Friday, May 31, 2019

Abortion: Career is Not The Meaning of Life

In the New Yorker Katha Pollitt writes about how abortion has changed the arc of women's lives.
Access to legal abortion, whether as a backup to birth control or not, meant that women, like men, could have a sexual life without risking their future. A woman could plan her life without having to consider that it could be derailed by a single sperm.

Most women don’t enter fields that require years of graduate-school education, but all women have benefitted from having larger numbers of women in those fields.
See, I think that the idea of women "having a sexual life" is a lie. It is only men that can separate sex from love and marriage and children. I'd say that the more that a woman has a sexual life the more miserable she is likely to be.

See, I think that the idea of a woman "plan[ning] her life" free of the derailleur "single sperm" completely misunderstands what life is all about. Any woman with half a brain is going to steer clear of rogue "single sperms."

See, I think that the idea that "all women have benefitted" from having more women in fields that require graduate-school education is a ridiculous conceit.

So I think that Katha Pollit is full of it.

Of course, I understand where she is coming from. I get that from German sociologist Georg Simmel and his talk about women coming into the public square and adjusting it to suit "a more feminine sensibility."

I think that the fact of men being perfectly happy with "having a sexual life" and using women as masturbatory appliances is the reason we have marriage laws and that we used to regard abandonment and divorce as scandalous and disgraceful. Before the glories of the sexual revolution.

I think that any plan of life that does not include the generation and raising of children at its center is a foolish plan of life, and a plan for misery and despair.

I think that any notion that more women in certain educated fields is a Good Thing misses the point. What we observe about the work force is that women tend to enter and dominate fields that involve person-to-person communication and caring. Men predominate in fields that involve danger and things. Doesn't mean that the opposite can't happen, but certainly it should give us pause before applying government force to direct outcomes.And men have careers because that is how you get laid and get to marry high-status women.

I'm watching 56-Up, the latest in the TV documentary Up Series following the lives of 14 Brits born in 1957, and checked up on every seven years since. The lefty BBC producers picked a diverse bunch of youngsters from children abandoned in a orphanage to total rich kids with plummy accents. You could tell that the BBC thought they were getting ready to celebrate the wonderful lives of working-class kids that were in the process of benefitting gloriously from the wise and compassionate post-War welfare state. Only it didn't turn out like that.

And, after watching 56-Up, which looks at the kids that are now 56 years old, I'd say that abortion and contraception and the sexual revolution have played merry hell with the lives of pretty well all the kids except the richest ones. But that's just my opinion.

And the richest ones did well not because of their parents' riches but because of the upper-middle-class culture they inherited and breathed into their very souls.

However, in 56-Up almost all the kids are now entering a dignified late middle age, even the ones that went through what I would call welfare-state-hell for years.

See the difference between the right and the left is that we righty racists, sexists, and homphobes think that the folks migrating into the city from the country should be taught the culture of the middle class and its responsibility culture. They should not be encouraged to remain in a working-class or lower-class ghetto, or the neo-feudal culture of the welfare state, because that is not the way to wive and thrive in the city and the market economy.

So I think that Katha Pollit is clueless, and ought to watch the Up Series from start to finish and then answer the obvious question: why are we spending political and cultural bandwidth worrying about high-class women like her when the white working class is dying of despair? And the black community is marinating in self-pity. And gays are the worst bigots on the planet.

But others may differ.

Thursday, May 30, 2019

What All Rulers Do

Every political project is a project of force. Every political leader is summoning supporters to war. And the reward of the war is loot and plunder.

Generally, of course, the leader does not put his project in quite those terms. Usually his justification for war is that we must act now before the enemy strikes us. He must arouse in his followers the natural fear of the tribe next door, that they might suddenly strike us in a dawn raid, kill all the men and rape all the women.

Another casus belli is that the other guys are robbing us blind. You can see that at work in everything from the justification of taxing and regulating corporations to the renegotiating of trade relations with China.

And what about the workers! They are being screwed by their greedy employers! And what about women that only earn 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man. And blacks, cheated since forever by racism.

And always, if "you join in our crusade" as the Les Mis chorus sang, there will be rewards: loot and plunder.

In domestic politics with an established ruling class, this program is effected by the tactics of "divide and conquer." You set different groups against each other, all the better to tax and dominate them. For imagine what would happen if men stopped fighting with women, and blacks with whites? Why, they, er, we might all join up and decide that it is time to loot and plunder the ruling class and put them all in jail! Yay!

Notice that if a government does not have much spending, then the people need not be too concerned about getting their share, because there is not that much to share out. But if the government spends as much as ours, in the neighborhood of 35 percent of GDP every year, and taxes each of us to the tune of 30 percent of GDP, then every citizen has a vital interest in making sure that he gets his share of the loot and minimizes his share of the taxes paid. So a big-spending government is dividing and conquering by supervising the squabbling over who gets what out of the government goodies. What a concept!

My question is whether it is possible, short of a complete meltdown, to get humans to dial down their demands and refrain from trying to blame other people for their problems, and making them pay!

The only possible strategy seems to be indirection. President Trump is a master of this. He has run on Making America Great Again, making Mexico pay for the wall, stopping China from robbing us blind. But all the while he has been lowering tax rates -- on corporations! -- and cutting regulations -- on businesses!

Whaat? So President Trump has been putting Our Money into the hands of eevil corporations and rich investors! There oughta be a law!

Maybe there is genius in the Impeach Trump thingy. Because if the Dems and their willing accomplices in the media are filling their channel with Trump Orange Head Bad, then they have no bandwidth left for attacking his economic policies. And politics only has enough bandwidth for about one-and-a-half issues.

What I want to know is if there is a possible politics that would be able to reduce the power and looting of government, whether we could persuade ordinary people that their economic interests lie in smaller government, and that it does nobody any good if we are all concentrating on making the other guy pay.

Maybe the only way is the Trump way. The only way to bring America together is to stop scapegoating each other and scapegoat somebody else. Anybody else, from the Mexicans to the Chinese to the Iranians. And don't forget the Fake Media.

But let's try to keep it short of a shooting war, OK fellahs?

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

My Questions about Bob Mueller -- and Collusion

Here's what I want to know, in the aftermath of Special Prosecutor Mueller's Parthian shot at President Trump.

What was the quid pro quo that led to Special Prosecutor Mueller's late great statement that he could not "exonerate" President Trump on obstruction of justice?

Was it that, if he tossed that grenade at President Trump, that the Dems would not subpoena him to testify before various House Committees?

Was it that it avoided answering the question: "when did you know that President Trump and his campaign hadn't been 'colluding' with Russia?"

Oh, and the next question: "why did you continue your investigation for x months afterwards?"

There are other interesting questions about the whole Trump Russia business. One of them stares right out of Mark Steyn's interview with low-level Trump campaign operative George Papadopoulos. Just what exactly were the Brits doing in the middle of all this? And the Aussies? And this guy Joseph Mifsud who seems to have been an instructor at the CIA's school for spying in Italy. Really? The CIA has a spy school in Italy?

So to the next question: will the declassification of intelligence community documents extend to communications between the US intelligence community and their good Anglophone friends in the intelligence communities in Britland and Oz? And if not why not?

And what about the question of Christopher Steele getting all his anti-Trump dossier material from the Russians? What's that all about, given that the British Steele talks to Hillary's US campaign folks and US intelligence community folks and Russians? And Uncle Tom Cobbley and all? Collusion, anyone?

Really, if you ask me, we need an embarrassing declassification that embarrasses everyone from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton to the US intelligence community to US media to the Brits and the Aussies. Because if you ask me they were all in on it: the effort to entrap and embarrass and October Surprise the deplorable candidate Donald Trump.

And if it damages our relationship with our allies: who cares? Maybe it's time they learned a hard lesson that if they get mixed up playing sides in domestic US politics then they could get into a heap of trouble.

Really, when you think about it, we need a wall-to-wall embarrassment of our ruling class about once a generation, on principle, so that all the up-and-coming deep state actors know of some mentor that got caught in the undertow and therefore have determined that the price of glory in the higher echelons of the deep state is too high if it means doing what the Brennans and the Clappers and the Comeys and all the small-fry Strzoks and Pages did.

And, the question remains, and probably always will remain: what did the President know and when did he know it?

Because my experience of men and affairs leads me to believe that none of this would have happened without a nod from President Barack Obama.

Oh sure, there will never be a paper trail that leads right into the Oval Office. That's the whole point of having aides and assistants and law firms and cut-outs.

But for those of us that weren't born yesterday...

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Nationalism, Socialism, Patriotism, and So On

What is the Brexit/Trump/Populism revolution trying to tell us? That is what everyone is trying to figure out, whether you are a far right nationalist, a far left socialist, or some kind of squishy moderate in between.

The answer is pretty simple, and it has been right before us for decades. The guy that got it right was Hitler. He just said to the Germans: whether you are a nationalist, a socialist, a German patriot, or a worker, come and get your identity and your protection right here. I'm your man. Or leader as he liked to say.

