Wednesday, July 31, 2019

The Question of Women in the Public Square

I think that the question of women in the public square is the big question of our time. I was alerted to this a while back when I wrote about German sociologist Georg Simmel.
Simmel recognized that 19th century technologies "made for less labor in the household." This caused unease among middle-class women, who now sought activity outside the home.
Obviously, Simmel wrote, the public sphere, the world outside the home, in the short term would still be defined by men for men, but in the long term women would transform the public square to suit "a more feminine sensibility." 
So ever since, I have wondered about what that means.

See, I believe that the point of the male-created public square is to create a public space where the old male culture of revenge justice (an eye for an eye, a life for a life) is replaced by the culture of law and politics. In this culture revenge is reduced to the "wait until next time" of failure in politics and sports. Men still fight, but not in blood sports. Today, men have a Culture of Insult where men exchange insults in a playful way, rather than in a lethal way.

Now, the previous culture of women was different. They got on in the old village culture with gossip, which is two women talking together about a third woman. And they penalized defaulters -- the woman that all the women agreed was a problem -- by naming and shaming, and in extreme cases, by ostracism.

In today's culture we see this woman's culture at work in notions like microaggressions and safe spaces. These are all about women disliking direct confrontation and calling it a microaggression and wanting to control people indirectly. A safe space is the complete negation of the public square, where you have to stand up and "act like a man." What happens to the public square if you are not allowed to confront other ideas with your ideas and if you run for a safe space if you hear something that makes you feel bad? I don't know.

But I have an example of how it might work, from Spirit and Flesh, a book about a fundamentalist church by liberal sociologist James M. Ault, Jr. In the fundamentalist church the men held all the formal offices, but the women ran the church through their husbands. Notice that this means the women never get into conflict or suffer a microaggression or leave their safe spaces, or venture into the public square. But they still run the place.

An example of women in the public square is the reported problem that educated women have with President Trump. They don't like his insults. Well, I can understand that, because the outer-borough New Yawker Trump lives and acts as a man of his culture, and guys like him interact in a Culture of Insult. Girls don't like direct insults; they understand and practice the insult indirect, as in "I can't believe she said that."

But there is this. I haven't heard a word out of these suburban snowflakes about the insults-direct that Democrats hand out with every new day. I don't hear them complain about the racist Al Sharpton's rhetoric. I don't recall them being outraged when the Democratic line was that Mitt Romney was a cruel capitalist or a cruel teenager or a monster that put the dog on the roof of his car.

No, I don't recall any of my nice liberal neighbors saying of the Dems of the time: "I can't believe they said that about Mitt Romney."

So, I suspect, when a woman complains about the insults delivered by President Trump, they are really signalling to their friends that they are good loyal Democrats. I'll believe their complaints when they start calling out Democrats for their race-card outrages.

And really, what is the Big Problem of the age? It is not President Trump insulting the Four Squaddies. It is the Democrats preventing a frank and honest discussion of The Issues by calling their opponents racist sexist homophobes on every issue under the sun.

Now here is an interesting question, on the day after the latest Democratic debate: Marianne Williamson, the new-age guru and author of books like A Return to Love. Lefty journalist Matt Taibbi is wondering if Williamson is going to be the Trump of the 2020 Democratic race, by completely changing the subject on the usual suspects.

But I wonder. The point about Trump is that he energized a whole sector of Americans, the white working class demographic that had been neglected by both parties for years. Marianne Williamson appeals to educated women suburbanites, who are not a helpless neglected political demographic. I'd say that the chances are good that any Marianne Williamson reader is already a Dem voter and would never vote for a Republican. Because Republicans believe in "hate" rather than love.

Irregardless, the whole question of women in the public square is only going to become more and more important. Unless women decide that they don't really want to live in the bracing air of the public square and would rather rule the world through their husbands, as of old.

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Race Card Poker

Did you notice that President Trump tweeted the other day that the Four Squaddies were "a very Racist group of troublemakers?"

How dare, how dare he do something like that?

Why everybody knows that it is impossible for Women of Color to be racist. Or sexist. Or anything else. And the very idea of accusing a Democratic Congresswoman of Color of being a racist.

I Can't Believe He Said That!

Here's what I want to know. How did the young Drumpf skip the mandatory All Whites are Racist 101 class? Did Daddy get him an opt-out card from the local KKK Kleagle?

Mind you, I do think it was naughty of the President to be tweeting about how, back in the day, Al Sharpton wanted him to attend his racist soirées or whatever he called them. Hey Big Al. What's yer problem? Trump helped you back in the day; so how come you ain't covering for him now?

When you think about it, it is monstrous that the white people of the US are being forced to cower under their beds in case someone should up and call them a racist.

Which is, need I remind you, about the worst thing you can be. So you would think that any good kindly American would think once, twice, thrice, before accusing a fellow citizen of being a racist.

But you would be wrong, because there are a lot of Americans that just love the upset-the-table power that comes with the unanswerable racist accusation.

I have lately been thinking that we should adopt the notion of President Coolidge, who said, on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence:
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.
Hey, Cal. I like it.

So I say that if, according to the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, government may not discriminate on the basis of race or sex, that is final.

So why are we all getting our knickers in a twist playing kiddie playground games about "you're daddy's a dirty raacist!"

Well I will tell you. Something weird happened with the Civil Rights Acts. Before the acts, government was not supposed to discriminate. But it did. People could discriminate, but often they didn't.

Then we have the Civil Rights Acts that declared that neither government nor people could discriminate on the basis of race or sex.

Racist sexist homophobe Barry GOldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because, he said, only government should be forbidden to discriminate. A free person should be allowed to discriminate.

Yet what do we have today? Government discriminates on the basis of race and sex every day, because diversity and inclusion. Big corporate institution discriminate of the basis of race and sex and sexual orientation every day. Because good little girls in HR. Social media discriminates on the basis of race and sex and viewpoint every day, because "hate."

But if one little mom-and-pop Christian baker declines to cater a gay wedding, saying like Bartleby the scrivener, "I would prefer not to," all hell breaks loose, courtesy of the lefties at the local Human Rights Commission.

We know how we all got here. We got here because majority white Americans got taught to be guilty about race. The slaves, dontcha know, although the vast majority of white Americans come from serf or peasant stock in Europe. And the liberals in charge of the culture enjoyed the power they got from victimizing ordinary nobody whites.

And Republican politicians learned that it was impossible to win a race-card street fight, because the media would always come down on the side of the poor helpless victimized woman or minority or the vile minority racist politician like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

Well, it looks like Trump thinks he knows how to play race-card poker, and he is standing up to the usual racists and sexists on the left that the liberal media has been protecting for half a century.

Of course, he may go down in flames. But on the other hand this may be an Emperor's New Clothes moment. At this point, nobody knows.

It's a topsy-turvy world. Here we have the left that says, on the one hand, that race and gender are artificial cultural artifacts. Yet on the other hand it insists that human identity is inseparable from race and gender identity. Rep. Pressley (D-MA):
[W]e don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don't want to be a black voice. We don't need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don't want to be a queer voice. 
They say that the way to center yourself on hate speech like that is to substitute the word "white" for "black" and imagine a Republican politician saying it. 
We don’t need white faces that don't want to be a white voice. We don't need Christians that don’t want to be a Christian voice. We don’t need men that don't want to be a male voice. 
Nuff said. But then arises the question.

As the mice asked, back in the good old days of The Tailor of Gloucester, courtesy of Beatrix Potter, "Who is going to bell the cat?" Actually the notion goes back to Aesop's Fables.

The answer is simple. Someone with the courage that is willing to lose everything on the next hand of race-card poker.

Monday, July 29, 2019

Our Ruling Class's Unjust Sense of Entitlement

In a recent piece, Matthew Continetti has demonstrated the fundamental truth about our political situation in these United States:
[T]he impeachment debate is not about what Trump has done, is doing, or might do. It is about whether he and the social forces he represents are entitled to rule.
He points out that 40 percent of Americans believe that President Trump should be impeached. And that means 70 percent of Democrats. In other words, 40 percent of Americans don't think that President Trump is entitled to rule.

Now, of course, the average American and the average Democrat didn't come up with that on their own. As I keep saying, you have to be carefully taught. The impeachment notion arose out of Hillary Clinton's failure to concede on the night -- OK she was drunk -- or the day after the election in 2016. As we know, there was already a movement in the "intelligence community" to try and compromise Candidate Trump. And what with the mental health issues of Democrats relating to Trump Derangement Syndrome -- what is this notion of making reaction to election results into a mental health question? -- and the activist community always needing to get up in the morning with something to protest, pretty soon the vile Trump presumption had to be erased.

