notion.

At the end of National War 2016 when upstart General Trump unexpectedly won the war, the generals of the Democratic Party did not send their troops home.

Field Marshall Hillary Clinton was doubtless drunk on Chardonnay on the night of November 8, 2016. And next day she omitted the traditional concession speech and the usual invocation of "we are all Americans" and the passing shot to "wait until next time."

So, what has happened since is that the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party -- who are not really rank-and-file but educated liberal gentry subalterns -- has been pushing the generals to return to the fight in The Resistance against the winning General Trump, and indeed throw him out of office with an Impeachment in the House of Representatives and Trial in the Senate.

Now, General Nancy Pelosi knows this is a stupid idea, but what can she do? I mean, who else can be Speaker of the House of Representatives than the Woman in White -- only she was in black for the impeachment vote. I mean think about it if you are Our Nance. Who can possibly replace her?

Hey, I will tell you what you could do, Nance. You could act like the Sacrificial Hero of legend and history, and fall on your sword. You could say: "I am not going to dignify this mutiny in the foc'sle with the name of Impeachment. If you mutinous scum don't quit it right now, I will resign my commission and take my captain's gig and leave you to certain death by losing your seats."

Yes. Our Nance could threaten to resign. And then actually do it! It's not as if she will be throwing away a promising career in politics. She has already achieved immortality by becoming the First Woman Speaker. And by throwing away her majority in the House by twisting the arms of moderate Dems out of their sockets to pass Obamacare in 2010. Now she could make a dramatic exit by resigning rather than sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

I thought, as a profound sexist, that women had a natural talent for fake drama! Apparently Our Nance has lost the flair for this. Perhaps because she is 79. Good Lord! Do you mean she is going to be 80 next March 26. I wonder if President Trump will do a tweet!

But of course, women do fake drama, not the real drama of being a Sacrificial Hero according to religion and modern pyschology, where you sacrifice your life that others may live. Nothing personal. It's just the way that the collective unconscious of women works. Men are expendable; women are not.

Really, I should be delighted. Because Our Nance doesn't want to do the Sacrificial Hero bit, and because the educated liberal gentry are idiots that have never read a book, or commanded a stricken field.

So, as they say, they "literally know nothing."

And I suppose we should be grateful,  because the truth is that since our liberal gentry friends pretty well own the culture, they ought to be beating us deplorables five ways from Sunday.

But they aren't. They are getting beaten by men that everyone agrees are complete buffoons, from Trump to Johnson.

There must be a lesson in that.

Hey lefties. It's the job of general offficers to send the rank-and-file to their deaths, not the other way around.

Thursday, December 19, 2019

Cleaning Up Afer Hurricane Lefty

After the destructive winds and flood tides of a great tropical storm comes the cleanup.

And that's what came to me in the early morning today as I thought about the century-long hurricane of the left. I got to thinking about it after reading a piece in American Mind by Jeremy Carl writing that ordinary America is now "culturally conquered territory," and it will take a "reconquista," like the Spanish reconquest of Spain from the Moors, to restore America.

Quoting Hunter Hearns, he writes of the liberal cultural hegemony,
Republicans have controlled the presidency for 32 out of the last 52 years, appointed 15 of the last 19 Supreme Court justices, and controlled much of Congress for the last 25 years as well. “For a party to be so remarkably successful politically while losing on practically every issue requires a deep rethinking of where things have gone wrong.”
There is a lot of woulda coulda shoulda like this going on in the scattered homes of Conservative-ville: the assumption that someone has failed. That Bill Buckley should have done better than make the Republican Party into an Outer Party to the Democrats' Inner Party. That the Bushes should not have been such squishes. That the neoconservatives ended up betraying us in the mountains of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq. That the billionaire libertarian globalists should not have hollowed out the manufacturing economy. Etc.

But I think all that kind of thought misses the point. It assumes that, e.g., government coulda woulda shoulda take enough precautions so that, when a hurricane shows up in Florida, that everything should already be hurricane-proof. And Someone Is To Blame if a few roofs blow off.

But when there is a hurricane or some other great storm, it really is not possible to take enough precautions so that there is no damage. You board up the windows, you encourage people to drive their SUVs inland, and then, after the storm, you go to work and clean up.

The basic problem we righties have on the "far-right" of which you've heard tell is that we don't really believe in politics. We think government is a necessary evil to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic, and beyond that it goes south pretty quickly.

Wanna protect seniors with retirement income? Well, pretty soon it takes over the budget, and one thing it does not do is save present income to provide the jobs for the kids that will be working when we geezers are retired. Wanna educate the kiddies? You end up with an education bureaucracy that is messing around with diversity and inclusion and bathrooms and pensions and not doing much about educating the kiddies. Wanna curb dangerous monopolies? Great, except scientists say that the regulated monopolies end up "capturing" the regulators.