Let us delve into Mein Kampf and figure out where he was coming from. Before World War I Hitler was a twentysomething in Vienna -- a millennial of the 20th century if you like -- and a rabid consumer of social media, known in those days as "newspapers." And as a German living in Vienna, capital of the Austro Hungarian Empire, he was really pissed off at the multicultural politics of the Hapsburgs, because it made German-speakers into a minority, just one group in the multicultural mix of the Hapsburg realm. He hated this multiculturalism because the Hapsburgs, in his view, kept short-changing the German speakers in order to keep the non-German speakers from rebelling and bolting out of the Hapsburg-ruled empire. The German speakers, he thought, always had to pay to keep the empire together. Hitler was all in favor of unions, by the way, but strongly opposed unions getting mixed up in lefty politics and the Jewish intellectuals that ran it.

The answer, for a German-speaking guy like him, was to redraw the borders of Europe so that all the German speakers could be in a Grossdeutschland of the German speakers. The Austrian Germans would no longer be a minority in Austria-Hungary and the Sudeten Germans would no longer be a minority in Czecho-slovakia, and the Germans in the Danzig corridor would no longer be a minority in Poland.

Oh well. The plans of mice and men.

Now I say: you get idiots like Hitler, Trump, Farage, & Co. when the usual idiots have screwed up.

Any questions about the usual idiots screwing up between 1918 and 1938?

Of course, after World War II the usual idiots decided that they weren't the problem. The problem was the voters that had been bewitched by the evil H-word. The only solution was the rule of the usual idiots, now called educated Europeans, and various checks and balances to make sure that the wise ones would be in control and that the people could never elect a Hitler again.

Hey wise ones! How's that grand political and cultural strategy of yours doin', pal?

Oh, I see. What is needed is to silence the racists and the sexists and the xenophobes of the "far right" to make sure that only approved ideas are allowed into the public square. Yup, that's turning out to be a real winner, isn't it, especially when the racist sexist Nigel Farage can win an election in Britain three months with a Brexit Party three months after its formation.

But let us return to the Nazi Party, the National-Socialist-German-Workers Party. I'm willing to do a deal if you wise ones are up for it -- and if you can prove you can be trusted, which you can't, not right now. I suggest that we dump the "national"and the "socialist" part of it. Those two bits are what you lefties might call the "far right" and we righties would call the "far left." Let us reduce our politics instead to a party called the Patriotic Workers Party.

In Germany, I dare say that this party could be called the German Workers Party. In Britain it could be called the British Workers Party, and in the US the Keep America Great Party. These parties would all be about, first, the protection of the homeland from un-assimilated immigrants, and second, the economic protection of the people with a modest but effective set of government programs to help people when they got into economic trouble.

Nothing really radical here: just the basic things that people expect from their government in return for submitting to the government's taxes and sending their kids to go for a soldier when the nation is threatened by foreign enemies.

When you think about it the "far right" nationalism of which we've heard tell is all about making the national community into something of a national cult: a quasi religion, if you like. And I'd say that we level-headed folks don't want that level of enthusiasm. But equally the "far left" socialism, which today seems to include a rigid censorship of non-lefty voices, a huge administrative state, a quasi-religious greenie cult that demands we save the climate by surrendering ourselves to the Green New Deal, and the racist sexism of identity politics, is also something of a cult, a quasi religion that believes that certain people, prophets of race, gender, and climate, should lead us to the Promised Land, and you better shut up if you know what is good for you.

Over at the British Unherd site they describe the Brexit voters like this:
These are the aspirational ones, the hard-workers who lean Left on economics but lean Right on culture and identity, who want to level the economic playing field, want people and business to play by the rules but who also desperately want to leave the EU, slow immigration and get tough on crime. They feel that a way of life is slipping away, they loathe nothing more than being made to feel like they have been duped, and they have had enough.
If I had my druthers I wouldn't "lean Left on economics," because what I want for the workers is a non-system where get to combine private insurance with private wealth-building through paycheck deductions that would not go to the government but to voluntary social organizations -- from fraternal lodges to Fidelity and Vanguard -- that were not trying to buy votes with other peoples' money. But I recognize that most people feel safer with a comprehensive and mandatory approach through government. I don't like it but I get it.

But I would "lean Right on culture and identity." I think that the nation state is the best way of ginning up what I call a "fake tribalism." that makes people feel part of a community. I certainly think it is better than the racial identity politics and the gender identity politics of the left. Really it is "language tribalism."

It makes sense, you know. Politics and culture operate through language, and I'd say that it is ludicrous to believe that people can form a political or cultural community without sharing the same mother-tongue. That's what makes us hu-man, rather than ape-man: the fact that we can exchange ideas and knowledge and friendship through speech rather than grunts and body language and social grooming.

Notice that the global elitists feel like a global elite because they can all talk to one another, probably in English. I am sure that all the elite in Germany is fluent in French and the French elite is fluent in German. But the average German and the average Frenchie? Not so much.

Now I believe that everyone ought to have a religion. I just don't think that anyone's religion should get its paws on the powers of government. As I understand it, about 200 years ago, some crazy white supremacists thought the same thing.

Monday, May 27, 2019

Memorial Day: When We Remember the Fallen

Veterans Day is the day we remember all who served in our nation's wars. Memorial Day is the day we remember those in the military that were killed in the nation's wars.

In my view Memorial Day, that began as a movement of Southern women decorating the graves of the Southern soldiers in the Civil War, is more important. That's because history is told by the victors, by the survivors. It is hard enough to remember those who died fighting for the winning side. But those who died for the losers!

History is written by the winners, we are told, and of course those who supported the losers, or who died for the losers, get very short shrift in the narratives of the winners.

We like to brand the soldiers with the virtues of our side and the vices of the other side, but in truth the young men called to serve their governments have little choice in the matter. They must serve and they must fight, and many of them must die. The victors usually brand the loser soldiers as villains, for fighting for the bad guys. But who really has the wisdom and the virtue to know who is in the right, and who indeed possesses the insane courage to kick against hearth and home when the call to the colors is made?

So what about the young American men that fought and died for the Brits in the Revolutionary War? What do we know of them? The soldiers that fought and died for the slaveholding South in the Civil War? The young Germans that fought for Hitler?

The truth is that those that died in the losing cause are lost to history and to memory, for it cannot be that the winners were wrong. And as we see, with the recent demolition of monuments, there are plenty of people that want the inconvenient past to be obliterated. And young men are scooped up to fight in today's war whether they will or not.

This was brought out to me by a tourist guide in Guatemala, who told how brothers could be found fighting on opposite sides in the long civil war that lasted from 1960 to 1996. Why would they do that? Because young men could be drafted by the government or the rebels: whichever was in town on the day that a young man would be scooped up and set to fight. And once you are drafted and enlisted, desertion is desertion.

Let us all remember the young men chewed up in the government meat-grinders since time immemorial. The politicians don't care; the generals don't care. Only the families care, so long as the family even survives in this murderous and merciless world.

Friday, May 24, 2019

Villainous: Nancy You Made My Day

One of the things that our Democratic friends are learning to do beautifully is to provide folks on the "far right" with wonderful memes.

First there was President Obama and his "bitter clingers." He was speaking to some educated, evolved folks in San Francisco.

Then there was Hillary Clinton and her "basket of deplorables." She was speaking to a group of gay activists. Remember that glorious moment? The next day some wag put up a meme with "Les Deplorables" playing off a poster for Les Miserables, the musical.

And now Our Nance has come out and branded President Trump as "villainous."

Nancy, I love it. I don't know if I've been so jazzed since... Oh, I can't remember when.

It made me think about who really is villainous. Not Hitler or Stalin or Mao. They were just evil.

Because when you are talking "villainous" you are talking about some cartoon villain twisting his mustache with a villainous grin on his face. Villain is the other side of Hero, and you gotta have both in a good story.

And anyway, I thought you lefties only dealt in "hate." Either you are a woke lefty that believes in Activism and in Peaceful Protest -- not forgetting the occasional situation where the rage for social justice creates a situation where the peaceful protest is Mostly Peaceful Protest -- or you are a "hater." Period, full stop.

Anyway, Nance, you made me think about who really is "villainous."

And the answer was not long in coming. Of course! Matthew Compeyson in the BBC Dickensian series! Dickensian, for those of you that haven't yet streamed it on Amazon, is a prequel to a bunch of Dickens novels, from Christmas Carol to Bleak House. The villain of the piece, without question, is Compeyson. And believe me, Compeyson has some competition in the villainous stakes, because the series includes all our favorite Dickensian villains, from Fagin to Scrooge. And even Bill Sykes.

The reason that Compeyson -- the beast -- is villainous is that he is trying to win the love of the young rich heir Miss Havisham of Great Expectations so he can strip her of Daddy's money. And knowing what we know about what will happen to Miss Havisham by the time she turns up in Great Expectations we have absolutely no sympathy for the villainous plans of Matthew Compeyson.

But is President Trump really "villainous" in the mold of Matthew Compeyson? Because he wants to tempt the Dems to impeach him in the House of Representatives? Come on Nancy. You grow up, girl. Remember? Politics ain't beanbag.