And why not? As Continetti writes:
Trump is a one-man rebuke of progressivism, of political correctness, of a humanitarianism that does not recognize citizenship or national borders.
And, of course, we are not just talking about the program of a political party but the moral agenda of a secular religious movement. Our lefty friends believe in their free health care, their entitlements, race and gender politics, their Green New Deal as morally right, indeed morally incontestable. The idea that a politician and a party should be opposed to their moral agenda is an abomination to them. Inconceivable!

And really this is nothing new. Back when I came into the US, in 1968, the election of Richard Nixon was an abomination to the New Left that had arisen in the 1960s. It was inconceivable to them that the American people in their right minds would elect a man such as Nixon to the presidency. As I comment elsewhere, my Jewish boss had a Nixon $3 bill mug, as in "fake as a $3 bill." Hey, Richard Nixon was a Red Baiter, besmirching the reputations of Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas, first of all, and then hunting Commies in the McCarthy years. The impeachment of Richard Nixon was exactly the same as the Mueller special prosecutor: an ageing figurehead sitting on top of a crew of Democrat partisans determined to "get" the president.

Back in the 1970s Republicans were good guys that imagined, or felt they ought to, respond to the impeachment of Nixon in good faith. But it really wasn't good faith, and it took the Clinton impeachment for Republicans to wise up.

In the impeachment of Richard Nixon the two GOP wise men of the Senate, Goldwater and Minority Leader Rhodes, went down Pennsylvania Avenue to tell Nixon that he didn't have the votes to survive in the Senate. After the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the House of Representatives Vice President Gore went down Pennsylvania Avenue to lead a pro-Clinton rally of Democratic faithful at the White House.

If you are a Democrat I don't suppose you understand that and what it means to people like me. But I do. And so now and forever I regard impeachments as pure politics, the attempt to kick over the verdict of the voters with inside Washington baseball.

But I understand the position of the liberal left, I really do.

Their religion, their secular religion that sanctified their big-government politics is a monster, and slowly a counter movement -- among ordinary people -- is forming against it. And the liberal left can't believe it. Like any prophetic movement, their prophecy is failing and they can't believe it. They are desperately trying to believe that the glorious Rapture is coming, just as prophesied!

Or you can use the analysis of Crane Brinton in his Analysis of Revolution in which he proposes that all revolutionary movements that obtain political power get to a point where their prophecy of universal justice is not getting there. So a Reign of Terror and Virtue is needed to go the last mile. That's how to understand the demonizing of opposition to the progressives project as  "hate" and bigotry -- when it's not racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Now my notion is that the project of the left has been a folly from the first. Its fundamental error is to believe that you can bring on the millennium with political power. Actually, I think, the lesson of the last two centuries is that political power is past its sell-by date. It is not necessary to use political power to secure a safe patch of land on which to grow food and protect it from pirates and plunderers. That's because the only real thing of value in the modern world for wiving and thriving is "intangible capital," the stuff between the ears of humans. You can't steal or plunder intangible capital. You have to let it thrive and grow without political interference.

Moreover, I think, the market and its verdict on all economic decisions removes the urgency of a moral framework in day-to-day life. The market rewards people that produce the products that other people want, and that provide the kind of services that other people want. It rewards trust and honesty, and it rewards people that reward trust and honesty. What more do you want?

Well, the great theme of the modern era is the notion of "creativity." The way to understand this is to realize that, in the old days, it was God that was the creative one. He created Heaven and Earth, and our human job was to be worthy of the world he created for us, follow his Rules and respect his Judgement. But with the explosion of human knowledge and technique we are discovering that, apart from the original Creation or Big Bang, there is a lot that humans can do to "create" ideas and stuff in this world. Not to mention the miracle of the creation of children.

I think that this new Creative Age is a revolution in human life without parallel. I think it is bigger than the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture. And, I believe, you ain't seen nothing yet.

But, the problem is that our educated class has got a hold of the wrong end of the stick. They think that the Creative Age is all about them and their creative ideas for politics and justice and sexual experimentation and saving the planet from climate change.

I think that the creative class is wrong, and will have to go through the Valley of the Shadow of Death and unspeakable trials before it gets the point that its ideology is a Great Reaction and its cultural and political achievements thus far amount to the Crime of the Millennium.

But hey, the Hero's Journey is a journey into the underworld of the unconscious, and only after surviving severe trials does the hero return to the ordinary world. So the educated class needs its journey into the underworld.

My indictment of the Great Reaction is that socialism is neo-slavery; the welfare state is neo-feudalism, identity politics is neo-tribalism; reparations is neo-vengeance; activism is neo-knight-errantry; social justice is neo-plunder.

My indictment of the Crime of the Millennium is that the educated class has driven the working class and minorities off the Road to the Middle Class. This is why the white working class is dying of despair, and 70 percent of black babies in the United States are born to a single mother. And the educated class has led western women into a wilderness of sorrows, denying their basic female nature and teaching them to imagine they can live just like men. And then the left, needing something to save the world -- as in Christianity -- has come up with climate change as a doctrine to "save the planet." But actually it is no different than the Crusades to save the Holy Land or the fight against Fascism or the fight against Communism. It is all about the political class's need for a war or the moral equivalent of war.

Our educated ruling class has this crazy notion -- common to ruling classes down the ages -- that God (or history) has ordained it to be the beneficent Oz for our age. And so the ruling class is entitled to take out any commoner that dares to challenge its God-given -- or arc of history driven -- right to rule.

We commoners have a job to do. To gently, but firmly, prise the fingers of the educated ruling class off the levers of political and cultural power.

As for what will come after that? I have no idea.

Friday, July 26, 2019

In the Aftermath of the Mueller Debacle, Who Will Bell the Cat?

The thing that bothers me about the whole Mueller affair, that ended with the exhibition on Wednesday of Robert Mueller as an old man past his prime, is what it tells us about the ideology, the culture, the religion -- call it what you will -- of our liberal friends.

Our liberal friends now think it is OK to use the full might of government to demolish the opposition. Because it is evil.

This is particularly stark for me because of my current reading of The British Conquest and Domination of India by Sir Penderel Moon, all 1245 pages of it. The genius of the book is that it tells the story of the British conventional wisdom on India beginning back in the 18th century.

So, after the Indian Mutiny of Sepoy regiments in 1857 what did the Brits do? Well, they were a bit ashamed that some of their officers that had wreaked revenge on the Indians that had massacred a few handfuls of British women and children. And they realized that the idea of keeping India in subjection forever was a pipe-dream. Sooner or later, they realized, they had to hand India over to the Indians. Because democracy. Meanwhile they should be building roads, railways, canals, and building an Indian national education system, as any modern responsible government should do, according to the conventional wisdom of the time.

This is rather different from the ideology of Gen. Siad Barre, dictator of Somalia in the time when Rep. Ilhan Omar's (D-MN) grandfather was head of Somalian lighthouses. Barre combined Marxism and Islam in his regime ideology. That gave him license to do pretty well whatever was needed. Steve Sailer:
 [T]he Somali Government was vexed to find conservative religious leaders preaching against equality of the sexes and supporting their arguments with readings from the Koran.
It decided to stop the dissent. 
Eleven of the religious leaders were rounded up, and early one morning they were executed by firing squad. 
Notice that Barre did not think, well, I know that progress according to the truth of Marxism and Islam is inevitable and that, in the long run, all the old ideologies will fall by the wayside. Because progress. No. His ideology permitted, even encouraged him to get rid of the inconvenient "conservative religious leaders" right now.

It is clear to me that the current ideology of our ruling class, the religion of intersectionality, of race cards, and the apocalyptic doctrine of the End of the World, because climate, is a millennarian doctrine, a secular religion, a follow-on from Marxism, which does not, as the Brit ideology of the 19th century did, advise the ruling class to cool it and permit government for the Natives, by the Natives -- however backward and primitive compared to Us they may be, darling.

So our liberal friends do not think that, well, those deplorables and bitter clingers may be a bunch of superstitious idiots living in the past, but, they have as much right to live their bigoted, and superstitious lives, cramped by horrific racism, sexism, and homophobia, as we have to live our glorious creative, compassionate and enlightened lives. They think that extreme measures are needed to keep bigoted hands away from the levers of political power.

When George W. Bush won the normal change election of 2000 our liberal friends were beside themselves. The psychiatrists even invented a mental illness for them, post-election stress disorder. Really? You chaps can't handle the disappointment of losing an election?

Same thing when Donald Trump won the normal change election of 2016. There was wailing and gnashing of teeth. And a deep state movement to reverse the election and get rid of Trump.