And that is just the boring part of government. The truth is that, for many people, politics is their religion. They practice politics as part of a movement to save the world and give meaning to their lives.

We have a rather terrifying word to describe the combination of politics and religion. We call it "totalitarian." And there are 100 million graves in Russia and China that bear silent witness to the horror of this toxic combination.

To say that we woulda coulda shoulda stopped all this is to say that, when a new religious cult forms we should send wise men to talk the cultist out of it, before they become a problem.

Who really could have known that the minor kooks Marx and Engels with their shabby critique of classical economics would have spawned the Bolsheviks and the Maoists? Who was anticipating The Sixties and forecasting a sexual revolution and the sacrament of abortion?

And who forecasted the Woke Revolution of the present time? And who can keep track of the follies of progressives in government, proposing stupid de-carbonization, ridiculous regulation of the workplace, and the use of words as weapons in the pejorative search-and-destroy mission of canceling all the racist-sexist-homophobes?

The truth is that all we can do is batten down the hatches when the storm clouds threaten and hope we are still alive after it has spent its force so we can help the Cajun Navy rescue people and clean up afterwards.

The thing is that every successful religious and political enthusiasm ends up as a manifestation of my maxim: "there is no such thing as justice, only injustice." Every great political movement and every great religious movement leaves devastation in its wake. Or if you prefer, victims of injustice.

One of the things that our lefty friends are very good at is reminding us how the gales of economic change cause suffering and heartache: the closed manufacturing plants, the ruined lives, the hollowed-out cities. It's true; we can do more to help those whose boats have ended up holed and beached on the headland.

But when you have politics you have a war of words. When you have religion you have a battle between good and evil. And when you have government you have force.

So when a religious movement or a political movement or a combination totalitarian movement reaches hurricane strength, thousands, maybe millions of people are going to be flung around like matchsticks. That, in any language, is injustice. And injustice builds rage and pushback.

I don't think that people like me -- who, using Curtis Yarvin's language, are "gentry" that try to understand the point of view of "commoners" -- can expect to anticipate and head off the latest politico-religious enthusiasm from the left. But we can champion the right of "commoners" to live their modest lives in their own way without being drafted into the ideological army of the lefties.

And without being send to reeducation camp for failing to get with the left's program.

And the least we can do is help clean up after the storm has passed.

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Politics and Honor Among Thieves

The point about the Horowitz Inspector General report is that it didn't offer a narrative. It just discussed the various ways in which the FBI violated its rules in gussying up documentation for its FISA applications to surveil the communications of Carter Page.

One of those violations was not to mention that Carter Page was a CIA guy. That is, the CIA used him because of his Russian connections.

Really? The FBIs didn't know that Carter Page was supposed to be mixing it up with the Russkies, because CIA. Or they did know, but "forgot" to tell the FISA court? Really? Stepping on the CIA's toes? Where's professional courtesy, not to mention honor among thieves?

Here's my problem with all this munching over the details of coulda shoulda woulda. Someone, somewhere in the "intelligence community" or the Department of Justice should have said: "hey kids, let's cool our jets for a moment. Do you realize what we are doing here? We are spying on a presidential campaign. Are we really, really sure we want to do that? Hey, I know! Let's give Donald Trump a heads-up on this."

Because, you see, I'd say that the intelligence community ought to presume that any ordinary US political campaign is on the up-and-up.

Call it honor among thieves. You don't snitch on your fellow thieves.

Hey, there are all kinds of shenanigans in every political campaign, and all kinds of marginal characters that want to get involved. But if there really is some connection with a foreign power, you want the campaign managers to be warned. You want to say: "Hey, Bill, did you know that Sam has been a bit too close to the Russkies over the years?"

But the Obama Justice Department and the Obama FBI didn't do that. Really?

Now I just read a guy that said that all organizations are like a living organism:
Take a few individuals and put them together in an organization of almost any sort and an amazing thing happens. The organization effectively becomes alive. It now has a heartbeat of its very own and it, the organization, will fight to stay alive from that point forward.
So, somehow, all the folks at the DOJ and FBI knew what was expected of them. And they just went along. Whether there was an explicit order from the top, or just a nod and a wink, like the famous line about "who will rid me of this turbulent priest." Most of the time, the monarch doesn't have to issue a specific order. People just intuit what is expected of them and get on with it.