Look, I grant you that Trump is being a bit of a naughty boy for riling up the Democratic faithful with his "hateful" tweets. And everybody knows that hateful tweets are solely a problem on the right, and that when anyone on the left proposes doxxing the kids of some pro-life protester that is an understandable reaction to the unadulterated "hate" of the "far right," which Twitter and Facebook know is completely against their Community Standards.

But Nance, honey. This current problem is Your Fault. It is Your Fault for a simple reason. You chaps and chapettes in the Democratic Party violated Rule One of democratic politics.

What is Rule One?
Rule One: When you lose a change election, you concede the election. Period, full stop.
A change election, in my book, is any election after one of the parties has won two in a row. So, if you are the party that was in power for the last two presidential terms, you concede the election if it looks like you lost.

Why is that? Because the whole point of democratic politics is to be able to Throw the Rascals Out without resort to violence and armed conflict, otherwise known as civil war. And it seems, according to the scientists, after about a century or so of democratic politics and/or universal franchise that the voters tend to want to Throw the Rascals Out after about eight to ten years of one party being in power.

And to start whingeing about the popular vote, or voter suppression, or whatever, is missing the point. Even if the Out party stole the election, you still concede. Rule One. Period. Full Stop.

Remember 1960, Nance? That was the election that the Dems probably stole in both Illinois, Richard Daley, proprietor, and in Texas, Lyndon Johnson, proprietor. Remember what happened, Nance? Richard Nixon -- Richard Nixon -- conceded the election.

No, Nancy Pelosi. President Trump is not "villainous." The problem in America right now is that you Democrats, liberals, lefties, whatever you call yourselves, are fools and knaves. You are fools and knaves because you have forgotten Rule One of democratic politics.

And President Trump is giving it to you straight, Nance, right in the solar plexus. I don't really know what the solar plexus is, but I know it is something you aim for in boxing when you are not aiming to punch your opponent in the jaw. And I know that nobody likes being punched in the solar plexus.

By the way, Nance, I expect you know that Bill Sykes' girl-friend Nancy makes a significant appearance in Dickensian. Unlike you, Nance, Dickensian's Nancy was not born to a prominent Baltimore political family that then married up by marrying money. She was, by her own admission, dead poor, and would have died if Fagin had not picked her up and fed her. Of course, Fagin didn't do that out of the kindness of his heart. He pimped Nancy out, including to the violent Jacob Marley, junior partner of the world-famous moneylending partnership of Scrooge & Marley. But Nancy seems to have been grateful to Fagin for rescuing her, even if there was a price for his assistance.

Makes you think, Nance, doesn't it. There are worse things in life than having a President of the United States twirl you around his little finger, and twist his mustache, and dare you to impeach him.

I know. The Noive! The nerve of a low-rent real-estate guy presuming to mess with the noble scion of the noble political famiglia Pelosi. There oughta be a law!

But I am going to be dining out on this "villainous" thing for months and months.

And for that, Nance, I shall be eternally grateful!

Thursday, May 23, 2019

When Prophecy Fails: The Muellerites

In another proof of God's existence, I have just obtained the book When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter. It's about a millennarian group prophesying the end of the world in the early 1950s.

These researchers were investigating end-of-the-world groups when all of a sudden a report of an actual group prophesying the end of the world got reported in the paper. How could they get so lucky! Now they were not just researching second hand using other peoples' reports of historical end-of-the-world movements. Now they could get the straight scoop. They could get right into the middle of a millennarian group and see how it worked. And, most important, they could see what happened when the prophecy failed.

But first researchers Festinger, Riecken, and Schascter treat us to the story of an earlier group predicting the end of the world: the Millerites, who predicted the second coming of Christ in 1843, after the prophecy of William Miller, a New England farmer.

Let us call these Millerites the Muellerites.

The interest of the researchers in When Prophecy Fails is this: What happens after the predicted Second Coming of Christ or Day of Judgement comes and nothing happens? When, as we would say, the Mueller Report is published and No Collusion?

The answer is perfectly simple. The fervor of the Muellerites is doubled and redoubled. That's because they all talk to one another. They agree that, well, good old Bob just got the day wrong. Hey! Maybe it wasn't Collusion, but Obstruction. Yeah! That's it!

But now, you'll notice, we are onto the third possibility, offered by Our Nance, prophetess extraordinaire. It's "Cover-up." Yeah! That's it. At her age, it is easy to get confused by all those C-words and O-words. I know, 'cos I'm only 5 or 6 years younger than Speaker Nance.

What is going on here? The researchers tell us. What we have is "disconfirmation" and the disconfirmation produced "dissonance" in the minds of the believers: the dissonance between the predicted End of the Trump and the fact that he is still here!
[T]he central belief and its accompanying ideology are usually of crucial importance in the believers' lives and hence the dissonance is very strong -- and very painful to tolerate.
At some point the believers are going to have to abandon their beliefs. But not yet. So what happens in that the Muellerites talk to one another and tell each other that all educated and evolved people like themselves cannot be wrong. Why everybody who is anyone agrees that there must have been Collusion -- no, Obstruction. Wait! It's Cover-up! Yeah! That's it! Cover-up!
If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must, after all, be correct.
The point is that increased proselytizing after the disconfirmation of the prophecy puts off the evil day when the whole world of the Muellerites collapses in ruins.

So you can understand what is going on in Muellerville. We are in the early stages after the first disconfirmation of the prophecy. And so the Muellerites are doubling down.

Of course, when the original Mueller prophecy was disconfirmed back in 1843-4, the scoffers had a grand old time.
The world made merry over the old Prophet's predicament. The taunts and jeers of the "scoffers" were well nigh unbearable. If any of Mueller's followers walked abroad, they ran the gauntlet of merciless ridicule...

The rowdy element in the community would not leave them alone.
You'd have to say, in another proof of God's existence, that President Trump is just the "scoffer" or the "rowdy element" needed in our national hour of need.

And I am afraid that it is not likely that he is likely to leave Our Nance at peace in her dissonance. He is going to continue scoffing. The naughty boy.

But for the True Believers, there is still Climate Change. Only 12 years to go, says Prophetess AOC.

Fortunately, the Climate Change Believers always predict the End of the World about 10 years in the future. So the future never comes.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Take Your Pick: Impeachment or Infrastructure?

So now President Trump has kiboshed the glorious $2 trillion infrastructure pork-fest because Our Nance insulted him with an accusation of "cover-up."

Yah Boo Sucks! Or whatever angry politicians yell at each other these days.

The amusing thing to me is that "collusion" and "cover-up" is an apt description of all politics-as-usual. Politics is the game of cutting deals by colluding with your political pals to carve up the loot. What is the difference between  colluding with Putin (over what exactly?) and the renewable energy subsidy barons? And of course it is essential to cover-up the gory details of the collusion because, well, every politician is supposed to be a man (or woman) of the people, and innocent of all collusions and cover-ups. I believe that the universal procedure for hiding collusions and cover-ups is the cut-out. If you want to gin up a dossier of sensational accusations you don't hire someone to gin them up; you hire someone to hire someone else to hire another guy to gin up the accusation dossier. That way, like Sgt. Schultz, you know nothing!

But, of course, every politician is always sniffing around for the despicable goings-on of the colluders and cover-uppers in the other party. Because.

To which one has to say: it takes one to know one.

I suspect that the bigger picture is that Our Nance is batting on a bit of a sticky wicket. After riling up the partisans for three years of collusion and conspiracy theories, the Democratic faithful expect blood. How to let them down gently?

I wouldn't know, because I'm not a politician and I don't know how the experts do the riling-up and the riling-down.

I suspect though, that the job of Hillary Clinton on the day after the November 2016 election was to concede the election, rile-down her supporters, declare that we are all Americans, and wait until next time.

But she didn't, and now Our Nance and Our Chuck are stuck with figuring out what to do with the riled-up partisans with still 18 months to go before the 2020 election. Do you tell them to take a nap for 6 months and worry about waking them up again for the election? Or do you keep them all at fever pitch for the next 18 months and hope that they don't fall asleep from exhaustion on Election Day 2020?

Honestly, I have no idea, none at all. All I know is that President Trump seems to have a certain instinct about how to play this game, and so far, he has come out ahead in the Trash-Talking Stakes.

And there seems to be a certain low cunning in the notion that we can't talk about handing out the loot from infrastructure spending until you chaps stop harrying me with your investigatory yap-dogs.

Mind you. I am very uncertain about this infrastructure spending idea. I am afraid it will all be spent on mass transit and bike paths for gentry-liberal twenty-somethings, renewable energy and subsidies for electric cars and replacement blades for wind farms. Instead of good old roads, bridges and freeways for the deplorables and bitter clingers driving to work in their SUVs.

But what do I know.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Think of Big Tech Censorship as an Opportunity

Everyone is worried and riled up about social media censorship and data harvesting. Not to be endured.