Sorry liberals. If you think like that you have a dangerous and antisocial ideology. Because the first principle of democratic elections is that there are two kinds of elections: Four More Years, and Throw the Rascals Out. In more polite circles this is called "alternation in office."

The point of "alternation in office" is that both political parties can confidently say, after an election that goes against them, that we will "wait until next time." But if there are no normal change elections every eight years, then there is no "wait until next time." If you want to get out from under the knout of the present unjust rulers you have to form a head of rebellion and literally throw the rascals out in an armed revolution.

Many people think that living for a few years under, e.g., the awful Trump, is much better than going through the horrors of revolution, of young men drafted off the street into someone's army, and summary executions.

I don't know what is behind the Democratic habit of not conceding elections, but I am inclined to think that it is telling us something. It is telling us that a lot of Democrats are thinking that something has gone wrong with the march of history. The glorious bend of the arc of history towards justice does not seem to be happening. So democracy isn't working, and this must be the work of the racist, sexist, homophobic Devil. Thus, in order to bring justice to this racist, sexist, homophobic society we have to resort to force. The other options aren't working anymore.

So the chaps that think that, the thing about democracy is that it is the worst form of government, except for all the others, we have to get together to form a political movement that will form a political coalition to teach the liberal totalitarians a lesson.

I don't know which of the 47 types of nationalism that are contesting for the right to define the future is the right one for the present emergency. But we need to come up with something.

It is not going to be enough to sit around, like the mice of Gloucester, and argue about Who Will Bell the Cat.

My feeling is -- from my maxim that "there is no such thing as justice, only injustice" -- that the way to deal with our liberal friends is to put together a political movement solely based on the monstrous injustice of the current ruling class and its monstrous self-dealing, and its use of the justice system and the intelligence community both to punish its enemies that merely follow the law and exempt its friends from living in accordance with the law, and its monstrous importation of immigrants against the interests of native Americans.

Used to be that our ruling class taught the white working class that they were horribly exploited and oppressed by the bosses. Vote for us, and we will smash the bosses. Then the ruling class abandoned the white working class to unemployment and opioids.

Used to be that our ruling class taught blacks that all the whites were horrible racists and were just waiting, in the words of Joe Biden, to "put y'all back in chains." Vote for us and we will give you Freedom. Then the ruling class started importing refugees and migrants to take the jobs of blacks and abandon them to the killing fields of inner-city gang warfare.

See what I mean? Whatever the political line is, however it seems that the electorate is divided up by race or class or whatever, the fact is that the dividing lines are sitting there waiting for some damn politician to redraw them. If he has the chops.

That's what I mean by "whoever shows up" nationalism. It's all down to what some damn politician can say to persuade the voters that he cares about people like them. Race, class, gender, national origin: these are all fake tribalisms waiting for some low-rent genius to stir the pot and reorder the fake tribes of politics to give him 51 percent of the vote and/or a majority in the Electoral College.

Then we can get down to worrying about the Deficit.

Thursday, July 25, 2019

Responding to the Call for Civility

Back in the day, Republicans and conservatives believed in "civility." Not any more. Now the conventional wisdom is that you throw the hate of the left right back in their faces. But what?

In the last week there have been two helpful pieces listing a bunch of hate quotes from Democrats. Nothing extraordinary. Just routine stuff accusing Republicans of being fascists or racists. From Steven Hayward at Powerline blog and from Larry Elder. These two gentlemen have provided actual quotes. But I have boiled them down into counterpunches.

Oh yeah? Whatabout FDR in 1945 saying that a victory for Republicans would be a victory for fascism?

Whatabout President Truman in 1948 saying that a victory for Dewey would be a "Fascistic threat to American freedom."

Whatabout in 1964 when "San Francisco Mayor John Shelley said Republicans 'had Mein Kampf as their political bible.'"

Whatabout in 1964 when Gov. Pat Brown said "The stench of fascism is in the air" at the Goldwater convention.

Whatabout Coretta Scott King in 1980, complaining that Ronald Reagan was back to the "Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party."

Whatabout a Dem. Rep. in 1983 saying that Ronald Reagan was "trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from 'Mein Kampf.'"

Whatabout Maxine Waters in 1992 calling President Bush a racist "for many, many reasons."

Whatabout in 1994 after the GOP midterm landslide when a Dem. Rep. said “It’s a glorious day if you’re a fascist.”

Whatabout in 1995 Dem. Rep. John Dingell saying the GOP House is like "the Duma and the Reichstag,"

Whatabout in 1995 Dem. Rep. John Lewis saying the GOP is "coming for our children."

Whatabout Dem. reaction to Gingrich era budget cuts? "Worse than Hitler."

Whatabout in 1999 Donna Brazile accusing the GOP of "having a white-boy attitude."

Whatabout in 2000 Donna Brazile saying the GOP would "rather take pictures with black children than feed them."

Whatabout in 2005 Dem. Rep. Charles Rangel saying that "George Bush is our Bull Connor."

Whatabout in 2005 Al Gore accusing President Bush of unleashing "squadrons of digital brownshirts" to harass the media.

Whatabout in 2005 Howard Dean saying that Dem. vs. GOP is "good versus evil."

Whatabout in 2006 when Claire McCaskill said George W. Bush "let people die on rooftops" in New Orleans.

Whatabout in 2006 when Hillary Clinton said the GOP House had "been run like a plantation."

Whatabout in 2011 when Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the GOP wanted to drag the nation back to "Jim Crow laws."

Whatabout in 2012 when Joe Biden told a black audience that Mitt Romney was going to "put y'all back in chains."

Whatabout in 2014 when Dem. Rep. Charles Rangel said that "some [Republicans] believe that slavery isn't over, and they think they won the Civil War."

Like I say. If you accuse someone of being a racist then you are a hater. If you accuse someone of hate then you are a racist/sexist, Whatever.

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Humans Usually Want Seat-warmers to Rule Them

Usually, rulers are dull idiots, seat-warmers. We humans like it that way.

But when the chips are down, that is when we choose a high-risk leader.

Think back in our recent US past.

Eisenhower? Safe pair of hands.

Kennedy? Lightweight promoted as a lightbringer.

Nixon? Safe pair of hands.

Carter? Pompous idiot.

Reagan? Unguided missile.

Bushes? Safe pair of hands.

Clinton? Safe pair of hands playing a rascal.

Obama? Pompous idiot.

Trump? Unguided missile.

And I think the same is true of our Brit friends. The unguided missiles are Churchill, Thatcher, and now maybe Boris Johnson. The rest were the usual idiots.

Why? Because in normal times you don't want the unguided missiles in charge of the government. There's no telling what they may do.

There's a remarkable piece by Toby Young about Boris Johnson out there that shows that, in normal times, you don't want him near the Prime Minister's mansion. But in the chaotic Brexit era, where the Brexit Party is threatening to tear the Conservative Party in two?

Well, when the chips are down, you gotta be willing to take a risk.

Young remembers Boris Johnson's first speech at the Oxford Union. He acted like a buffoon, forgetting his lines, which normally would be the kiss of death. Instead, his speech was a triumph.
This was no ordinary undergraduate proposing a motion, but a Music Hall veteran performing a well-rehearsed comic routine.
There was the time he beat the professors at Scrabble.
There was the occasion when he was holidaying with his family in Greece, aged 10, and asked a group of Classics professors if he could join their game of Scrabble. They indulged the precocious, blond-haired moppet, only to be beaten by him. Thinking it was a one-off, they asked him to play another round and, again, he won. 
 To Toby Young, Boris Johnson was without doubt the "big man" on campus, whatever the campus.
He was without doubt the biggest man on campus—the person most likely to succeed. He made no secret of his desire to be Prime Minister one day, and not just a run-of-the-mill, common-or-garden PM, but up there with Gladstone and Disraeli.
But the Tories in Britain would never have elected Johnson to be their leader unless they felt it was Boris or Bust. Unless they had Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party breathing down their necks.

Just as the US would never had elected Trump as president without the ordinary middle class and the white working class feeling that it was now or never. The same is true of ordinary Brits in Britain.

But there is also a serious side to Boris. From his speech after winning the Conservative Party election.
And time and again, it is to us [the Conservatives] that the people of this country have turned to get that balance right between the instincts to own your own house, your own home, to earn and spend your own money, to look after your own family. 
Good instincts, proper instincts, noble instincts. And the equally noble instinct to share and to give everyone a fair chance in life. And to look after the poorest and the neediest. And to build a great society.
But wait! I thought that Boris Johnson was supposed to be a bumbling oaf? How come he can in a short paragraph lay claim to both the themes of modern society, the individualism of the market and the need to help those less fortunate?

Everybody Said, back in 2016, that Trump would be a disaster. Maybe they are right, but it hasn't happened yet.

