A History of Lefty Grooming

Our lefty friends seem to be mad as hell about being called "groomers" for grooming our kids in the glories of the LGBT life.

This is something of a breakthrough on the pejorative front. Ever since the end of the worst thing ever, McCarthyism -- imagine, the very idea of Communists in the State Department! -- our lefty friends have been doing the pejorative thing on us. Racist, sexist, homophobe, and all the rest of the -phobes.

Now, all of a sudden, our lefty friends are outraged, outraged, that we evil far-right violent extremists dare to say that schools with "transition closets" are grooming our kids for the LGBT life.

As Cpl. Jones would say in the Brit WWII series, Dad's Army, "they don't like it up them." I have no idea what he meant by that.

But really, isn't it the truth that leftism is groomism, and lefties are groomers. On everything.

Religious Grooming

The whole point of Horace Mann and the "common school" movement was first of all, to groom the children of the more severe Puritan sects away from their enthusiastic Christianity. Because the Boston Transcendentalists knew better. Later on, of course, the idea was to groom Irish kids away from their Catholicism, but the Irish weren't having it and built their own Catholic schools instead.

In my view not only is this vile and monstrous, but it also grooms the children of the lower classes away from the best road to the middle class, that encourages subordinate people to become responsible.

Anti-Capitalist Grooming

The whole point of grooming kids to love socialism or the welfare state is to make them into obedient subordinates. There was an excuse for Marx & Co. back in the day. The dark satanic mills of the early Industrial Revolution really did look pretty forbidding. Except, of course, that the workers were getting to live instead of dying out on the land, as they had in England since, say, 1500.

And the market economy encourages people to get out of subordinate peasantry and become an actor in the life not of making just for you and yours, but making stuff for the whole world and accepting its verdict in the wage you get for your labor, or the price you get for your product.

No doubt the market economy has its rough spots, particularly after wars when it is difficult for idiot governments to figure out how to return life -- and particularly the financial system -- to normalcy. But don't ever forget that in the last 200 years the average real per-capita income has gone up by 3,000 percent -- or 30 times. And nobody saw it coming. Oh, there was one guy, Carter Reynell in 1685:

Though we are a nation already pretty substantial... yet it is easy for us to be ten times richer.

But really! What did he know? Especially since it was three years before the Dutch invaded Britland in 1688 and installed the Dutch Finance that would lead to Britannia ruling the waves and Britons never, never, never being slaves.

Career Grooming

The whole point of feminism is that upper-class women don't really like to be domestic. So the schools groom girls to want to have careers.

I tend to find this amusing, for it assumes that men pursue careers because careers are rewarding and satisfying. Not exactly. Speaking as a man, a young man understands that he needs to have "prospects" if he expects to attract an attractive woman to his bed. Thus it is that in the lower classes, the men don't work much and the women don't marry much.

And the problem with grooming women for careers is that it tends to take them out of the baby business in their peak fertile years. You tell me that this is a good thing.

Sex Grooming

The whole point of grooming kids for the sexual revolution is what, exactly? My judgement is that free sex is not good for women at any number of levels. First of all, women are much more at risk from STDs, because of the enclosed nature of their sexual equipment. Secondly, women really do not like serial sexual affairs. It affects their, er, mental health. Or, if you prefer a more universal understanding of women and sex, women really want to cleave to one man and love him forever. Oh, of course, all the men in the world are cads and layabouts and heartless. But a girl can dream, right?

Anti-Family Grooming

The whole point of leftism is to marginalize the family, so it grooms young people away from the mainstream life of marriage and children. No doubt there are people in the world that are marked out to be creative artists, and burying them for thirty years in the work of marriage and children is a waste of their transcendental talent. No doubt there are masculine women that are just the wrong fit for mothering. But for 97.2 percent of people they need to get married and have a family because if they don't they will miss out on the whole point of life. And that is grandchildren.

LGBT Grooming

If you really can't stand a sexual relationship with the opposite sex, well good luck to you, for it's hard to miss out on the mainstream of life. But grooming kids to believe that LGBT is creative, or cool, or deliciously rebellious, or that LGBTs are innocent oppressed people since the dawn of time, is sick and wrong. And to facilitate and groom kids for "transitioning" is not just stupid -- as in good little liberal teachers toeing the party line -- but cruel. Society's message to LGBT should be: do it if you must, but don't frighten the horses in the street. Because the bottom line for human life is babies on the ground, and every child needs a mother and a father: their mother and their father.

I think we need something that rhymes with Groomer. Groomer Doomer? Groomer Broomer? Groomer Fumer? Groomer Puma? Groomer Vroomer?

I will put my unconscious mind to work on it.

Implementing a National Liberation from Lefty Colonialism

Over at American Greatness Stephen Balch comes up with a good idea. He says that we the people are presently suffering under a colonialist regime, and we need a national liberation project.