It's a problem. But not the one we think it is. For instance, I am coming to think that the mindless censorship of conservatives by Facebook and others is a strategic mistake for Facebook and its pals in the ruling class. It puts the question of free speech on the radar. And since, right now, it is hurting us deplorables, then it is likely to enrage more of us deplorables to the point that we might do something about it.

I was reading about the inclusion of Candace Owens on a mid-level Facebook "hate agents" list. The article shows her hate list entry on a secret screen image. Really, Facebook censors? Really? The anodyne center-right Candace Owens? She is a threat to our "community standards?" Hey, Facebook: I gotta bridge to sell you. And Owens was suspended for a message where she says that "White supremacy is not a threat. Liberal supremacy is." You think?

Look, I get that you Facebook censors are young millennials that have never read a book, and that, in the words of Ben Rhodes, "literally know nothing," But you really could do a better job of hiding it.

But in accordance with my maxim, that "there is no such thing as justice, only injustice," I say: Get it on. The more you dumb-as-posts SJW millennials censor and marginalize us the angrier we will get. And the more elections we will win.

I've been thinking about free speech, partly in response to reading Voltaire's Bastards, a flawed book that really doesn't get it. Author John Ralston Saul (a fan of IPCC founder Maurice Strong) knows that there is something wrong with the faith in reason bequeathed to us by the Age of Reason. But so far, he is flapping around at page 425 and counting and completely missing the point. Rather like his hero Maurice Strong, the real author of "we only have 10 years to live before the climate kills us all!"

The thing about free speech in the age of Voltaire was that the Enlightenment intellectuals needed free speech to get their message out and to cow the ruling class into letting middle-class scribblers acquire more status. They were a rising class and they thought that they didn't get no respect from the nobles and the courtiers in the ruling class of the age, that were as dumb as posts. Reason was a club with which to beat the nobles and the courtiers into admitting the scribblers to polite society.

Fast forward and what do we have? Ordinary middle-class deplorables that don't get no respect from the gentry liberals and the Democratic operatives with bylines in the media. We notice that the first reaction of today's educated ruling class is to censor our speech and marginalize us as the "far right."

Of course they do. The natives are restless and the first response of every colonial governor is a show of force to teach the natives who is boss.

But what our ruling-class pals have not done is think about their responsibility as rulers. Like most rulers down the ages they cannot think very far beyond the notion that, by golly, the purpose of society is identical to the class interest of us, the rulers. In our day this class interest of the rulers is the class interest of the educated class and their political clients. Back in the day, our evil slaveholder Founders recognized that the continuance of their rule involved accommodating people that didn't agree with them; there should be a public square in which all views could get heard. But they were slaveholders; what did they know?

A similar problem is the erosion of privacy due to big media data harvesting and government surveillance, discussed by the Zman.

Let's not think of privacy as a problem, but as an opportunity.

Think about privacy this way. Back in the day, when everyone lived in agricultural villages, there was no privacy. The women knew everything that was going on, and they used their knowledge to control things. But there was an out. If you got in trouble, you could always leave and disappear. Because there was no global online database of miscreants. If you were in New England back in the day, you could just disappear and head "out west."

Then came the industrial city and its anonymity. The telling point is that, in response to the social chaos, society invented the urban police force to control the uncontrollable youths and gangs that were terrorizing honest citizens. You can read Dickens to get a flavor of the colorful mixture of anti-social characters that urban anonymity set free.

Now we are returning to a society where everyone knows everything about you. OK, fine. That means that we are going to have to codify rules about privacy into law and into the unwritten law of the culture. I don't know how it will end up, but it is coming, and it is coming because various victims of the lack of privacy will get riled up and demand justice.

Of course, we won't get justice, but we might get a reduction of injustice.

Monday, May 20, 2019

And Now the Aussies

First Brexit, then Trump, now Oz. And every time the polls had it wrong. And every time the ruling class was insulted, outraged.

What is going on here?

I think it is the fundamental division between the ruling class -- any ruling class -- and the people it rules.

What the people want is to be protected. First of all, they want to be protected from enemies foreign and domestic. Second, they want the space to wive and thrive: to have a job; to have a home; to marry and raise those kids. And they expect a bit of free stuff in return for their votes. And you'd better not ever take that free stuff away. 'Cos we paid for those bennies with our taxes.

But the ruling class is different. It wants to imagine itself in a higher sphere than merely guarding the borders, or punishing the local ruffians. Actually, our pals Gilbert and Sullivan pointed out over a century ago that the policeman's lot is not a happy one.

So the policing classes like to cloak their constabulary duties in finer robes than you would think is strictly necessary. Kings like to think of themselves as descended from gods; nobles like to imagine their blood finer than the coarse blood of the common folk.

And the priests: they like us to think that their pronouncements come direct from God.

And when constabulary duty's to be done, the rulers also like to think that they are not just defending the border but saving the world from disaster.

And, really, if we are talking about saving the world -- usually within the next 10 years -- then the present emergency justifies the rulers accessing extraordinary powers for themselves and their supporters. Because we have only 10 years to save the world!

You can see that there tends to be a certain distance between the rulers' idea of government's role in the world and the notions that the ruled-over have about government.

In the case of Brexit we see the distance between the Euro elite's idea of their role, which was that the bloodbaths of the first half of the 20th century were caused by nationalism. Thus, according to the Zman, "The lesson learned by Western elites was that nationalism leads to competition, which then leads to war." -- unless wisely controlled and managed by themselves. But to the average Brit White Van Man, it looks like the toffs have created a nice little privileged world for themselves while the ordinary British bloke gets to touch his forelock and say "morning, squire," or "yes, master" like Igor.

Then with Trump we have the divide between the educated elite and the average US deplorable or bitter clinger. It's telling that the deplorable meme was launched by Hillary Clinton addressing a gay group and the bitter-clingers meme was launched by Barack Obama addressing a fundraiser in San Francisco. These two politicos exactly demonstrate the distance between the urban elites and the folks in flyover country.

The point to understand is that the deplorables and the bitter clingers are the white working class that Democrats looved back in the day and that Democrats promised to protect from the evil robber barons and employers and corporate honchos. The workers don't want airy-fairy notions of the good society or saving the world from racists, sexists, homophobes, and climate deniers. They just want a decent job and freedom from layoffs. And education for the kids.

Now the rot has spread to Australia where against all the predictions and polls the Liberal-National coalition has won the recent election against the Australian Labor Party. Just like our Democratic Party, the Oz Labor Party is an urban sophisticate's party, worrying about intersectionality and about saving the world from climate change. The homeland of the the Liberal-Nationals is in the natural-resource state of Queensland where coal mining is a big deal. The homelands of Labor are the gentry fiefdoms of Sydney and Melbourne.

Melbourne, when I visited a few years ago, is an urbanist's wet dream, complete with heavy rail, light rail, buses, and bike lanes. Used to be that Melbourne was a manufacturing city, making cars and such. Not any more.

Notice that the green energy revolution proposes to subsidize the places where the educated ruling-class lives in urban enclaves with subsidized electric cars and rooftop solar panels. Not to mention that the educated class also gets the well-paid careers in corporations and government and education. And the ordinary deplorable that lives in the cheaper areas on the edge of town gets to pay full price.

The final nail in the coffin is that the educated ruling-class represents its self-dealing politics as a moral crusade to save the marginalized of the world and the very planet itself.

But, of course. Rulers have always wrapped themselves in the robes of God.

But sometimes the rubes rebel and tell the kings and the priests to get lost.

Friday, May 17, 2019

Fighting Social Media Censorship

I understand why social media censors conservatives. It just makes life easier, because the left has activist groups up the ying-yang belaboring corporations for whatever. Activism is what lefties do. It's the modern equivalent of the medieval flagellants. So if social media wants to stay out of trouble, toadying to the left is good policy. Plus most of the youngsters working for social media are haters and fearers that have been carefully taught to hate and to fear anyone that does not agree with them.

But in the last couple of days we have seen Facebook censoring Trump 2020 advisory board member Jenna Ellis Rives for sharing a "pro-life post from blogger Matt Walsh, pointing out how transgender activism undermines key pro-choice arguments. Facebook flagged the post for 'hate speech.'"

And now it is Michelle Malkin's turn. What did she do? She protested the deplatforming of Gavin McInnes and Laura Loomer. So Facebook deleted her post.

UPDATE: And Blexit activist Candace Owens. Because you can't say that welfare state has screwed black families. And Heritage Foundation. Because you can't say that trans men in women's sports is ridiculous.

Therefore: Censored. Straight up. Because thou shalt not blaspheme the liberal narrative.

It's pretty obvious what is going on here. Anything that protests or disagrees with out ruling-class notions of right and wrong is vile extremism and is not to be endured.

So now the White House has launched "a website that asks people who think their viewpoints have been censored by social media platforms to share their stories" oh, and, the New York Times adds,
"their contact information." See? It's just a cynical fundraising play from the racist sexist homophobic Commander-in-Chief.

Funny how conservatives all think that the Southern Law Poverty Center is nothing more than a cynical fundraising operation and its hate-group map is nothing more than bubba bait for liberals.

Whereas the liberal watchmen at The New York Times see cynical fundraising operations in completely different places. I wonder why?