So. I don't know if President Obama personally unleashed the FBI on the Trump campaign, but certainly someone in the chain of command intuited what was expected of him. Maybe they just knew that Donald Trump was a threat to the "living organism" we call the "deep state." And certainly, people in the FBI would understand that such behavior would be rewarded by a President Clinton.

What bothers me is the utter stupidity of all this.

If the folks at the top of the food chain had half a brain, they would have been saying, well, the Dems have been in power for two terms so we are almost certainly looking at a change election, and if we start mucking about with that we will create more problems than we solve.

It's the same with Supreme Court nominations. Back in 1987 the Dems decided to "Bork" the Supreme Court nomination of conservative Robert Bork. Why? Because Bork threatened all the liberal agenda they had "legislated" through the Supreme Court. So they stopped him. Bully for them. But now every GOP Supreme Court nominee gets Borked, and Republicans have learned to resist, and now have a conscious policy to replace all retiring justices throughout the federal court system with reliable, vetted conservatives. And so Democrats have upped the ante every time, so that now we are dragging up alleged misbehavior in student parties from 30 years ago, as in the Kavanaugh nomination! Really Dems? Did you really want to go here?

Do you see what is happening, Dems? You are teaching us deplorables how to do "activism" and go mano-a-mano against you guys. Is that what you really want?

What bothers me is the utter stupidity of this.

Now we have the impeachment of President Trump on the flimsiest of pretexts. I get why we are getting this, because Hillary Clinton didn't properly concede the 2016 election, and because there has been a revival of left-wing activism partly encouraged by President Obama. I also understand that Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to lose control of the lefty activist wing of the party, so she is playing the Duchess of Plaza Toro and leading her regiment from behind.

But is this really what you Democrats want? Routine impeachments of presidents because the activists are mad about losing the last election, because you didn't have the cojones to tell them to cool their jets?

I was talking to my Greek friend this morning, and he mentioned that a few years ago some Greek priest from Buffalo wanted to change the bylaws of the US Greek Orthodox Church to make the priest the president of each local church governing council. But then some bishop intervened. No! He exclaimed. The priest is the spiritual leader in the church, and the council is the "corporation." Forget it! Golly. Imagine! Separation of powers, even in a local church.

Here's the problem. You get traditions, like the separation of powers. Like alternation in office and conceding of elections. Like only using impeachment for really egregious "high crimes and misdemeanors."

But over time people forget why. Separation of powers? But we want abortion, because justice. Concede an election? But Trump! Using the FBI to spy on an election campaign? But Trump!

The point is not that these people are evil. I could live with that. The point is that they are stupid. They are breaking up the furniture and using it for firewood and they have no clue what they are doing.

I suppose I should be grateful. I should be grateful that the boobs that have turned Supreme Court nominations into straight partisan dogfights are idiots. That Hillary Clinton is a corrupt fool. That the woke left literally knows nothing, AOC. That the global elite just talks to each other and has no idea how it is screwing up the lives of ordinary deplorables.

Because if the "deep state" had a brain they would have the whole world locked up, instead of stumbling and bumbling from one stupidity to another.

Still, the whole Trump surveillance thing puzzles me. I thought there was supposed to be honor among politicians, as among thieves.

But maybe the current generation of thieves didn't get the message from their seniors.

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

The Weird Benefit of the NYT "1619 Project"

As you would expect, conservatives have been in the forefront of mocking the New York Times "1619 Project" that proposes that African slavery is the story and the meaning of America.

But I must say that it helped me think a bit more deeply about slavery.

Because it encouraged me to think instead: why should we, in the last two centuries, have been the ones to experience slavery as a scandal, and do something about it?

And it encouraged me to think up a counter-narrative, that we might call the left's "1848 Project" to reinvent slavery as socialism and to create the two biggest slave states in history.

Anyway, now the Wall Street Journal has published a pay-walled opinion piece "The '1619 Project' Gets Schooled," in which it takes the NYT to the wood-shed on the 1619 Project with the help of historians and Trotskyites.
The project's creator, Mikole Hannah-Jones, is proud that it "decenters whiteness" and disdains its critics as "old, white male historians."
It would be funny, if not so serious, that this woman, who has "an undergraduate degree in history and African-American studies and a master's in journalism", is so up-front and, dare I say, mindlessly racist.

But, in a way, it is helpful for The New York Times to front such a superficial project, because it makes people like me think about the issue. Why did we, the paragons of "whiteness," abolish slavery?

Was it because of moral superiority of our white patriarchal culture? Was it because of the moral fervor of Christian evangelism in the 18th century? Was it because slavery does not pay, compared to free labor? Was it because the North hated the South and cooked up the slavery issue in the 1850s as a club to beat the South?