Everyone is Saying, right now, that Brexit will wreck Britain and Boris is a buffoon. Who knows?

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

If You Call Someone a Racist You are a Hater

America's Big Problem is what to do about people that play the race card, as in accusing anyone that dares to disagree with them of being a racist.

Let's face it; ordinary white Americans have been in a funk since the day after the Civil Rights Act was signed on July 2, 1964.

You would think that after this landmark declaration of equal rights that the race question would have been solved and everyone would have lived happily ever after.

You would be wrong because, according to my Maxims, "politics is division." There is absolutely no point for anyone in politics to let anyone live happily ever after, because then they won't listen to politicians and vote for the guy that promises to protect "us" from "them" and hand out loot after the victory.

So, anyone that disagreed with the liberal or lefty or Democratic talking point of the day was branded a racist. Right up to the present moment.

In this we can see the power of the modern educated ruling class. After all, there is not physical reason why people should be ashamed of being racist, i.e., preferring their own kind over all others. Moreover, the left teaches its Little Darlings to be outrageously proud of their race, their gender, and whatever defines them as different. Hey, pal. I call that racism.

In fact, people can be carefully taught to be ashamed of themselves. Like the poor bloody Germans after World War II who were taught by the Western Allies and the Soviets to be ashamed of themselves. So when David Cole would talk to Germans
The overwhelming majority of Germans I met dealt with the humiliation by apologizing, bowing, and prostrating themselves...  [T]hey’d literally start crying like children. “We’re a bad people! We did bad things! We deserve the scorn, we deserve the punishment. We owe the world an eternity of apologies.”
 Yes, well. These are the Germans that invented modern philosophy, modern physics, modern chemistry, the that jumped over the chasm of the impossibility of relativity and quantum mechanics. Then they lost a stupid war because they were governed by stupid idiots. Then they voted for a leader that promised to lead them to glory...

Hey, I've just been reading about the Brits during the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58. They got pretty rough with the riff-raff that murdered their women and children in places like Lucknow and Cawnpore. Maybe we should be teaching the Brits a lesson. How dare they avenge themselves on the prostrate Indian people!

Well, of course, we are, because our lefty friends have spent the last 100 years, after Lenin, telling us that western imperialism was the worst thing ever.

Actually, western imperialism was the long withdrawing roar of imperialism, because, in my opinion, after about 1750 with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Empire Did Not Pay. You see that with the Brits in India. On the one hand they acted like regular rulers always getting their knickers in a twist about the threat of the ruler next door. On the other hand they started worrying about building roads and railways and canals and education in India.

Well, western colonialism was not the worst thing ever. I'd say that the worst thing ever was probably something like Genghis Khan's thoughtful massacres of cities like Baghdad, Kiev, Samarkand, with everyone, male and female, killed and heaps of skulls, etc. Or Stalin's slave state. Or Mao's slave state.

But our lefty friends have been making hay out of western colonialism, and African slavery, and the subjection of women, and gays, and all the rest of the LGBT zoo.

And they won't stop until we tell them to put it where the sun don't shine, and back it up with a punch to the solar plexus.

My idea is that when anyone makes an accusation of racism the immediate call-back is:
Really. I guess you must be a hater.
And if someone accuses anyone of being a hater, the answer is:
Really. I guess you must be a racist.
Of course, "racist" should be changed out for "sexist" "heterophobe" or whatever, depending on the context.

The point is that you need to have this ready for immediate action, because most of us are nice polite people that don't have convenient insults ready to hand like our lefty pals.

But look. If we are going to push back against these chaps, who do, after all, condone the great crimes of the millennium, then we have to go out armed and dangerous.

And one thing our lefty friends don't expect is for us to have a verbal punch to the solar-plexus all ready to go.

Really, this is not that hard. The ordinary people of America and the world are good people that go about their business and when there is an emergency they all rush forward to help.

But we need to defend ourselves. And I think the accusation of "hate" just fits the bill.

Because accusing someone of being a racist in this post civil-rights act world is the nastiest, meanest, most hateful thing you can do.

Anyone that makes an accusation of racism/sexist/etc. is a hater.

Period. Full stop. 

Monday, July 22, 2019

Women and Politics

There is no doubt to me that men and women are different, although I realize that our liberal friends beg to differ.

In fact, you are not allowed to say that men and women are different. But that is nothing new. Usually, there are all kinds of things you are not allowed to say.

But I think that men and women are profoundly different. Apart from any genetic reasons arising out of the Y chromosome, there is this.

Down the ages men have been the chaps defending the hunter band, or defending the border. And women have been the ones "keeping the kids alive."

My point is that men and women have a different approach to conflict. With men, shall we say, it involves fisticuffs, or at least the threat thereof. With men, the concept of honor is all bound up with the reputation for courage.

With women onflict involves the community of women and Mean Girl culture. In other words, conflicts are resolved by naming and shaming, and getting the rest of women in the community to say, of a certain woman, "I can't believe she said/did that." With women, the concept of honor is all bound up with the reputation for chastity: for being what I call a Good Little Girl.

Now it is my belief that politics is a development, a de-escalation, of the natural and physical culture of males, which is to resolve conflicts with a fight. Same with law. Back in the day, conflicts were resolved by the lex talionis, otherwise known as "an eye for an eye." If you damage the property or the livestock of your neighbor you must make restitution, or your kin must make restitution, or face a fight from him and his kin. You killed a guy? Then his kin have the right to kill you.

So the point of government with the monopoly on force is to end the old system of private vengeance. What a concept! Then there is law, which provides a forum in which the normal disagreements of life and commerce can be worked out by an impartial judge. In the old days, the courts were mostly for merchants to resolve their differences. It worked so well that the kings wanted in on the reputation for impartiality that the merchants´ courts had obtained.

But women are different. The point is that women are typically stuck where they are and do not have the option that men have had, when they get in a row with the other men, to head out for the territory. They have to stick it out. And so they resolve their differences with the conversations -- or gossip -- of the community of women. Of course, nothing is equal, and so some women are skivvies; some women are whores; some women are Mean Girls, and some women are Queen Bees. The power of the community of women is the power of naming and shaming, and of course in the extreme case to ostracize. For the vast majority of women this power is enough to keep them socialized to the values of the community. Hey, they have nowhere else to go!

I recently read an interesting interview in NRO about abortion, and interview between Kathryn Jean Lopez and Frederica Matthewes-Green. Says Green:
So often, the pregnancy that seems terrifying, cataclysmic, evolves and comes to be manageable; then, when the baby is placed in her mother’s arms, a bond is forged that may well be called primeval. It is one of those moments when we realize we are enacting some eternal drama, more profound than we can grasp. Somehow we have gotten caught up in the wheels of the universe. The bond between mother and newborn is the foundation of all human love. To treat it as irrelevant or negligible is to threaten something close to the heart of the human story.
 In other words, it's all about the emotions. And, she adds, what women in difficult pregnancies need is moral support. "I needed just one person to stand by me."

Now I think that abortion should not be determined by the law. I think it should be determined by the community of women. It is up to the community of women to to determine what to think and feel and say about another woman's difficult pregnancy. And I tell you, the woman in question will accept the verdict of the Mean Girls. Because that is who women are. Now she will complain about the decision of the women for the rest of her life: "I can't believe they said that!" That is how women deal with most of the events of life; they complain about them.

And I am not being judgmental about this. Not at all! I am just saying that life for women is inseparable from the community and they will accept the decision of the community.

But in our modern age we have encouraged women to enter into the public square of politics and business, an area of human life for which they are not programmed by their genes and by the thousands of generations of women's life. So what they do is treat politics as just an extension of the community of women and its way of social control by naming and shaming. Hello corporate HR departments!

I suspect that this development is disastrous.

I believe that politics should cover the areas that used to be subject to the men's culture of force and insult. I believe that women should continue to have domination of the areas of human life that fall short of violence and force.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of human conflicts can be resolved short of force and violence. In other words, short of government and its policemen.

But in our age we have made everything subject to law and the government's monopoly on force.

I think this is a disaster, and I think that we need a return to the days when the women resolved most interpersonal conflicts with their culture of naming and shaming, and, in the extreme, ostracism.

And I think that men should keep out of the emotional world of the community of women and let the women get on which their ancient method of social control. And I include in this the whole question of welfare and education, in which women have a particular interest.