Hey, maybe The New York Times is right about this. Or maybe the Trump social-media censorship reporting website is part of a strategic plan to rile up the deplorables in advance of the 2020 election.

You know. Just like the Democrats have been riling up the base for the last two years over Trump Russia Collusion. Or is that different? Because Yellow Hair?

Christopher DeGroot has something to say about all of this today.
[I]t is extremely difficult, in the effectively post-Christian West, for people who have incompatible values to coexist without profound and intractable struggle. For where Christianity, through a common belief system, once provided social order and cohesion, today there is endless conflict and, in many cases, no rational solution is available.
The point is that, in Christian times, at least we all lived under the same God. But now in post-Christian times we have the ruling class believing in another God. And it is not surprising that the new believers are enthusiastic about their beliefs and believe that the old beliefs are superstitions and bigotry, trying to take us back to the bad old days of the Inquisition and witch hunts.

The obvious example of this is abortion. If you are pro-life you believe that children and posterity are the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Thus abortion is a vile attack on everything you hold dear. But for the pro-choice people an unwanted pregnancy prevents a woman from reaching her true potential. Where is the common ground there, where the possibility for tolerance and compromise?

DeGroot quotes Chesterton: "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."

Notice that my reductive Three Peoples theory is a deep and wise understanding of the human condition, that there are at least three kinds of people: subordinates, responsibles, and creatives, and this is natural and physical. If you accept the world view of my theory then it is a simple step to understand that the moral framework for our society must comprehend the different moral universes of the three different peoples.

See, my theory is that there are a lot of People of the Subordinate Self around -- the helpless victimsn for whom the left advocates -- and they will find that a society that does not accommodate their need for social programs to support people like them is simply unjust. Similarly, there are a lot of People of the Responsible Self around -- deplorables we call them -- and they want a world of definite rules and roles, and will find a society without clear rules and roles that values the solid citizen a society that is simply unjust.

Then, of course, we have the People of the Creative Self -- mostly well-born scions of the ruling class. They expect a society that encourages them and congratulates them on living creative lives, extending to creative lifestyles. To them, any society that enforces rigid rules and roles is simply unjust.

So what do we do about it?

Well, I'd say that we need to start with the notion of true "diversity" shining out of my Three Peoples theory. Once you understand that people are different, and likely to remain so, then your values and your political agenda will naturally reflect that world view.

At least there is this. My Three Peoples world view can't be any worse than the lefty world view that wants a Great Reaction towards socialism or neo-slavery, the welfare state or neo-feudalism, and identity politics or neo-tribalism.

And one thing we have learned from our lefty friends is that they cannot even begin to understand why anyone would think differently than they.

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Even President Xi Knows Rule One

Everyone knows Rule One in the good old US and A.

What is it? You know what it is:
Rule One: Blacks cannot be racist.
But then there is Rule Two:
Rule Two: Except for black conservatives.
But what about black conservative women?
Rule Three: Maybe not black conservative women.
Really? You serious?
Rule Four: No. Forget it. 
So when Trump State Dept. official Dr. Kiron Skinner talks about China, and the fact that we need to realize China is not a great power competitor like the USSR:
[Reagan] said I just don’t see the signs that it [the USSR] can survive a technology race with the West. So, in China, we have an economic competitor, we have an ideological competitor, one that really does seek a kind of global reach that many of us didn’t expect a couple of decades ago, and I think it’s also striking that it’s the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.
What? "not Caucasian?" Are you kidding? Raacism, straight up! The Outrage! The Horror! Fire the Trumpian racist! Now!

Why even President-for-life Xi got into the act.

Which shows that that inscrutable Oriental ain't so inscrutable after all.

But wait! Dr. Skinner is an African American! So she can't be a raacist. Right?

Oh yeah. Rule Two. Black conservatives need not apply for Rule One.

Of course, Dr. Skinner makes an important point. We need to get into the minds of the Chinese Commies. I dare say such a notion goes all the way back to the World's First Strategist, Sun Tzu. A Chinese.

Now, I believe that the Chinese Commies under President Xi are making a big mistake, and are trying to re-imagine a Chinese empire under a Son of Heaven just like in the old days. It is their version of the Caucasian Left's Great Reaction against the modern era.

In other words, like the Caucasian Left, the Chinese Commies believe in a Return to Force, a powerful China that will dominate its tributary states with force, just like in the good old days. And the Belt and Road Initiative exactly symbolizes that mindset, imagining that the trade routes and power structures of the ancient world can be resuscitated.

But I think that the fundamental thing to understand about the modern world is that the old ways of conquest, of accumulating wealth by looting and plundering the neighboring state -- not to mention picking up a nice little Dis-e-ney princess like Briseis on the way -- is as dead as the Dodo. That's because a prosperous neighbor making stuff for us to buy is much more useful to us than plundering the neighbor.

Put it this way. If you plunder your neighbors, they are left poor and starving. No use to anyone. But if the neighbors are busy wiving and thriving, then they are contributing to the wealth and prosperity of the world.

The truth is that we humans prefer to learn our lessons the hard way. We always come up with some nostalgic notion like socialism that looks backward to the supposed good old days of the equality of the village community.

In China's case it is the nostalgia for the good old days when China was the No. 1 country in the world, the Middle Kingdom, and the axis of the world went north to south right through the middle of the line-up of Gates in the middle of the Forbidden City -- like the Gate of Supreme Harmony. And all the gates had a middle gate, through which only the Son of Heaven himself could go.

Think of Brit Nostalgia for the good old days of the British Empire, squared.

In other words, modern humans are never going to solve their problems with more political power. The way of the future is to walk away from political power and surrender only to the power of the market.

But everyone has to learn that the hard way, whether it is the workers, the feminists, the Black Lives Matter racists, and especially the lefty SJWs and woke-ists. Now it's the Chinese Commies learning the hard way, although you would think that they would have already learned enough from the incandescent Mao Zedong.

Still, I still don't appreciate them learning the hard lessons in the School of Life on my dime.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Trump Russia: Is It 9/15/1864 or 8/1/1944?

Know the significance of those dates?

September 15, 1864 is the start date of Gen. Sherman's march from Atlanta to the sea. It was the military action that told every loyal son of the South that the game was up, that the hated Yankees could drive through their homeland, loot and plunder, and there was nothing they could do about it.

August 1, 1944 is the date of the creation of Gen. Patton's Third Army that spearheaded the march to the Rhine. La Wik:
The Third Army simultaneously attacked west into Brittany, south, east toward the Seine, and north, assisting in trapping several hundred thousand German soldiers in the Falaise Pocket between Falaise and Argentan.
Now I am reading about the Trump march to re-election in November 2020. The battlespace preparation is over, according to Brian Cates. Because now that Rod Rosenstein has resigned from the Department of Justice both he and Jeff Sessions are available to serve as witnesses to the CIA/DOJ/FBI spying operation on the Trump campaign and administration.

See, for the last two years we rubes have been thinking that Rod Rosenstein was a snake in the grass that was part of the cabal to take Trump down. But suppose we were wrong? Suppose Rosenstein is our guy and has been metaphorically wired for the last two years to listen in on the plots and plans of the Obama administration appointees that were spying on the Trump campaign?
For the past two years, Rosenstein, far from being the snake in the garden, has actually been helping Trump prepare the battlefield for what’s going to unfold over the next few months. Two years of careful, stealth planning will begin to pay off.
So it could be that Gen. Trump is about to kick off his March Through the Swamp that will expose the deep staters and their willing accomplices in the media and their conspiracy to spy on and ctl-alt-del Trump and all who sail in her. It will show the deep staters that they are mere cannon fodder and they better make their peace with the new regime now while there is still time.

Or not.

Of course, for racist sexist homophobes like me, this is almost too good to be true. Really? Is the Barr John Durham John Huber team really going to drive its coach and horses through the deep state that conspired to spy on the Trump campaign? Will deep staters go on trial? And go to jail, do not pass Go? And is Rod Rosenstein "one of ours?"

It is a reminder that the Watergate investigation was not the heroic journalism of Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. They were just publishing leaks they got from W. Mark Felt, acting associate director of the FBI. And, of course, Felt was the Deep State in person, anxious to deep six a president that was threatening to disempower the worthy and valiant Deep State.

The Deep State won that one. And how.

Brian Cates' line is that
As Rosenstein makes his long-anticipated departure as deputy attorney general, the final pieces are moving into position on the battlefield that President Donald Trump has been carefully preparing for more than two years.
Is he right? Only time will tell. 

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Tlaib: Playing the Blame Game

In a way, I think that our Democratic friends deserve the Terrible Twins, Congs. Omar and Tlaib (D-Ummah). As thoroughly modern Muslims they are anti-Jewish, and especially anti-Israel.

And I get it. It is humiliating and monstrous that the Jews returned to what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls the Levant in the 20th century, in consequence of the Zionist movement, and have shouldered the Muslims aside.

I'd be mad as hell too if I were a Muslim from "Palestine."