Or was it because of popular literature like Frederick Douglass's 1845 autobiography and Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1852 Uncle Tom's Cabin? Or was it because of black Americans that, according to Hannah-Jones, "fought back alone" against racism?

Whatabout a Brit sailor like William Richardson in A Mariner of England that in 1790 joined a slaver bound for Guinea as Fourth Mate, and spent six months at anchor slowly buying slaves on the Bonny River from the local African chief?

Or whatabout the white slave trade in Circassian beauties from the NE coast of the Black Sea -- sold by their families into slavery -- that were trafficked to harems in the Middle East?

The truth is that, when we construct our historical narratives, whether as a credentialed historian or as a young journalist that "literally knows nothing," we are picking documents to tell a story. Some people want to celebrate the glorious arc of "white" progress; others want to "decenter whiteness." We all pick the items that help us tell the story we want to tell.

My own approach is the notion that slavery does not pay, compared to free labor. So no moral story. Just bottom-line thinking. Just as, in WWI and after, the Germans changed the basic organization of the battle by assigning responsibility downwards from commissioned officers to NCOs because, in the "lethal battlefield" of machine guns and artillery, there was no way for the higher officers to supervise every detail of the battle.

In other words, the world does not change from brilliant strategic thinking. Itj ust reacts to the facts on the ground.

You could have the same argument about labor unions. Some people say that it was unions that raised the wages and benefits of workers; others that it was "productivity" and the simple action of supply and demand for labor. Some people say that it was unions that forced companies to treat their employees like human beings; others that unions make a company so inflexible and uncompetitive that unionized companies just can't survive in the global marketplace.

Hey, whatabout my argument about the welfare state being neo-feudalism? You can argue that the serfs of the old feudal system, abandoned by their lords in the agricultural revolution of the 16th century, voted for a resumption of feudalism in the modern administrative welfare state that tasks the ruling class with looking after the welfare of the workers. So you have the voters of Britain voting for a little more NHS from Boris Johnson rather than a lot more NHS from Jeremy Corbyn. But nobody is proposing to put the responsibility for health care on the shoulders of each individual citizen.

So, is the modern feudalism a step towards slavery? Or what? I doubt if the young journalists of The New York Times would have a clue about that, beyond what they had been carefully taught in our nation's schools and colleges.

Monday, December 16, 2019

Applying Yarvin's Gentry, Commoners, Clients to Charles Murray's "Coming Apart"

Writes Curtis Yarvin in "The Clear Pill:" all societies have three layers. So it turns out that almost everybody from George Orwell to me has a Three Peoples theory. Let's make a table of the correspondences.

George OrwellInner PartyOuter PartyProles
Karl MarxBourgeoisieCommunistsProletarians
Auguste ComtePositiveMetaphysicalTheological
New LeftActivistsRacists, etc.Victims
Charles MurrayBelmont??Fishtown
Curtis YarvinGentryCommonersClients
J.R.R. TolkienElvesHobbitsDwarves
Joel KotkinClerisyYeomanrySerfs
Z-Man, Z-manCloud PeopleDirt People[lower classes]
Dennis PriceCloud PeopleDirt People[dependents]
David GoodhartAnywheresSomewheres[Inbetweeners]
John DerbyshireIce People??Sun People
VikingsEarlsPeasantsThralls (slaves)
Christopher ChantrillCreativesResponsiblesSubordinates
Christopher ChantrillRuling ClassMiddle ClassLittle Darlings

Some people only have two layers in their system, and they are wrong!

But let us think a little about Charles Murray and his binary of Belmont, a suburb of Boston where Mitt Romney used to live, and Fishtown, the working-class neighborhood of Philadelphia along the Delaware River.

In his Wall Street Journal précis of his Coming Apart he notes how the Belmont folks are doing fine, with great careers and merger marriages; the middle not so good, and then the Fishtown folks where the men don't work much and the women don't marry much. Note that the libertarian Murray doesn't really give the middle a name. But we now know who they are. They are the Trump people, left out of the equation.

Interesting, isn't it, that Charles Murray was just presenting what he regarded as a problem, that the top and the bottom of white America were drifting apart, and while things were great for the top they weren't so great for the bottom. And then Donald Trump solved the problem, by assembling a new middle that is sorta left out of the Belmont-Fishtown binary, and is now gonna fight to Make America Great Again. What a concept!

And now Boris Johnson has done the same thing in Britland.

Hey! Wasn't the left supposed to be all about advocating for the downtrodden? What happened there, lefties?

Actually, when you think about it, Donny and Boris have solved the political problem for the next 30 years. Are they geniuses or just cunning rascals that saw their opportunity and they took it? Never mind.