To be sure, the colonial analogy is far from perfect. Western colonies often gained from being colonized; for us, it’s a dead loss. But there are enough similarities to help us understand the strategies our elites are following, how they could be better resisted, and why, as with most colonialists of the past, they’re likely to fail.

If we are to neutralize our colonialist ruling class we need not just "mass activism" but also "mass education and inspirational ceremony," Balch writes. Yes. Ceremony.

We should also organize mass observances of traditional and newly created holidays, commemorating events like the Yorktown surrender and D–Day, or solemnly memorializing the victims of totalitarianism... so let’s consider the creation of a counter-calendar to our elite’s parade of apologetic commemorations, filled with holidays reinforcing national consciousness and pride.

Brilliant idea. Actually, when you are talking ceremony, you are talking religion, the celebration of the sacred. And we need to re-sacralize our national myth, to make holy again the sacred history of the American Founding. I say, for instance, that we should counter the lie of the 1619 Project with my "1584 Project." In case you didn't know, 1584 was the year that the first shipload of White Trash arrived in North America.

Yes, let's celebrate the "waste population" of Europe that was cast upon these shores by the hoity-toity ruling classes of Old Europe. Instead of sneering at white trash and rednecks.

This is all part of the downstream notion: politics is downstream from culture is downstream from religion is downstream from the meaning of "life, the universe, and everything."

When we are not celebrating America in religious ceremonies, like President Trump at Mount Rushmore, I think we should push back on all the lefty pejoratives.

Racism? There's nothing more racist in today's America than Black Lives Matter. Period.

Sexism? There's nothing more sexist in America than the old tired movement of feminism. Which has done what, exactly, for women lately?

Violence? There's nothing more violent in America today than a lefty Antifa "mostly peaceful protest."

Homophobia? What could be more oppressive than the brutal cancel culture promoted by Big Gay? Imagine what would happen to you if you got up at a Critical Race Theory session at work and said: "you know, I think we should teach children that, while gay is all very well, you will probably live a better life if you act hetero, and marry and have children.

Slavery? Apart from the fact that the biggest slave states in all history were founded in the 20th century in Russia and in China there are other questions to consider. What do you call a regime that forces its people to go about wearing masks? What do you call a regime that taxes over a third of its peoples' income? What do you call a ruling class that metaphorically flogs any impertinence from the plebs with cancel culture? What do you call a regime that drafts the whole nation into a Green New Deal to "save the planet?"

Hate? I'll tell you what. Every politician, at every level of government, is in the hate business. That's because, stripped of all its fol-der-ol, politics is about two things: foreign war and civil war. In the foreign war the politicians teach the people to hate the horrible Frogs, or Krauts, or Nazis, or Commies. In civil war the politicians teach the people to hate the N-word, the white trash, the white oppressors, the white supremacists, the robber barons, malefactors of great wealth, the conspiracy theorists, the armed insurrectionists. Etcetera.

Colonization? There is nothing more colonizing that the rulers and the swells telling ordinary American commoners that they are subhuman white oppressors or deplorables or bitter clingers or white racists. There is nothing more colonizing that the top-down administrative state. There is nothing more colonizing than forcing workers and students to attend diversity training or critical race theory sessions. Colonization of the Curriculum? Yeah. Starting with the uber-colonizing 1619 Project.

We all of us need to be ready with the comeback. Racist? I'll tell you what's racist: BLM. Hate? If you are in politics, you are in the hate business. White Oppressor? Yeah, and I could be fired tomorrow for saying the wrong word -- in private. There's always the Mary McCarthy line. Everything the left says is a lie: including "and" and "the."

Yup. First we celebrate America in every way possible. Second, we push back whenever the left uses a pejorative. Onwards and Upwards

"Gammon:" The Latest Leftist Hate Pejorative

We all know that the worst thing in the world today is the racist-sexist-homophobe white supremacist next door. But maybe there is something worse.

See, in Britland today the educated-gentry lefties have invented a new pejorative: "Gammon."

What in the world is "gammon," you ask? I will tell you. Here is Brendan O'Neill at Spiked!

Mainly aimed at angry men of a certain age who are pro-Brexit and possibly a bit iffy about mass immigration, this fleshiest of epithets reduces people to lumps of meat. Pig meat, at that. It is the closest any side in our maddening culture war has got to likening human beings to animals.

Get it? Gammon is pig meat. Or, as the OED says "The ham or haunch of a swine." But it also means "the lashing of a bowsprit." And the game of backgammon. And in thieves' slang, to gain someone's attention while another is robbing him. And it also means "to talk (plausibly or persuasively)." Or, "to feign, pretend." Or "to stuff with ridiculous nonsense, to humbug, deceive, hoax."

When referring to working-class middle-aged white males that the educated graduate might encounter in a pub, the pejorative dramatizes the likelihood that the said "gammon" may get red in the face, like the actual pig-meat product available at your local butcher's. The pejorative was created back during the "Brexit Wars" about whether Britain should leave the European Union.