But hey, you win some and you lose some. My dad was born in Russia and left in 1918 as a refugee (I actually never thought of him as a refugee until about a week ago, but hey...). And my parents had to leave India, the country of my birth, on account of the British Raj winding up business and handing the subcontinent over to the inhabitants thereof -- or at least the folks surviving after the various invasions and Mughal empires and British Rajs over the centuries.

Truth is: history is hell, and rape and pillage and slaughter of the innocents, and the Levant has seen more than its fair share of that down the millennia.

We all know about the monstrous Trail of Tears, native Americans forced from their homelands into the West. And the massacres of the Armenians and the Kurds. And the Ukraine famine. And the Great Purge. And the Holocaust. And the Great Leap Forward.

Hey, did you know that in France after the Liberation in 1944 there were probably more people massacred than in the monstrous Reign of Terror? Or that about 2 million German soldiers mysteriously never showed up after World War II. Or that maybe as many as 10 million Germans died of starvation in the Allied occupied areas after 1945? I didn't either, and it may all be revisionist conspiracy theory. You tell me.

The point is that the winners write history and the losers are lucky to be alive.

Which suggests that if the Left ever really takes over the US their current hegemonic narrative, the removals of statues and paintings, will be a walk in the park compared to what comes next.

But back to Tlaib and Omar, in the context of my belief that all identity politics, from globalism to nationalism to racism to Muslimism is "fake tribalism."

There are no tribes. Never were. It is all made up by political leaders and priests and government teachers and Mean Girls and criminal-gang homeboys to enlist the people into the rank-and-file of their power plans.

And in the modern era, we could say that fake tribalism started with the national idea. Totally fake. Before the nation state people were organized into smaller political and cultural units and knew that was the way of the world. Or, with Mohammed, they got organized into the Ummah, the worldwide community of believers. Except that the Muslim world is divided into Shia and Sunni, each of which is descended from the Prophet and the sole representative of Islam on Earth.

Now, our liberal masters want to de-emphasize the national idea in the US, because they experience themselves as the global educated elite that is going to create a global society that will end war and racism and sexism and homophobia and climate change.

But isn't it interesting that they way they are doing this is to sow discord and division in the US, between race and race, gender and gender, religion and religion? Well of course they are. Politics is division and to divide you have to order people into different fake tribes than the fake tribes of the old days. So if you want to break up the idea of America and Americans, you must set American against American and get people to identify with something other than America. Since most ordinary people aren't ready to identify as global humans, and our lefty friends have condemned the American nation out of hand, that means that some lesser group identity must be created to replace the American national identity: fake identity politics tribes to replace the old fake American tribe.

Really, this is not rocket science.

And you can understand the liberal rage at President Trump. He is out there reviving the old fake American national identity: Make America Great Again. How dare he! Why even Nietzsche, the "Nazis' favoriate intellectual," knew that nationalism was a bad thing.

And your Congs. Tlaib and Omar are pushing the Muslim identity. There's a risk there, in that it might encourage millions of Americans who never thought about it to identify more strongly as Americans.

And it might even scotch Slow Joe Biden's cunning plan to paint Trump as a racist. Compared to what? Congs. Tlaib and Omar? How does that work exactly, Joe old chap.

Hey, Joe! Keep your arms off my wife, you creep!

Monday, May 13, 2019

Voltaire's Bastards: Blaming It All on the Staff

I'm still not quite sure what to make of John Ralston Saul's Voltaire's Bastards. A good way to illustrate this is his chapters on the military staff culture: "Learning How to Organize Death" and "Persistent Continuity at the Heart of Power." What began as an attempt to infuse a bit of reason and knowledge into military affairs, "marshaling reason to organize armies in order to remove mediocrity and allow the competent soldiers to command," has ended in the "transformation of reason into a bureaucratic sea."

And as we know, anything organized as a bureaucracy eventually becomes all about the interest of the bureaucracy and not the noble purpose for which it was founded. The original purpose of the administrative system is transformed, in the end, the continued existence of the bureaucracy.

The problem with the rationally organized army, Saul realizes, is that it creates just the instrument needed for a Napoleon to lay waste to the whole of Europe. So maybe it is better to have an army as "a bureaucratic sea designed to drown Heroes" rather than a shining sword ready to be wielded by a genius Hero.

So let me try to lay out Saul's argument. First, there were the young officers "disgusted by having to fight in unprofessional armies under the orders of unqualified aristocrats." So, under Guibert and others, they organized the profession of arms on a rational basis. But that led to Napoleon co-opting the shining new tool and destroying everything, and so there emerged the staff bureaucracy that was suspicious of genius -- from Marlborough to Guderian to Patton -- and substituted war by the book that did not need genius to succeed. Problem is war by the book led to gigantic bloodbaths, of which World Wars I and II are Exhibits A and B.

And the problem is that the disorganized guerrilla band can very often tie the organized army up in knots. So should not armies be organized on the guerrilla model, learning how to appear out of nowhere to land a nasty blow right in the solar plexus and then disappear into the hills?

Maybe, or maybe not.

Maybe the ponderous bureaucratic staff-led army is just what we want, and especially just what the politicians want, because the genius Hero is likely to become a threat to their power, as Gen. McArthur to President Truman. So what if millions get killed in the wars? As long as the state goes on, what's the problem, except for the mothers of the slain?

But Saul proposes to unleash genius:
Surely it would be wiser today to hand our defence to those able to defend us in the belief that we are capable of controlling them. Better the risk of honest genius than the impossibility of controlling manipulative and unresponsive mediocrity.
I wonder. If we apply my reductive Three Peoples theory, I'd say that most people approach defense as People of the Subordinate Self, and are happy to serve as serfs and let the bosses take care of things, reserving the right to criticize them when things go wrong. The People of the Responsible Self would step up to "do their bit," as the Brits say, but really would be uncertain about letting self-professed geniuses loose on the world. And as for the People of the Creative Self, I suspect that they would be all in favor of themselves being empowered to lead the nation to glorious victory, but not at all certain about the other so-called geniuses.

The thing is, we know all about the geniuses that actually got to be successful geniuses, the Pattons, the Maos, the Castros. But the guys that thought they were geniuses, and led their irregular band of guerrillas to ruin? We never hear about them.

And then there is the little problem that the successful guerrillas -- the Maos and Castros -- like to convert themselves into the boss of a great big beautiful non-functional bureaucracy, of which it might be said that the cure was worse than the disease.

The point is that when creative people are on the loose -- as in Schumpeter's creative destruction -- they disrupt an awful lot of lives with their creative endeavors. And average people don't like that.

But is the creative change "good for them" despite the negative aspects? Sure. Unless you happen to be one of the buggy-whip makers.

Friday, May 10, 2019

"Intelligent Design" Just Means "We Don't Know"

Lefties and the like have liked Darwin's theory of evolution because it demolishes the notion of God creating the world, and the fishes and the animals. And Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.

The lefty religion stands or falls on the verdict that pre-lefty religion is all superstition and bigotry. And that lefty prophets have come down from the mountain with tablets of justice and equality that will save the planet.

So Darwin must be true.

But now it is becoming pretty clear that random mutations to DNA cannot explain the emergence -- or creation -- of new species.

So there must have been "intelligent design." Some-thing or some-one or some fill-in-the-blank must have designed things. So says Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

There's a good piece by David Gelernter in the Claremont Review of Books that goes into the whole question of "Giving Up Darwin."

Intelligent Design is a good way of describing the notion that the way that living organisms develop make it seem as if there were an intelligent designer in his organism shop assembling new ideas for organisms and sending them out into the universe care of Galactic UPS.

But I propose: why not just say that God Did It. And I have a deep and sophisticated philosophical reason for saying so.

In my view, the notion of God is an astonishing and deep and sophisticated philosophical way of dealing with the primary fact of human life.

We want to know the "meaning of life, the universe, and everything" as recited ad nauseam in Douglas Adams Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, but we don't.

We don't know the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. So we make it up, and the author of this universe kit is a chap we call God. This is because we humans like to gin up a reason for the things we do and thereby justify both our noble acts and our unspeakable crimes. And ordinary wiving and thriving.

Making God the author of some mystery in the universe works like a champ until our human knowledge expands enough to understand the mystery in question.

But there are always millions of unexplained mysteries left over. Let's say that God is in charge of all those mysteries.

For instance.

Back in the day we humans reckoned that the gods on Mt. Olympus ran everything, including the day-to-day battles of the siege of Troy described in The Iliad. If one group of gods thought the Greeks had been having things too much their own way they would insist that the other gods let the Trojans win the next one.

But by the time that The Odyssey got written, humans had a lot more personal agency, and were not above tricking the immortals so they could get their human way. The lovely Penelope was responsible for keeping those Suitors at bay, and young Telemachus knew that he had to do something about the Suitors. What was that all about?

Close to our own time, we had the mechanics of Newton, which seemed to suggest that everything in the world was determined by the relentless billiard ball determinism of Newton's equations. So where did free will or mere chance come in? Did God do it?

Well, we sorta solved that one with quantum mechanics which developed the math to show that, until some event happened, the so-called sub-atomic particles existed in a fuzz of probability. Things didn't know what they were going to do until they did.