Truth is, we have needed this for a long time, because the Big Game of the 20th Century was the game of the Inner Party bribing the Proles with the money they taxed on the Outer Party. That worked a charm when the Outer Party wasn't too large. But now that we have progressed to Yarvin's world where the old Inner Party has expanded into a gentry class polluting the Proles, now their multicultural clients, with the idea that the Outer Party, now commoners, are the enemy. Well, one fine day some damn politician was going to figure out that there are a lot of votes in those deplorable commoners, and that he could rally the commoners against the gentry.

See, in Orwell's 1984 the Inner Party was less that 2 percent of the population and the Proles were about 85 percent. So the Outer Party was about 13 percent of population. But now, according to Charles Murray, the gentry in Belmont is about 20 percent of the population, and the Fishtown population is about 35 percent. So there's a much bigger middle. And then there are class traitors like me that believe that the Belmont guys are cruel and unjust and so vote with the Outer Party become commoners.

So now you got a rough balance of power.

And wot I say is: surely some of the Little Darlings of the ruling class are about ready to flip the bird at their gentry officers, desert the woke colors and become commoners.

And it serves the gentry right!

Friday, December 13, 2019

With Trump and Boris, Time for a "Rectification of Names"

OK. Now the Brits have gone and done it too. They have elected a "buffoon", Boris Johnson, to be Prime Minister, just as we Yanks elected the clown Donald Trump to be our president.

What is going on?

Well, when things appear to be confusing, the first thing to do, Confucius says, is a "Rectification of Names" to make "words correspond to reality."

So here is my contribution.

Stop talking about "white working-class" Trump voters. They are not working-class workers. They are "commoners" of the nation state of the United States of America.

Stop talking about "working class" Boris voters in the old Labour heartlands. They are "commoners" of the nation state of the United Kingdom.

So let me explain what I mean. My use of "commoners" follows Curtis Yarvin in "The Clear Pill" over at American Mind.
As Orwell wrote, all societies have three human layers. We may call ours gentry, commoners, and clients. The gentry are urbanites, cultivated and ambitious; the commoners are suburbanites, educated and independent; the clients are Marx’s proletariat and lumpenproletariat, uneducated and/or dependent.
Yarvin is a Three Peoples guy, just like me.

When you look at the folks attending Trump's rallies, you are not seeing the working class. You are not seeing people that have been bused to the rally by "activistes" and Soros money. You are seeing ordinary Americans, commoners, that drove to his rally in their SUVs. They have had some education, and are probably working in the trades, or as technicians. And they consider themselves Americans, proud and free. That, in part, is what the dreaded "gun culture" is all about, that I take care of mine. They go to Trump's rallies because they feel he "cares about people like me."

When you consider the Brits that voted for Brexit and for Boris, you are not seeking the working class, satirized by Peter Sellers in his "what about the workers." You are seeing ordinary "commoner" Brits that have been voting Labour for generations because that is what people like them did. Labour represented the "workers;" the Tories represented the "toffs." 'Nuff said. They voted for Boris because they cannot stand lefty Jeremy Corbyn.

By the way, the lefties I heard on the BBC last night were all still talking about "Thatcherism" and "austerity," just like they were a generation ago.

And really, all this is because the "gentry" in the US and the UK is no longer trying to communicate to the "commoners" that were once workers. They have gone on to bigger and better things: the identity politics of race and gender; helping helpless migrants; saving the Earth from climate change. And the commoners-that-were-once-workers are not to be the beneficiaries of this new politics. No, the beneficiaries of the new politics are to be the gentry themselves and their new "clients" the traditionally marginalized and oppressed.

Look, let's give the gentry their due. Of course they are internationalists: they have the education and qualifications to work anywhere in the world, and they do not experience the nation state as protecting them from the cold winds of the world. Of course they are totalitarians, combining religion and politics, for everyone needs a religion and with God dead, they are picking up the secular religion of the left and carelessly mixing it together with their politics. But they need something to make themselves feel special. And because an advanced education does not really equip you to make better products and services in the market economy, they gravitate towards government, the administrative state, and the education state. And because they need to be "leaders" they need followers, the current "clients:" the migrants just off the farm, "uneducated and/or dependent" who need protection and look to a powerful lord to protect them from the cold winds of the market economy.

One result of the Trump/Johnson effect is the moving of the Republican Party of the US and the Conservative Party of the UK from the Reaganite/Thatcherite minimal state and free trade agenda towards a more protectionist politics, in the sense of protecting the commoners from the cold hard world with Trump trade deals, and cranking up the NHS in Britain. We libertarian conservatives regard protectionism of all kinds as a fool's errand. We say that you are fooling yourself if you think that "protection" will actually protect you. But the truth is that "commoners" expect the government to protect them. And they have a point. What is the point of government if it does not protect you?