But where violence rears its ugly head: that is where we need guys, and that is where we need to crack a few heads, pour encourager les autres

Friday, July 19, 2019

The Politician That Trumps the Race Card

In his piece today old warhorse Michael Barone rehearses the historic character of each of our political parties. Says he:
The Republican Party was formed to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act that allowed slavery in the territories... Ever since it has been centered on one core constituency of people who are regarded by themselves and others as typical Americans but by themselves are not a majority of the nation.
And the Democrats?
The Democratic Party was formed to oppose the Second Bank of the United States and support Andrew Jackson... Ever since, it has been a coalition of divergent constituencies, capable of winning robust national majorities in favorable times but being fractiously fissiparous in others.
Any questions? Well, we could repeat the line of Steve Sailer:
As a Coalition of the Fringes, the only thing that holds together the Democrats is demonizing core Americans. Without ever increasingly whipping up hatred of whites, what is there to keep the Democrats’ collection of miscellaneous identity groups from turning on each other? 
Now the interesting thing is that I, even as an immigrant, have always considered myself a typical American. It started when I found that I disliked other Brits back in the 1970s complaining about America and Americans. I found that I did not want to be around that kind of person. Now I know how to make fun of it, as the Aussies do: "Go back to Britain you whingeing Pom." By 1980 people were commenting about the fact that I had become a "rock-ribbed" Republican.

So be it. But I am not the only person in the world. And I propose to you that the main thing to know about the Trump era is that the white working class now considers itself as typical Americans.

And the recent move of the white working class to the Republican Party makes complete sense. The old white working class does not consider itself part of the fringe any more. They consider themselves typical Americans.

Of course, as Eeyore may not have said, many moons ago,  "I was pushed." The white working class was perfectly happy being the Little Darlings of the ruling class, the beneficiaries of political loot and plunder, from above-market wages to Social Security. But then came the civil rights era, and the white working class had to make room for the new girl on the block, blacks and women. So today the white working class does not derive loot and plunder from voting Democratic. Not any more. They have to share those firefighter jobs with women and minorities. And the good old lifetime union jobs are gone with the ossified management that went with them like bacon with eggs.

You can see that white working-class Americans see themselves as typical Americans by the way that President Trump speaks at his rallies. His rhetoric is pure America-boosting. If you were to think of yourself as a typical American his rhetoric would seem completely natural and physical. But if you think of yourself as someone special -- and you could be special for any one of a thousand reasons, all of them coming down to the fact that you are a hyphenated American, from educated American to Somali American -- then you think that Trump is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic and a hater.

The way that our Democratic friends keep their Coalition of the Fringes together is by teaching them to hate typical Americans. Typical Americans are all racist sexist homophobes that will, if given the chance, "send them back" to where they came from. The genius of this strategy is that it has worked, and that the worst and most embarrassing thing in the world is to be called a "racist." So today all typical Americans live in fear of being branded a "racist."

And boy, haven't our liberal friends had a field day playing that "race card" for the last 50 years!

But I predict that one fine day a politician will appear in America that will discover how to Trump the race card.

Oh my! Imagine the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth on that day, the rending of garments, the tears, the rage, the demand for safe spaces -- the Hate!

Of course, I am a simple fellow. And I think that the fact that we have a President called "Trump" may be a portent that something is in the wind on the race-card front.

If indeed President Trump actually does Trump the race card, I will tell all my liberal friends that it is another proof of God's existence. And even a mild suggestion that God has a sense of humor.

But politics will still be the same. There will be a Republican Party of typical Americans, and politicians will appeal to us with the themes of Ain't America Great, and suggesting that those that don't like it can go back where they came. There will be a Democratic Party of the fringes, and politicians will appeal to them by wailing about their victimhood at the hands of the toxic typicals, and by playing the victim card on typical Americans.

Because, like the man said, politics is division. Into Us and Them.

Thursday, July 18, 2019

"Whoever-Shows-Up" Nationalism

There's a lot of sound and fury on the right these days about nationalism. The argument is the old one about which witch is which? Which nationalism is the right one?

Is it civic nationalism, "an inclusive form of nationalism that adheres with traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights?" (La Wik)

Is it white nationalism, "a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity?" (La Wik)

Is it "blood and birth" nationalism, proposed by Vox Day? "Nations are not soil, they are blood and birth. Because nations are people, extended families that share genetics, language, religion, culture, and traditions." (Vox Day)

Here is what I think, I think that proper, effective nationalism is "whoever-shows-up" nationalism.

That's because I believe that every nation was forged in the blood of war and/or revolution. (Note how my "blood" is slightly different from Vox Day's blood). The cult of the nation is a cult that is put together after the formation of the nation, and its forging in the furnace of war, and the blood that was shed to win the war.

The cult of the nation is the lingering brotherhood of the men that fought in the war. And those guys would be? They would be the men that showed up and risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in the conflict.

See, the nature of honor in men is the reputation for courage. So, if you are a man who has been through a nation-creating war, your reality and your reputation is the knowledge of the courage and the honor of the men that served with you, and their knowledge of your courage as you served with them in that war. And you and your comrades will come to set the tone and the narrative of the national founding. And so it always has been, and so it always should be.

But, obviously, as time goes by, the founding narrative will start to wear off, and new generations will arise, that knew not the founding generation. They will, of course, change and probably weaken the original notion of the nation that was created by the founders and their publicists. But that is life.

And so the founding narrative winds down and fragments, until another war. And then the nation will be redefined by the men that showed up.

We can see that in the founding generation that created the American Revolution, fought its war, and set up the nation of the United States of America. A telling point, I think, is that men that fought in the war were forever after known by their rank in the war. Thus, Colo. Hamilton, not Secretary Hamilton.

Same thing occurred after the Civil War, which is often called a Second Founding. President McKinley was called Major McKinley, after his rank in the Civil War.

After World War I there were tons of movies celebrating the heroes of that war, including, significantly in musicals like On Moonlight Bay, and Yankee Doodle Dandy. After the start of World War I, by the way, there were no more German Americans. They all became Americans, or else.

World War II, in my view, healed all the divisions of the 1930s, as the sons of immigrants, Italian, Jewish, Polish, Irish, you name it, were all sent off to war, and became buddies. (Note that the segregation of the armed forces meant that African Americans didn't get to be foxhole buddies with the 1900 immigrants. What a missed opportunity that was).

The most famous nation-forging operation in our modern memory is the genius foundation of Germany by Bismarck, who tricked all the various German states and statelets into joining in his three carefully calibrated victorious wars: in 1862 against Denmark; in 1866 against Austria; and in 1870 against France. At the end of it Germany proclaimed the Second Reich, a united German nation, in the very heart of France, and the palace of its absolute monarchs, the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. The point of these wars was not conquest; it was to unite the Germans into a single nation. The Germans subsequent problems can be attributed to the fact that Bismarck was followed by idiots that really had no understanding of what he had done and why.

So I believe that it doesn't matter who Americans are, whether they are the original founding stock, or today's "diverse" America. What matters is what happens the next time we have a war.

Of course, it is possible that the war we are talking about is the current "cold civil war." The winners will get to define what America is all about for the next 50 years.

The question will be: who shows up. They will get to define what the post-war America is all about.

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

"I Will Fight For You:" Politics as Protection

In the wake of President Trump's "racist" tweets against The Squad of four lefty Representatives of Color, some of the usual suspects are wishing that he would stop the insults and get down to an honest and rational discussion of the issues. As in Ben Shapiro. As in Bill Murchison.

But that misses the point. Politics is not about a rational discussion of the issues. It is about one of two things. First, what are we going to do about "those" people that want to kill us, or at least rob us of everything we hold dear? Second, after the glorious victory how are we going to distribute the loot and plunder?

Our lefty friends are perfectly clear on this. That is why they are eternally mobilized to fight the racist, sexists, and homophobes that threaten everything they hold dear. And that is why, when their candidates take a breath from promising to fight against racists, sexists, and homophobes, they promise great heaping piles of loot and plunder to their supporters, as in Medicare For All, student debt forgiveness, reparations to the descendants of black slaves, etc.

That is all. Anything that does not involve fighting for our lives or distributing the loot and plunder does not belong in politics. Here is Kshama Sawant, Brahmin from Pune and software engineer turned "socialist, feminist, and union member" running for reelection to the Seattle City Council, in her voter's pamphlet statement:
I've used my two terms in City Hall to help build powerful movements of working people to win historic victories in the face of fierce corporate opposition.
She says that "the for-profit housing market has failed us" and that is "why we're building a movement for city-wide rent control, free of corporate loopholes."

Now the point about a politician like Kshama Sawant is that to have a rational discussion of the issues would be missing the point. What Sawant wants is a fight. It would be useless to sit down with her and her activist supporters and have a rational discussion about rent control, and the price system, and how regulations and mortgage subsidies and low down payments have screwed the housing market for low-income people. People like Sawant and her supporters already have their minds made up, and the only thing left to do is to fight a war of words. After the election victory, Sawant will hand out the loot in public housing and rent control and whatnot to her supporters.