OK, so let's say that the fuzz of probability is where God exists. And, of course, there is the curious fact that the universe doesn't crystallize out of probability in just any old way, but according to clearly defined rules that can be represented mathematically, once we can figure out the math.

Right now, the easiest way to understand the creation of species and major mutations is by the notion of "intelligent design" or, less politely, God. But I expect that in the near future the "scientists" will discover some mechanism or probability function that explains how species creation works.

But the day after this magnificent discovery we will realize that underneath it is yet another mystery.

I say: why not just call that unfathomable mystery God and get on it.

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Is Google "Thinking Strategically?" I Doubt It

Yesterday I wrote about Google's suppression of the Claremont Institute as an example of foolishness. But Glenn Elmers at American Greatness sees a Google strategic vision at work.
A military mindset is at work behind Google’s action—which represents the censorship and propaganda agenda of the whole social media conglomerate...

Google’s claim that it had made a “mistake” is a transparent falsehood. They were testing the perimeter.
Well, maybe.

See, I don't think that Google really knows what it is doing. Actually, I don't believe that the identity politics Left really understands what it is doing.

I think that the Left is merely executing on the 150 year-old playbook invented by Marx. He ginned up the notion of smashing the bourgeoisie by riling up the working class. Today's left is merely executing on new plays to smash the bourgeoisie. Real original, guys and gals.

I explain that by reference to my reductive Three Peoples theory, where I propose that the whole game for the Left is to form an alliance between the People of the Creative Self with the People of the Subordinate Self against the People of the Responsible Self.

The People of the Subordinate Self are people that want someone else to solve their problems for them. And that is what the left proposes to do. For the workers: Yeah! It's the bosses' fault! For women: Yeah! It's the patriarchs' fault! For black: Yeah! It's the whites' fault! For gays: Yeah! It's the straights' fault!

And so on.

And it is all a lie, including "and" and "the." The workers? Hey, workers, you need your employer more that he needs you. Hey, women, you need a husband to keep the resources coming so you can care for your children. Hey, blacks, you need the modern economy that whites invented so you can take advantage of its blessings. Etc.

Now, it my view that we are now in the terminal stage of the left's 150-year war on the People of the Responsible Self. I think that the folks on the left are now dull routinists, trying to slot into the concepts that Marx invented and trying to give them one more college try.

So the young millennials operating the controls at Google's social media supervision control room? They are ignorant fools that are just doing what they have been carefully taught. And I think that goes all the way up the administrative chain to foolish women like YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki.

Look: these tech billionaires have been doing tech. They have not been studying the classics, or the importance of Kant, or even the notion from lefty Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno in The Dialectic of Enlightenment that
Enlightenment behaves toward things as dictators toward men.
I wrote all about it in "The Twilight of the Educated Gods" a while back.

These people do not really know what they are doing; they are just reciting what they have been carefully taught.

At least, that's what I think.

No, I think that everyone, up and down the lefty supply chain is just doing what they have been carefully taught, and really don't know what they are doing.

It's just like the world stumble-bumming into World War I: They were idiots: from Kaiser Wilhelm to sir Edward Grey.

I believe that the Googles and the Facebooks and the Twitters are just taking the easy way out, for now. They know that they need to keep the lefty activists and peaceful protesters down to a dull roar, so they supinely go with the flow.

Indeed, since all they have ever been carefully taught is some diluted and easily-digested leftism, they might even think they are doing the Lord's work by purging social media of the "far right," or whatever the pejorative term of art is this week.

But in my view they are fools and knaves, as the sequel will prove.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

What Does Google-the-Censor Think It Is Doing?

In the growing catalog of tech deplatormings of ordinary conservative discourse, the late great deplatforming of the Claremont Institute by Google is merely ordinary in its mindlessness.

Claremont has been advertising to its supporter base
the danger to the republic posed by multiculturalism, identity politics and politically correct speech restrictions. Google decided that our writings violated the company’s policy on “race and ethnicity in personalized advertising” and prevented us from advertising to our own readers about our 40th-anniversary gala dinner this Saturday.
Well, now, after an article in the Wall Street Journal, Google has reversed its ban.
Google’s Acting Director of Political and Stakeholder Outreach got in touch with the Claremont Institute to notify us that the labeling of The American Mind as a “racially oriented publication” was a mistake. 
What is going on here?

I will tell you, based on my own experience with millennials in tech.

They know nothing! Except what they have been carefully taught, to hate and to fear, by their lefty teachers in school and their lefty instructors in university. They have absolutely anodyne opinions that conform eerily to New York Times conventional wisdom.

Correction. I was talking to a millennial yesterday who had actually taken some philosophy courses. He sounded like he had his head on straight. Or maybe he was just being nice to an old geezer.

So when these foolish, uneducated millennials are given jobs to moderate internet speech they have no understanding of politics except what they were carefully taught by their lefty instructors.

So of course, the uneducated millennials are outraged by a chap like James Damore that produces an anodyne essay on women in tech. How dare he? Really, how can any man produce stuff that goes against the narrative that they have been carefully taught? A la lanterne! As the French said during the revolution.

And of course the uneducated millennials are outraged by an outfit like Claremont that exists to challenge the lefty conventional wisdom, and particularly the lefty conventional wisdom on sex and race.

Because the whole point of the "education" they received from their lefty instructors from K thru grad school is to make them into ideological foot-soldiers for the lefty march through the institutions.

Just saying. The whole point of classical studies in the university, what they used to call "Greats" in Oxford and Cambridge in Limeyland, was to educate the scions of the ruling class in politics and philosophy and the Greek and Roman classic texts so that they knew all the angles of governance before they entered the political arena. The ruling class of that era knew that to merely indoctrinate their young scions of privilege in ruling class ideology wouldn't do the trick -- wouldn't keep the ruling class in power. The next generation had to know the ground. Of course, come the day they would know how to advance the agenda of the ruling class. That goes without saying. But they also knew how the world worked.

Now I believe that the purely ideological training -- what you might call ideological boot camp -- that the left propagates in the university and in the tech censorship bureaus -- is a strategic mistake.

See, I think the reason for free speech and the tolerance for crazies on the other side of the political spectrum is that if you censor and deplatform the opposition you are merely creating a head of rebellion that will eventually come and bite you.

That is the meaning of my maxim: there is not such thing as justice, only injustice. To put it another way, justice is merely the situation after the removal of an injustice. Until the next injustice comes along.

But the young millennial good little boys and good little girls at the tech censorship bureaus know nothing about that. Because all they know is the moral and ethical rightness of erasing all "hate speech" and racist sexist homophobic horror from the world. To make it a safe-space. As they were carefully taught.

And apparently it takes the intervention of a quasi-adult "Acting Director of Political and Stakeholder Outreach" to stop the millennial crazies in the tech censorship bureaus from their mindless Inquisitions and auto-da-fés before they get the tech parent into serious trouble.

But it shouldn't take an article in the Wall Street Journal to get the tech censorship bureau to curb its enthusiasm for ideological totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, it is getting to be pretty obvious that we are not going to put an end to this foolishness, these cadres of mindless millennial ideological shock troops, without a train wreck.

And that's a shame because it means that tons of people are going to go over the side before we get to right the ship of state.

And I think I may be finding a helpful angle on it from John Ralston Saul's Voltaire's Bastards. He proposes an opposition between reason and Heroes. I think he means that the suppression of of human agency in the notion of reason, a flatland of calculation and logic, brings forth the egoistic Hero -- the Napoleon, the Marx, the Marcuse, the activist -- as its Hegelian antithesis.

And that is a bad thing, because in the land of myth that has been revived in the last 100 years by Jung and others, the Hero is supposed to be a sacrificial hero, who goes down into the underworld of the unconscious to learn about the borderland between Order and Chaos and only returns to the everyday world when he has become sadder and wiser.

It is clear to me that our peaceful protesters and activists are Egos that have not experienced the necessary descent into the underworld. And therefore they are monsters that threaten to destroy everything good and true.

Because they are dumb and stupid.

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Poor China. It Is Stuck Playing Yesterday's Game

Hey, even the New York Times is publishing a piece that says President-for-life Xi of China has missed the point. "Xi Jinping Wanted Global Dominance. He Overshot."

Back in the day, even under Mao, China wanted a good relationship with the US. But Xi thought he could play superpower.
Mr. Xi has been aggressively hard-line. Under him, anti-American rhetoric has spread in official media. The Chinese government has been explicit about wanting to challenge the United States’s military presence in Asia. It has made aggressive moves toward Taiwan and in the South China Sea.
Then Xi has tried to "co-opt members of China’s vast diaspora, hoping to develop a network that will facilitate political infiltration into other countries and high-tech transfers out of them."

And now it looks like China will have to agree to a trade pact with the US that represents a loss of face to President Xi.

Then there is the attempt by Russia, China and some bit players to keep President Maduro in power in Venezuela. And your point is? To show the US that you can play the game?