But is the expectation of the commoners any worse than the expectation of the gentry that the government should provide them with magnificent careers in the Deep State to match the depth and breadth of their cultivations and ambitions?

The cunning thing about Trump is that, under cover of helping the commoners he is doing libertarian things like dismantling job-killing federal regulations and lowering marginal tax rates. Without making a big ideological point of it.

Boris says he is going to build hospitals for the NHS -- including in his own constituency -- and do climate change. But I wonder what he will be doing without actually making a big deal of it.

I also think that the Rectification of Names should extend to calling our "progressives" and "democratic socialists" as "reactionaries," following my notion of understanding the left as a Great Reaction.

But that is another story.

Thursday, December 12, 2019

What Happens to Democrats When the Pelosi-Biden Generation Retires?

OK, I know. First of all, what is left of Republicans when Trump leaves the scene? Never mind! That is a question for another day.

Seriously. All the Democratic presidents we grew to know and love were elected as mere pikers. FDR was elected at 50, JFK at 43, Carter at 52; Clinton at 46; Obama at 47.

Only Harry Truman was over 60 on becoming president. That just shows it!

Now we have Joe Biden, who will be 77 on election day. Elizabeth Warren, who will be 71. If we look at Democratic leaders in Congress, we have Our Nance, from a distinguished Baltimore political family, who will be 79 in March. Chuck Schumer will be 70 next November.

If you ask me, this is an unfortunate consequence of modern health care and medicine, that politicians live a lot longer than they used to. And since politicians never retire, it means that the younger set now grow old waiting for their olders and betters to retire. Perhaps we should bring back the smoke-filled room to hasten our politicians on their way.

I remember back in the day when the MSM was scandalized by all those ancient Southern Democrats occupying chairmanships of Congressional committees that should have been going to worthy young northern liberal Democrats.

The problem is, of course, that when the current crop of veteran Democrats retires the folks that step into their shoes will either be vile monsters like Adam Schiff, 59, or minority members from inner-city one-party districts.

I know that we are all supposed to be thrilled by multicultural America, but I have a feeling that it will be nasty, brutish, and short compared to the current America that we have been taught to hate.

In other words, I think that multiculturalism is all very well when liberal professors are instructing their students at Deep State U, but not so much fun when open racist sexist multiculturalists are practicing what they have been carefully taught on the political stage.

See, I know that all the good people know that nationalism equals Hitler. But I think nationalism is one of the most remarkable ideas ever, to persuade a motley crew of people that really have nothing in common to believe that they are all joyful members of the fake tribe of the nation.

And I think that when you do the reverse procedure and persuade men and women and LGBTs and various racial and ethnic minorities that they have nothing in common.-- Well I think you are sowing the wind and will shortly reap the whirlwind.

But what do I know!

Here's another problem that I don't think our Democratic friends have thought about. We all had a grand old time in the 20th century cranking government spending from 10 percent of GDP up to the present 36 percent, as below:

But do you see what has been happening? The growth of government spending has been slowing, except for that blip in the Great Recession. I just think that the good years of bribing the voters will lovely free stuff is coming to the end of its useful life.

That's why Elizabeth Warrn has run into a buzz-saw with her Medicare-for-all thingy. Most Americans don't think they will benefit. Right now a lot of Americans are all in favor of climate change policy. That's because they don't understand that the money is going to billionaires and bottom feeders not to good ordinary Americans like them.

And when it comes down to it, the basis of modern democracy is that voters believe that the free stuff should only be going to people like them. And we have carefully taught folks to believe in this. There's the geezer saying that "they'd better not cut My Social Security" because he paid in all his life. Or the girl geezer just flat out saying "they'd better not cut My Medicare." Just sayin'.

Somewhere out there is an newly fledged politician in the process of figuring out how you play free-stuff politics when all the good ones are taken.

That guy is a genius.

I wonder what he is doing right now? Maybe he will sweep in and send sweep the current crop of septuagenarians out to the retirement community.

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

But is the Deep State up to the Job?

The ZMan has a trio of pieces about whether the Deep State can sink Trump and reform.

In "Our Revolutionary Age" he writes about the similarities between the "decadent and indifferent ruling class" in the lead-up to the French Revolution and our present Deep State. Our present rulers are "hot house flowers;" the intelligence community that spied on the Trump campaign imagines it is playing "a game without consequences." Only they are idiot Marie Antoinettes saying "let them eat cake."