Like I said. Talking about a rational discussion of the issues completely misses the point. Discussing the issues makes sense when you are equal people sitting around a table proposing to get together to solve a problem.

But obviously you don't sit around a table if first, you are waiting to see who wins the election and will then have the power to enforce their proposal upon the rest of the people. Rational discussion makes sense only when none of the parties has the power to enforce their will upon the others or expects in the future to be able to enforce their will upon the others.

Since our lefty friends believe that politics is the way to bend the arc of history towards justice we have nothing to discuss with them. Because the question between us and them comes down to the question of power and force. They see the resolution of everything in terms of a political enforcement of their view of history. So that is the name of the game we are playing with them.

The problem with conservatism over the past half century is that we have always hoped and thought that we could sit down with our liberal friends and have a frank and friendly discussion of the issues. This is obviously not true, because, as our lefty friends make perfectly clear, we are all racist sexist homophobes -- not to mention xenophobes and haters -- who must be defeated.

OK. Then you lefties are all socialists and Commies. And, by the way, your politics is all about race and "gender" and helping migrants and refugees and victims of Islamophobia. In other words, you chaps think purely in terms of race and gender and how to fight the white supremacists and the patriarchs for justice. You guys are racists and sexists and heterophobes. And I'd say that anyone that is at all in favor of abortion on demand is a pedophobe, if "pedophobe" can be said to mean someone who is frightened to death of unwanted babies.

The point about Trump and Brexit and neo-nationalism all over Europe is that ordinary whites in America and ordinary Brits in Britain and ordinary Hungarians in Orban's Hungary are afraid. They are afraid that the current ruling class does not care for them, and is going to sacrifice them to the migrant wave that is pouring into Europe and North America from the "shithole" countries of the world. What all these people want is "protection." They want to elect a politician that will protect them and their posterity from the invaders.

What a concept! Because that is what politics has always been about. Protection.

And so, we may well think that Trump's "racist tweets" are indeed a "dog whistle." They are a dog whistle to ordinary middle-class folks that Trump is their protector and will fight to preserve their way of life from the lefties and their immigrant invaders.

For the last 50 years our liberal friends have succeeded in preventing right-wing politicians from protecting their voters, because racism. Every politician was scared silly that he would be branded as a racist. And so he cowed before the liberal bullies.

It looks as though Trump is a guy that does not cower before the liberal bullies. It looks as though Trump is willing to fight for ordinary white middle-class people. It looks as though Trump may have the cojones to throw the accusation of racism right back in the lefties' faces.

It helps, of course, that the four women of The Squad are not straight-up African American descendants of slaves. But that is beside the point. The point is that, sooner or later, a political leader will arise in America that throws the accusation of racism right back into liberal and lefty faces.

I'd say that it would be better for all of us that this leader arises sooner rather than later.

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

The Brits in India, Part One

On the last day of our India trip last winter, I got to go to a bookstore in a New Delhi shopping center. Nearly all the books were in English. Hmm.

But what caught my eye was a two volume epic, The British Conquest and Domination of India by Sir Penderel Moon. Hmm, I thought, and looked it up on Amazon, where it appeared as a 1,200 page single volume doorstopper, two volumes in one.

In the end I bought it from Amazon when I got back to the US, and it's been a real experience.

I started out with the idea of finding out when Indians started to develop a notion of India as a nation. In other words, when did an Indian National Movement emerge from out of the chaos of history?

The story starts with the Brit East India Company in 1705 with its trading ports at Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta.

The situation was that there was always a border between the Brits and some native prince, and the Brits would always find a reason to teach that native prince a lesson. When they did they would establish suzerainty over him and demand revenue to pay for the troops to garrison his state and make everything "safe." Of course, wherever the border is, the native princes beyond the border end up being a problem...

From time to time, the East India Company would have a Governor who was extra aggressive with the native princes. This happened first during the Napoleonic War when the Brits were worried about the French, especially if some native prince had a French officer as an advisor. The second time was in 1840 when the Brits started to worry about the Russian Threat, and so started a foolish incursion into Afghanistan.

But, as I say, I was wondering about the Indian national movement, and this is what I experienced.

In about 1825, some Brit noticed that the people in India didn't really like the Brits. They seemed to prefer to be ruled by their own native princes, corrupt and disorganized as they were, rather than the modern and efficient Brits.

In about 1840, the Brits started to think about internal improvements, roads, canals, even education. But they found that they didn't have any money to do it, because of the expense of the war in Afghanistan.

By about 1850, you get a Brit governor mentioning "Indian opinion" and when a legislative council was proposed they were a little taken aback when "some young Indians" saw it as "the beginning of a Constitutional Parliament in India." No, no: not what we had in mind at all, old chap.

Then there is this, during the Crimean War and the Siege of Sebastopol from 1854-55.
Educated Indians were now sufficiently awake to the outside world to follow with close interest this European war in which their masters were engaged, and ill-wishers of the British, of whom Azimullah Khan was an example, discussed with malicious glee the ill-success of British arms.
Do you see what is happening here? Under Brit rule the inhabitants of South Asia are starting to develop a national "public opinion," and the Brits are conscious of that. And the thing is that by uniting most Indians into a single state, they are in fact, willy nilly, creating an entity that could be called and experienced, by Brits and South Asians alike, as "India."

Also, about 1850, the Brits actually have in hand actual projects: to build irrigation canals -- starting with the 525-mile Ganges Canal; to build railways; and to create an education system.

Then, of course, in 1857 came the Indian Mutiny, or Great Rebellion. But what was really going on? Partly, no doubt it was this.
It was becoming increasingly evident that the now unquestionable supremacy of the British was likely to lead to the cultural extinction of the old ruling classes and feudal aristocracy, and also posed a threat to the long-established influence of the Brahmans.
Hmm. Our modern politics tends to revolve around the poor helpless victims and what "we" must do to save them. But there is also, even in the United States, the thing you are not allowed to discuss: the impact of change on the traditional ruling class. In India in 1850 it was the old feudal Nawabs and Rajahs and the Brahmins that were feeling the pinch. But you would not expect them to oppose the Brits on the grounds of the extinction of their ancient right to rule and plunder the agriculturalists. No, just as in our own day, the threatened ruling class would argue that The People would suffer, and that they were valiant champions of The People advocating valiantly to protect them from the existential peril of white supremacy of our day and the Brit imperialism of 1850. We  well-born activists are doing it For The People!

The other takeaway, for me, is the power of the European nation state when compared with the feudal native princes. Throughout the story, the contrast is stark. When a European nation state, with its central banking, its access to the world credit system, its organized and disciplined army, its administrative bureaucracy, goes up against a feudal ruler that thinks no further than his feudal revenues, his harem, his succession, and the occasional raid on his neighboring prince the result is no contest.

And, of course, that is why India had to come up with a National Movement in order to deal with the Brits on their own terms. But how that happened is, no doubt, the subject of Part II of The British Conquest and Domination of India.

Monday, July 15, 2019

Was Trump's "Go Back" Tweet a Blunder?

The usual suspects are horrified that President Trump tweeted an invitation for Rep. Omar (D-MN) to go back to Somalia and fix her homeland before she tells us what to do here in the good old US and A.

Of course everyone does this. My favorite is the explanation of the meaning of "whingeing Pom," an Australian insult using directed at Brits. The explanation on Urban Dictionary (slightly modified):
Brit: "It's bleedin' hot 'ere in Australia"
Aussie: "go back to Britain you whingeing pom"
All good fun and let me buy you a drink afterward.

So either President Trump has sunk his chances for reelection or he has lanced the boil on the American heartland.

You know what I am talking about: The Race Card.

Because liberals have been playing the race card, woman and girl, for 50 years.

And that's odd, when you think about it, because if, with the Civil Rights Act, we have banned racism, what's the fuss about? I mean, let the racists say what they want: the law is clear. You can't discriminate against people on the basis of race. Full stop, done deal. Who cares, any more?

Well, lotsa people.

But then I thought: this is a girl thing, the Complaint Culture and "I can't believe you said that!"

And what we are talking about here is the insertion of girl Complaint Culture into politics.. And this is wrong.

Look, politics is about one thing and one thing only. Protection. Politics and government are there to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic.

But. This only affects men, because, down the ages, invasion and conquest has most closely affected men. That's because the disposition after a conquest is that the men are killed and the women are taken over by los conquistadores. Maybe the women are sold into slavery.