Look, I get it. All these second division players have watched the US global hegemony over the past century and dearly want to play that game too. They want a navy like ours. They want to tell tin-pot dictators whether to come or go. They want to sit by the energy spigot and make a mint out of energy production.

'Cos that's what great powers do! Yay!

One little thing, fellahs. The whole idea of the US imperium was to push back at totalitarian players like Hitler and Stalin, and the tin-pot versions like Castro and Chávez, who didn't believe in a world of commercial reciprocity, but in political and imperial dominance and hegemony. Because equality.

But that was the old world, and that is the world that the left has been trying to revive for the last century in its Great Reaction: socialism as neo-slavery, welfare state as neo-feudalism, and identity politics as neo-tribalism.

Thing is: the military domination of land doesn't matter any more, not much. What matters are the monster 200,000 ton container ships plying their trade across the oceans of the world. Great nations are no longer interested in conquering and plundering their neighbors for riches and for slaves. Why? Because there is no money in it!

What good did it do for the Stalinists to conquer eastern Europe? It just made the eastern Europeans as poor as the Russians. What is the point of China colonizing Third World countries with unpayable Belt and Road debt? Because the West did it 150 years ago? And Robert McNamara did it with the World Bank 50 years ago?

And what good will it do to keep Maduro in power in Venezuela so the Venezuelans can starve a little more.

What is needed is for the great nations of the world to do what the men of the West did in the 19th century: trade the warrior's sword for the sportsman's trophy.

That's the remarkable thing about our age. Just when men stopped being combination peasants/medieval soldiers along came football and tennis and cricket. And basketball and baseball. So now men could compete for the honor of the city, and teach the guys in that other city with the lousy team a lesson.

And very delightful and harmless it is. Same goes for careers. What better use is there for male aggressiveness than to challenge your fellow corporate road warriors into a fight to the death -- for market share?

What is needed is for the natural competition between nations to be channeled into equally harmless pursuits. But what?

Well I have an idea. Remember the race to the moon? Yeah. That was a harmless way of channeling the Cold War into harmless pursuits.

I propose a global competition, A Race to Mars.

Which nation will be first to put a man on Mars? It goes without saying that the first nation to put a man on Mars has hair on its chest. Its people are clearly the wave of the future.

And all the rest are cry-babies.

Monday, May 6, 2019

Starting into "Voltaire's Bastards"

 I ran across a reference to Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston Saul a week or so ago and thought I ought to read it. Now I'm about 70 pages in and the bastards seem to be "reason" and the "Hero."

This is comfortable for me because I have been influenced by the Jungian movement for which the "unconscious," the pre-rational, is the basis of human life -- even in an age of reason -- and the proper kind of hero is the sacrificial hero, living on the boundary between order and chaos and bringing an understanding of chaos to his fellow humans even at the cost of his own life.

That is not to say that reason is not a remarkable and beneficial tool for humans to understand the universe, and that heros -- Saul means the egoistical Hero like Napoleon and Hitler -- can't make a contribution to life.

But the point is to understand that reason takes you only so far, and does not answer the questions we really want to ask, which is the meaning of life the universe, and everything. Likewise, the hero is an equivocal human. His creativity can be a force for good or a force for evil. The wise and noble hero understands this, and it reluctant to impose his creations upon the world. The egotistical hero is bound and determined to show us the brilliance of his creations, even at the cost of millions of dead.

So then I thought that the combination of overweening reason and the Hero is the lefty activist. Empowered by his faith in reason -- actually the theology of progress -- our lefty friend confidently leads his "peaceful protest" against oppression and inequality, secure in the knowledge that he is pushing the world one step closer to its destiny as a realm of peace and justice.

But it is all really about him, the progressive Hero, and his Ego.

On the other hand, Saul has some curious notions, such as, writing in 1992, that we had been through a 20-year depression, masked only by credit expansion. OK. I'd say that more important were the tax-rate cuts and deregulations and de-feudalizing and de-unionizing of the economy under Reagan that launched the start-up age that continues to this hour.

But then Saul writes about Pascal Paoli, the leader of Corsica in the 20 years between its freedom from Genoa and its conquest by France. Napoleon Buonaparte was one of the young Corsican lords sent to France after the French invasion who, we may say, learned his Age of Reason lessons to a T.

Saul likes Washington, dislikes Hamilton, and likes Jefferson. But it's early days in a 600 page book.

Friday, May 3, 2019

NYT Writer: "Women Did Everything Right"

Back in the day I had a boss that complained about his underlings "going off at tangents." Instead of putting our shoulders to the wheel, and getting on with the job at hand, we would annoyingly engage with side issues. In software, of course, there is always the temptation to polish up the code and make it more elegant.

Of course, there is one little problem with polishing up code. You introduce new bugs into the code. Not good.

So now a good little girl at the New York Times is writing about a 35-year-old lawyer married to a 35-year-old lawyer that is now lawyering 21 hours a week and looking after the kids while hubby works insane hours, 60 hours a week. Says the headline "Women Did Everything Right: Then Work Got Greedy.'"

Then follows a thousand words of feminist conventional wisdom.

Let's put the whole thing in black and white.

The job of women -- human females -- is to put babies on the ground. Everything else is "going off at tangents."

The job of men is to protect a woman and her babies until the babies leave the nest. Everything else is "going off at tangents."

And boy, do we moderns go off at tangents these days. We do it, of course, because we are rich and can afford it.

What sort of tangents? Oh, women like the idea of careers. Men like the idea of a creative life. Women imagine themselves as politicians; men imagine easing off from work. Women like to fluff up their nests; men like to have hobbies. And both sexes are learning to mess about with sex.

All of this stuff is a distraction. Because if women don't have babies, then humans go extinct. If men don't protect their women and their children, then the little ones don't survive to adulthood.

If the last few days I have seen a couple articles about how the decline in religion goes hand in hand with decline in fertility. I wonder if humans need religion to keep them from going off at tangents?

I was talking with acquaintances the other day and one of us was talking about women and careers as if it was the default thing for women to do, and that to hinder a woman in this interfered with the whole meaning of her life.

I said nothing, because what can you say? Folks living in the liberal bubble have no idea. And they won't appreciate someone popping the bubble, especially a racist, sexist, homophobe like me.

I dare say it will all end with a movement of well-born women going back to religion and children and family.

Because even though we humans have a constant itch to go off at tangents, we still know in our heart of hearts what we should be doing.

Notice the headline "Women Did Everything Right." Does that not exactly align with my notion of the woman's Culture of Complaint? For the instinct in every woman is that if she does everything right then, of course, her life should be happy and perfect; and if it is not, someone is to blame.

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Yes, Secularists Do Too Have Religion

Over at the Australian Claire Lehman's Quillette they are having a set to about whether secularism is a religion. John Staddon says they sorta do.
My argument is simple: religions have three characteristics: spiritual, mythical/historical, and moral. Secular humanism lacks the first two and is often quite critical of these aspects of religion.
See, I think that the secularists do too have the spiritual and the mythical/historical.

Oh sure, the secularists don't have a "god" but they certainly have sacred objects. Principally, the sacred object is the Victim. The point about the sacred is that it is beyond criticism, and analysis, at least not by you, chum. Now, you tell me that, for the Communists, the "worker" was not a sacred object. Or that the suffering woman is not a sacred object for the feminists, or the African slave for the blacks. Etc. In addition, the prophets of secularism have attained almost to the status of saints, as a first step towards identification with the immortal. Think Lenin's tomb. Or Mary Wollstonecraft. Or Martin Luther King, Jr.

It is not stretching things too far to suggest that the secularists worship The Victim.

And as for "mythical/historical!" The whole point of the secular left is to construct likely Three Stage stories about the Victims. Back in the day humans were innocent and equal. They lived, you might say, in a veritable Garden of Eden. But then came the Fall. Once innocent humans fell upon each other, stripped of their innocence, and became divided into Exploiters and Victims. Or Patriarchs and sex objects. Or Lords and Serfs. Or Masters and Slaves. Or Capitalists and Proletarians. But now, with the blessings of activism and the holy sacrament of peaceful protest there is dawning a new age that will save us from oppression and exploitation and we will enter into a new Eden of Heaven on Earth.

I am not making this up.

Of course, I come to this from an appreciation of chaps like Jung and Joseph Campbell and Jordan Peterson. They are saying that myth is universal, and just because we moderns say we have "grown" beyond religion doesn't mean that we aren't lying to ourselves. Jung, of course, was consciously trying to found a new religion, and for that got criticized by chaps like Richard Noll in The Jung Cult.

I believe that it is essential to establish that modern secular beliefs are religion in everything but name. There is a very good practical reason for this, that if modern secularism is a religion then the dicta of the Bill of Rights apply, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If secular cults are religions then they should not be privileged as science and should not have the power to deplatform people that disagree with their expressions of faith and their orthodoxies.

We can expect that our lefty friends will insist, to the last faggot on the auto-da-fé, that their systems and their ethics and their programs are not religious, no sir, not nohow.

Because under the current regime lefties hold a huge tactical advantage. Their ideas and proposals are noble "issues" and "settled science" rather than the crazed doctrines of a whacky religious cult.