In "The Community" he writes about why "reform is impossible" because everyone who is anyone is a member of the informal community of the ruling class, the "party" if you like. For instance, the folks who did the dirty on spying on the Trump campaign think they are going to be taken care of.
If these people had any fear of Barr or Durham, they would be lying low. Instead, they are doing the same service for the community they were doing before all this. They are members of the community in good standing. They have nothing to fear.
And Zman thinks that when impeachment gets to the Senate "Trump will be given a list of things he must sign in order to avoid conviction." Reform? Fuggetaboutit. Because the ruling class is a closed society that won't allow it.

In "True Reform" he writes about how the current ruling class is not going to allow genuine reform, for
no reform that would work against the interests of the ruling class will ever see the light of day. These people... are not stupid or naive. They understand perfectly well how they remain in power and it sure as heck is not by allowing social reformers to strip them of their authority. So any reform would have to come from the billionaires who control the political class... [S]ome crisis will have to scare the global pirates, who run the West, into hiring a new political class. If that does not happen, then we are headed for a revolutionary moment when this order is violently overthrown as a matter of survival.
OK. But if the ruling class has a high percentage of Marie Antoinettes, are they really up to the job of stamping out reform? Maybe, but I would say that the story so far is that the efforts to stomp on Trump haven't exactly taught me that the ruling class is up to the job of heading off the deplorables. They look to me to be like the stupid generals that liberal historians keep telling us about that are trying to fight the last war.

Actually the squib about generals fighting the last war is a cheap shot. Of course the generals don't  know how the fight the current war until battle in joined and the generals and the colonels and the politicians in charge learn from bitter experience and the deaths cemeteries full of young men how to fight the current war.

And I have a feeling, based on my judgement about the performance of ruling class types like Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler and the MSM, that they are really not ready the fight the war on Trump and the deplorables. I feel that they are a day late and a dollar short trying to play the role of the Duke of Plaza Toro and stay one step in front of the left-wing army of woke-aholics.

For instance, suppose the Dems had conceded the election to Trump? Then the left-wing crazies wouldn't have started their #Resistance and, if they had, the Pelosis could have disciplined them by saying that we are all Americans and we must all accept the results of elections. Then the Dems could have mounted an offensive of moderates against Trump, as they did when turning the House Democratic in 2018. On this notion, the Pelosis shot themselves in the foot by allowing a #Resistance to form that seems to be forcing them into an impeachment to prove that they have hair on their chests.

So I don't think that the ruling class really knows how to deal with the Trump phenomenon. They are pressing the familar buttons in the control room but they are not getting the result they expect.

And whatabout the billionaires and the "pirates?" The thing about them is that they are not all that sharp when it comes to politics. Soros? Helluva speculator, and a fiend when it comes to funding left-wing activist groups, and an avowed enemy of the nation state, but I wonder if he is really getting the results he intends? And other billionaires, like Bloomberg, Gates, the Google guys, Carlos Slim, Jeff Bezos? I don't think those guys are really playoff material. Maybe there is some Dark Lord directing traffic behind the scenes, but I doubt it. The fact is that, when it comes to politics, the politicians are the experts, and if they don't know what to do, then I doubt if the billionaires do either.

And whatabout the Crash of 2008?  Does the ruling class really understand what happened, and how it was their foolish policy of subsidizing housing loans, and allowing low down payments and loans to high-risk borrowers? Does the ruling class understand that the problem was not "greedy bankers?" Suppose the real ruling class understands what happened. OK, great. But does the liberal gentry class understand? I doubt it. A wise elite would have kept the lid on home mortgages, would have warned the congressional advocates of more mortgage subsidies to cool it, and would not have allowed this to happen:

"Agency" debt is more or less Fannie and Freddie, the government mortage twins that, at their peak just before the 2008 crash, had issued debt of about 55% of GDP. Good idea, ruling class? I don't think so.

See, I don't think that the ruling class is smart enough to see around corners and avoid easily avoidable problems. I think that they are losing control, of their own crazies, and of the economy and the loyalty of the "commoners" that they have humiliated as "deplorables."

So I think, despite what the Zman says about the ruling class, that our rulers are not that smart, and not really able to steer the ship of state to keep themselves in power, and not really able to keep the deplorables down.

And if Trump gets to a Senate trial, I don't know that the Republican senators are really going to give Trump "a list of things he must sign in order to avoid conviction." I think that the Republican senators are going to be more interested in making sure that their supporters know that they aren't buyin' nothing that the Democrats are selling. From what I understand about vote-buying, from The Calculus of Consent by Buchanan and Tullock, the question would be what the pro-removal forces would have to offer Republican senators on the fence that would compensate them for losing their seats.