Example: Briseis, the queen of Lyrnessus, sacked by the Achaeans on their way to Troy. Of course the king of Lyrnessus and the three brothers of Briseis were killed. But Briseis merely became a slave, the concubine of... Well that was the problem. Did she belong to Agamemnon or Achilles?

Fast forward 2,000 years and the Vikings visiting Britain in 1,000 AD. In the fall they sailed their longships up the rivers of Britain, killed the men, took the grain, and sold the women and children in the slave market of Dublin, Ireland.

Fast forward another 1,000 years to the sack of Berlin in 1945. In A Woman in Berlin by Anonymous, the German women are anxious to become the mistress of a Russian officer, rather than the other ranks, because it is safer, and, I suppose, the officers are thought to be less brutal. Or maybe this is just hypergamy at work. But, the women hid the teenage girls in the attic. The men? They were all away getting killed in the Army.

See what I am getting at here? The prime question in politics is a guy thing. Because it is the men's lives that are on the line where enemies foreign and domestic are concerned. The women? Well they will try to figure out how to survive through the holocaust.

Notice how the women's Complaint Culture is not really dealing with matters of life and death. Instead it is about calling out some woman who has stepped out of line. This means that all the questions of life and death -- of protection -- have already been solved. The only question is the hierarchical sorting out of the Mean Girls. Who will be Queen Bee and who will the whore that all decent women agree cannot be received in polite society.

When you are complaining about racism and pointing the finger at an unreconstructed racist you are arranging the deck chairs on the replacement of the Titanic. Who will get to sit next to the Duchess of Windsor on the upper deck, darling, and who must be denied entrance to the sacred royal precincts?

And this is probably always the case. You have a war or a big political battle. You win the war, or pass your comprehensive and mandatory reform bill. Now the man's work is done. Now the women get to work to decide who is in or out, who is up or down, and who needs to be disciplined for violating the comfortable consensus of the respectable women of the community.

So it is completely appropriate that the current catfight in the Democratic Caucus is about the women calling each other names. Because the important battles were fought decades ago.

But now President Trump has got into the act and said something that has offended all liberals and all women that have #WeBelieve sign in their yards. What they know is, well, "I can't believe he said that."

When someone is "offended" we are talking about girl stuff.

But I say that, at some point, some man has to step forward and lance the boil, or cut the Gordian Knot, or comment about the emperor's clothes, or just step up and snatch the Race Card off the table and tear it in two.

Somebody has to say that all this racist sexist homophobic name-calling has to stop. Because I say so!

And I suspect that it is the world-historical role of Donald J. Trump, insulter extraordinare, to do this for America in respect of the Race Card.

But I have to say, all this raises the question of what women are doing in politics at all. Because the women only show up after the basic question of do we live or die has been resolved.

And I think that the question of punishing the local whore or any other woman who steps out of the comfortable consensus of the community of women is not something that should be resolved by government force and formal politics.

The whole point of the community of women and their naming and shaming is that it is a method of social control that stops short of force and violence. So, if you ask me, mashing this culture of naming and shaming up with government force and night-sticks and so on is the first step to totalitarianism.

As the case of Briseis illustrates, the resolution of any conquest comes down to "who gets the girl." Or, if you like, who gets a share of the loot and plunder. But mixing the women's culture of complaint and naming and shaming into the division of the plunder, I think, is probably a monumental blunder.

But what do I know?

Friday, July 12, 2019

Is There a Difference Between Ethnic Politics and Identity Politics

In his latest column at NRO Jonah Goldberg is trying to draw a line between good old ethnic politics, which he says is harmless, and identity or "categorical" politics, which is not.

First, Jonah on identity politics as ethnic politics:
[T]his form of political engagement is as old as the country itself, because it’s as old as politics itself. From the Pennsylvania Dutch (who were actually Germans) to the Irish of Boston and New York, to the Scandinavians of the Midwest, various European ethnic groups engaged in politics in much the same way later waves of Vietnamese, Chinese, Hmong, Arabs, and Hispanics have, never mind the most obvious example of African Americans.
This, he thinks, is a far cry from categorical politics,
[t]he notion that all you need to know about a person is the color of their skin still strikes me as close to the definition of racism, whether you’re talking about black people or white people or people of some other hue. If you think you know what a woman is going to say before she says a word simply because you believe all women think a certain way, you’re a sexist.
I think I see what he is trying to say here. Let me help, by making my own judgements.

Ethnic politics is the politics of people arriving in the city from the farm and forming a defensive community based on their previous identity, as members of the tribe in the old country: Germans from Germany, Irish from Ireland, Italians from Italy. It is perfectly natural and physical, and confirmed by settled science such as the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.

Categorical politics is when ruling-class intellectuals and politicians gussy up ethnic loyalties into an intellectual system and, as often as not, into a Saving Truth, and they use it not as a defensive system but as an offensive system, an ideology of conquest and domination.

Let us say it again. I think the difference is that when ethnic groups newly arrived in the city group together it is a natural and physical effort to band together for self-protection.

But when ruling-class intellectuals and politicians turn ethnic loyalties into a categorical system then you are facing exploitation, straight up. Because the folks in the categorized group are no longer merely banding together for self-protection. They are now Little Darlings, soldiers in the ruling-class army, and they are merely soldiers to be used, abused, and disposed of, in service to the ruling-class's power project. Hello white working class!

But we would expect this, we Hegelians, knowing that the thesis is equal and opposite to the antithesis, that the Master is very often manipulated by the Slave, and that there is no difference between the North Pole and the South Pole of the magnet. The follow-on Germans in the psych business called this  thingy "projection."

Thus we would expect that our lefty friends -- devoted unto their sacred tenure and their well-earned pensions -- would, by their devotion to the demolition of oppression and exploitation, create the most exploitative and oppressive structures in history. Their very devotion to the acquisition of power to help those ethnic groups would, by the nature of the process, create power that would dominate and oppress the very groups they turned into helpless victims.

You lefties listening? I thought not.

But what should happen? How should ethnic politics fit into our glorious modern world?

Thank you senator, I am glad you asked that.

My reductive Three Peoples theory is intended to answer such questions with great depth of understanding and breadth of wisdom.

Obviously, the People of the Subordinate Self are the folks that naturally and physically coalesce into ethnic groups when they approach to politics. They are people that look to a leader to protect them in the terrifying new world of the city. They look to their leaders to tell them how to vote, because they are not really newspaper readers; indeed they really do not relate to the world of ideas. Not yet.

But when the People of the Subordinate Self get their city legs and learn how to wive and thrive in the city they no longer need the protection of the ethnic association. And so they become city people, bourgeois, where, as People of the Responsible Self, they understand that it is each individual's job to make himself useful to his fellow citizens, by his work skills, his contribution to civic associations, and her contribution to the network of neighborhood women. A member of the bourgeoisie, the Bürgertum, does not feel threatened by the market; he knows it is dangerous but he has learned to ride it like a surfer. So he does not need to hide from the world in his ethnic group.

Now we come to our pals the People of the Creative Self. These are people that want a bit more out of life that to merely function as responsible citizens. You can see this when considering their gods. Whereas the People of the Subordinate Self think of gods as temperamental lords rather like the earthly leaders that have their quirks that you have to deal with, and the People of the Responsible Self think of the one God as a just and wise lawgiver that tells his people the rules you need to follow to be a success in life, the People of the Creative Self understand that it is up to them to invent their own life, to create it. In this, they are like gods; it is gods that create the world. In fact they want to be as gods.

Now there are two ways to be creative and be a hero. You can be an Egoistic Hero, that comes into the world to create amazing monuments, or to lead the oppressed to liberation, or invent amazing inventions. Or you can be a Sacrificial Hero, a Christ-like figure that goes down into the underworld to encounter the evil demons in his unconscious and then, shimmering with this hard-won knowledge, he returns to the public world to explore the border between Order and Chaos, and probably die in the process.

The Left's Error, in my view, is that it has chosen the path of the Egoistic Hero, and that means that all the efforts of lefty People of the Creative Self are devoted to self-glorification. Look at me the Glorious Activist! Look at me the conquering feminist! Look at me challenging the white supremacists!

If you look at a lot of the ideas that have come out over the last century, you can make a good point that it is all about trying to figure out what a creative life means.

But what people don't really want to know is that the creative process is one blind alley, one dry hole, after another. It is not about cutting a fine trajectory in the world.

And the point about identity politics -- or ethnic politics or whatever you call it -- is that it belongs only to people just starting out in the city that do not yet feel the competence to interface directly with the market.

For People of the Responsible Self to band together and exploit the People of the Subordinate Self is wrong.

For the People of the Creative Self to systematize ethnic politics into categorical politics is not just wrong; it is evil.

But I fear that the lefty People of the Creative Self are going to find that out the hard way.