None of these guys are willing to boldly outdare the dangers of the time. They want to keep their current positions and their influence, and I doubt that many Republican senators are much tempted by the prospect of removing Donald Trump. They want to stick around and become committee chairmen some day.

Hey, if I were a Republican senator right now I would be rather enjoying watching the Democrats in their present difficulties, and I would be saying to myself: "serves them right, the a**holes. They think they are smart, but that's just because the media tells them they are smart. And the lobbyists. And the academics. Reserve my ringside seat."

When the world changes, it changes from bigger things that ruling-class power and conceit. It changes because, as I say, "there is no such thing as justice, only injustice." By that I mean that the best a government can do is to keep 'em down on the farm, muttering about their grievances. Because there are always grievances, for govenment is force, and anyone on the receiving end of force is experiencing injustice.

The problem about being a ruling class is that everyone is sucking up to you, telling you what geniuses you are, telling you that the opposition is just a bunch of whiners and deplorables, that really don't amount to much.

And you believe them. Until it is too late.

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

NYT: Nothing to See Here, Impeachment Über Alles!

Well, I thought to myself this morning, maybe I should take a look at the on-line version of The New York Times to see their take on the "Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation" by DOJ Inspector General Horowitz. Imagine my surprise: nothing on the report, but a piece about impeachment in the House.

OK, I said. Whatabout the Opinion section? Nothing.

Then I went to my Tuesday yoga class where the instructor, Jim, usually has the day's NYT/Atlantic/New Yorker talking point. I was all ready with my counter points (you have to be ready with the one-liners, because l'esprit d'escalier). But guess what: bupkis from Jim on politics today.

So I realized why the Democrats in the House had to start formal impeachment today. To take the Horowitz report off the front pages.

All in all I think we can take it as read that our Democratic friends are feeling a bit flat-footed today. I think that Instapundit pretty well covered it with this post:

"51 violations and 9 false statements".

So why is Lt. Gen. Flynn being criminally pursued for "false statements?"

"Fusion Co-Founders Glenn Simpson and Jonathan Winer Refused to Talk to IG; James Comey and Former FBI Attorney James Baker Also Avoided Fully Testifying."

Well I Never! What shrinking violets we have these days in the Deep State.

"If you have 17 FBI "mistakes" and 100% of those mistakes favor the party in power against the candidate, those aren't mistakes."

But do 97% of statistics scientists establish a consensus on this?

"IG Report Reveals Comey Did Brief Obama on Trump Campaign Investigation."

But it would be racist to investigate this.

As you may know, I believe that the fundamental problem here is that our ruling-class and its gentry-liberal supporters have forgotten the basic idea of democracy: that parties respect the results of elections, and peaceably leave power when they lose an election after a couple of terms in power.

In other words, it is the job of the defeated presidential candidate to concede defeat, wish the winner well, and tell the supporters "wait until next time." Al Gore did not do this in 2000; Hillary Clinton did not do this in 2016 (but hey, she was probably drunk on election night). When the defeated candidate fails to concede, and fails to tell their supporters to go home, then they are putting the peace of our nation at risk. Yes, "Peace," dear liberals. Because politics is civil war by other means, and a lot better than real civil war.

Look, I get it, that the left represents a Great Reaction against the modern era and its notion to lift and separate -- I mean limit and separate -- political and other powers. And I get that the left represents a religious movement that has raised politics into a holy sacrament. And so we are likely to get, about once a generation, a cult-like prophetic movement out of the left announcing that this time they are going to save the world with their politics.

In the US, the Civil War was one such movement, with the anti-slavery Republican Party determined to teach Democrats and the South a lesson.

Then the New Deal was going to fundamentally transform America, but merely extended the Great Depression until FDR took the fetters off private business in order to fight his two-front war.

Then the Sixties was going to save America from the dull suburban conformism of the Fifties. Only the commoners all voted for Nixon. And then Reagan.

Now we have the Woke Years, with a new enthusiasm for Democratic Socialism, in violation of my Four Laws, that:

  1. Socialism cannot work because it cannot compute prices.
  2. Administrative government cannot work because thousands of bureacrats cannot outperform millions of producers and consumers.
  3. Regulation cannot work because of "regulatory capture" of the regulators by the regulated.
  4. Government programs cannot work because the people will not allow them to be reformed.
Other than that, Democratic Socialism is cool, man.

All this woke and #Resistance nonsense is very annoying, but maybe it is all for the best. The story of the last 200 years is the story of successive gentry enthusiasms, led by educated rich kids. But each time the enthusiasm has run up against a brick wall, usually the brick wall of the commoners. So it was in the Sixties, and so it may be in the Woke Years.

But there is the problem. If educated youth is not running around getting Woke, what other mischief will they get up to?