As Nietzsche says, again and again: Being a "free spirit" is hard.

Thursday, July 11, 2019

When the Other Shoe Drops

The great question about life, the universe, and everything is: am I seeing reality or am I blinded by my "priors" and am therefore interpreting reality into a comfortable Matrix?

For instance, I was talking with a liberal friend who was all worried about the German "with alleged neo-Nazi ties' that murdered a German CDP politician. But in the Breitbart piece, the German police are more worried about this:
Another major issue for Berlin police has been the influence of Arab clan criminal gangs who are said to extort and threaten police officers who try and investigate their illegal activities spreading rumours of sexual impropriety with prostitutes and other threats.
Of course, this is just like the US during the great immigration before and after 1900. There were immigrants gangs up the ying-yang: Irish, Jewish, Italian, you name it.

But then they grew up to be nice middle-class suburban homeowners.

And now we have black and Hispanic gangs. Because that's what the immigrants to the city do.

So which is the problem? The neo-Nazis or the immigrant gangs?

Now we have AOC bridling at the treatment she is getting from Nancy Pelosi. Apparently Our Nance is giving Our Alex jobs to do, and she has less time for activism.

And that made me think about what happens when Our Nance retires and a POC takes over as top Dem in Congress.

See, the guys I read say that the current Democratic shtick works so long as whites don't panic. So long as whites run the Democratic Party, and whites experience themselves as the default Americans, and whites can be taught to be guilty about slavery and patriarchy and the nice gay guy next door, the current Democratic Party is doin' fine.

But what happens to nice liberal women when the Democrats in Congress are run by AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and their non-white gal pals?  The truth is that upper-class educated women have had a pretty good run for their money for the last 50 years. They have been making like they are poor helpless victims. But I tell you nice liberal white girls: to the POC women you are all Beckys (Note that La Wik does not call the term racist).

In other words, what happens when whites no longer feel safe? What happens when the white Beckys no longer feel safe? Politics is about protection, pals, and women "expect" to be protected.

When whites are just the largest racial/ethnic minority, what then? Do all the non-whites gang up on whites? Or do we get a Polar Alliance of Europeans, East Asians, and higher-caste South Asians against the Tropical Alliance? And what about Hispanics? I've heard that Hispanics think of themselves as racially white but ethnically Latino. What does that mean?

Of course, my bigger point is that you can rile up the voters in any way you want. It can be by race, by gender, by ethnicity, by class, by occupation, by religion. That's because all tribalism is fake tribalism, gussied up by political leaders looking to lead a movement. Oh, and this from Singapore guy Lee Kwan Yew:
In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.
So the fact that, over the past 50 years, politics has developing slowly towards an open politics by race, means nothing. Politicians will divide us by something. Race, class, gender, religion. Anything will do, because that is how humans divide themselves into tribes, by gussying up some notion of "the tribe," or "the race," or "the Chosen."

There is another way of creating a fake tribe. It is the fake tribe of the Nation. That's what President Trump was doing on July 4 when he headed up a Salute to America and gave a speech in which he declared America to be the bestest country, and Americans to be the bestest people in the world. And forever after.

The point to keep in mind is that our present politics was born right after World War II when all the right people decided that we must never let the nationalist beast out of its cage. Never again.

So they built the administrative state, of the elite, by the elite, for the elite. In the best interest of us deplorables, of course. And they did civil rights, because it was the right thing to do, and then discovered that a conscious race policy and gender policy of riling up selected races and genders was good politics. For the elite. For the moment.

But now we are 50 years down the road, and things are different. The Old Guard of the Democratic Party is about to die off, and be replaced with eager graduates of the race and gender seminaries that have been carefully taught in all the doctrines of the faith, of the Great Awokening.

Yes, every army needs efficient subalterns and field officers to carry out the policy of the higher ups.

But somebody, somewhere has to have a strategic mind and see beyond the conventional wisdom and the routine training that are needed to sustain an efficient ruling class.

And I suspect that in the next few years we are going to see that the folks that inherit the Democratic Party will turn out to be complete idiots utterly unprepared for dealing with the situation that their white mentors set up 50 years ago.

In the same way that in the last few years we have seen that the folks that inherited the Reagan Republican Party turned out to be complete idiots and were replaced by Trump.

As Jordan B. Peterson says: we see the world through the lens of our values. And the brain scientists say that our brains ignore almost all the information coming in through the five senses to focus on the information that it thinks it important.

The question always is: am I ignoring the one thing I ought to be paying attention to?

And the answer is: Probably.

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

You Create a Political Entity by Fighting and Winning a War

Those people wanting to transcend the nation state and create transnational political entities miss the vital point. All nation states were created, and sustained by war.

You'd think they would get it, because the left's love of "activism" is all based on some lefty leading a tribe of helpless victims to glorious victory on the political stage. And the memory of the victory sustains the victors as a powerful group for decades after the victory. See: the workers; women; blacks; gays; etc.

But what our lefty friends have succeeded in doing is weaken the nation state, both by their bureaucratic, administrative love of the transnational institution in which they have personal and career interests, and in the sub-national political movement where they teach the leaderless to identify as a sub-nation of helpless victims and lead them to glorious loot and plunder on the government free-stuff front.

Notice that at the sub-national level this exactly mirrors the nation-state politics model. You enroll people in a war -- in this case a sub-national political identity war -- and lead your troops to victory. If you win then you get to lead this sub-national group for the next 30 years because of the fake-tribal identity you have successfully forged.

But, I would say, if you do not find another war to fight and win then, after a generation, the unity that you forged will start to rust, and that is because there will be a new rising generation that wants to establish its own power foundation, and that may well conflict with the old generation.

Notice how this worked for the US. FDR successfully molded the workers of the 1930s into a political movement and then sent all their sons off to World War II and won it. The result was 20 years of a solid national American identity that only started to break up in the Sixties when the kids of the World War II generation started to come to maturity, and wanted their own place in the sun.

OK, so there was the Cold War, and Ronald Reagan managed to cobble that war into a 60-40 election in 1984. But once the Cold War was won the Cold War unity began to fray, and by the 2010s a new generation arose that knew not Ronnie.

So my prediction is that we won't see any unity in the US unless we get involved in another war in which the ruling class and the opposition agree on unity, as they did in World War II and off and on in the Cold War.

Notice how the unity actually gets formed. In World War II the Democrats were all for the war, because, influenced by the intellectual lefties, they were for the Soviets and against the Nazis, and the isolationist Republicans were led by chaps like Charles Lindbergh and Herbert Hoover. But, says La Wik,
After the attack on Pearl Harbor caused America to enter the war in December 1941, isolationists such as Charles Lindbergh's America First Committee and Herbert Hoover announced their support of the war effort. Isolationist families' sons fought in the war as much as others.
Notice that the opposition only gave in after Pearl Harbor. They threw in the towel when it became political poison to be anything other than pro-war.

I think there is an important principle here. In politics the different parties are always arguing the toss and busily dividing the people. But occasionally the opposition realizes that it has to go along to get along. And so you get unity. For a season.

So, in World War I, the German-Americans had to shut up. In World War II the isolationists had to shut up. In the 1980s the anti-war chaps had to shut up when Ronnie charmed the voters into his 60-40 landslide. In 2001 the Dems stopped their anti-war politics for 6 months while Bush avenged 9/11. And for that season of unity, which may last for 20 years, or for 6 months, you get a national unity forged.

All I am saying here is that if you are a rising politician in this notably divided time, you need to put yourself at the head of a movement that fights and wins a war. It need not be a guns-and-bombs war, but you need to create a situation where the opposition dare not oppose you after the start of the war, and you need to win the war. After the war is won then you have to exploit the victory to set you and your movement up for a generation of political hegemony. Until a new generation arises that did not live through the war.

Notice how, for 50 years, white conservative American have not dared to question the post civil-rights unity on race and gender, on pain of being run of out polite society as a racist, sexist homophobe. It's one of the most successful political hegemonies in recorded history. Until it isn't.

Right now we have a new left, symbolized by campus lefties, by AntiFa, and by young women like AOC, Omar, and Tlaib that think they are the new wave that is going to change America. They are a new political movement that aims to fight and win a cold civil war for cultural and political domination of the US. Folks like Nancy Pelosi are trying to keep them in check, because their way of politics has been to elect a bunch of moderate Democrats to Congress (as in 2006 and 2018) and then pass Obamacare, or something.

If Donald Trump were to win by at least 55-45 in 2020 that would put paid to AOC & Co. and create a Trump-based unity for a season. If Trump were defeated in 2020 that would by First and Ten for the AOCs.

But the point is that if you want to unify the American people you have to fight and win a war.