According to Brendan O'Neill, the pejorative is really a reflection of the confusion and disorientation that the graduate left experienced in Britain during and after the Brexit vote -- and indeed in the demolition of the "red wall" of working class Labour constituencies in the North of England in the 2019 British General Election.

It can't be that the policies of the educated gentry of the last century has created divisions and winners and losers, and indeed has victimized the very people that the left claims to represent.

I think that the current wokism, the cancel culture, the left-wing street thugs, the new pejoratives invented every day by our educated betters: all these things issue from the fact that the glorious certainties of the last century are crumbling.

And when the glorious certainties are crumbling the chaps who rode the wave -- we thought it would never end -- cannot believe what is happening.

It's not a problem for me, oh no. As a naive Kantian I believe that we cannot know things-in-themselves, that everything is a crude theory that papers over the cracks, and that one day there will be a minor earthquake and the cracks will reappear.

So I go through life wondering about what cherished assumption will get demolished tomorrow.

And I laugh at my lefty friends that think they have it all figured out. Not to their faces, of course.

And I hope that we can get to the next regime without too much of a butcher's bill.

But that's how politics and religion and science work. Part of it is an attempt to understand reality. Part of it is an attempt to convince ourselves that we have everything figured out and there is no need to change the benevolent and compassionate arrangements that so benefit us, the shimmering, glowing stars in the political firmament. And part of it is an attempt to imagine how much better left, the universe, and everything could be. If Only.

And part of it is a cowardly and base attempt to blame everything on some pathetic scapegoat. Like the "gammon" in the local pub.

The Day the Universe Changes. On Race.

I see that, in my "pejoratives" topic, that the first time I hoped, foolishly, for an end to the race grift was back in 2010: "The Year of the Race Card."

I wrote that the only way Democrats get elected is by scaring Blacks and Jews to death.

Back in 2019 I asked "Which is Worse: Trump's Insults of the Racist Canard?" Yeah, I know. I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'.

Then, back in June 2020 I published my alliterative "Codex of Preferred Progressive Pejoratives," helpfully pointing out the target of each progressive pejorative and the toxicity level of each pejorative.

Did you know that the dictionary definition of "pejorative" -- from my Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary that I bought used many moons ago -- is "tending to make worse?" It comes from the Latin, pejorare, darling: "to make worse."

And boy, oh boy, do our liberal friends make things worse with their race politics.

I am preparing for the Day the Universe Changes. It will be the kind of day when some liberal plays the race card on TV and their interlocutor will reply. "Oh great, the race card. Got any other cards up your sleeve?"

And when they say, channeling Greta, "How dare you!" the racist monster replies: "Read your Hegel, darling. He says that there is no difference between racism and anti-racism. The thing is equal to its opposite."

Back at the end of 2019 I wrote a set of pieces, starting with "Of Course I'm a Racist. How About You." I descanted upon the theme that everybody likes their kind best.

Doesn't everyone prefer their own kind best? For instance, your liberal anti-racist may sneer and be ashamed of his rich-kid whiteness. But that's because his whiteness is not his identity. For a lefty xir leftiness is xir identity. Call him a lefty and he feels the compliment.

And, the key thing, from my intensive research into "fake tribalism," is that people form into tribes when rallied by their leaders to confront an existential threat to their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. To coin a phrase.

A while back I tried to come up with a few clever retorts against the Racist Canard.

How's your Two Minute Hate going today, precious?

Look, diversity/ inclusion is racism, straight up. 

Where's the toxic masculinity if colleges are 60 percent female? 

What white supremacy? There is nothing more shameful and low-rent today that being a white male in a MAGA hat.

But in the end, I recommended the simple retort: "Of course, and how about you?"

Of course, the thing is that on The Day the Universe Changes on race, we won't do the liberal thing and lock every last progressive that played the race card up in Cancel Hell.

We won't because we don't believe in witch hunts and cancel cultures and naming and shaming and all the rest of the lefty rubbish.

Because, in the famous phrase of our First Black President, Barack Obama, That's Not Who We Are.

Sen. Ron Johnson Pushes Back on "Racist." Sorta

Here's what Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) said the other day about not being afraid of the pro-Trump rioters in the January 6 Capitol riot:

Now, had the tables been turned, and Joe — this is going to get me in trouble — had the tables been turned and President Trump won the election and tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and antifa, I might have been a little concerned.

But notice how AP introduces his remarks:

Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin denied Monday that he made racist comments last week when he said he wasn’t concerned about pro-Donald Trump insurrectionists at the U.S. Capitol in January but would have been worried if they were Black Lives Matters protesters.

Notice the "tell?" They left out "antifa." Well well well: nobody here but us journalists at the AP.

Now I think that "denying" that you made racist comments is not enough. I think you need to strike back, and say something like:

"I've been playing political poker, man and boy, for 25 years. And my experience is that the guy that plays the race card is the real racist."

Then you go on and waffle some more.

"Go ahead. Call me a racist. I don't care. But what I want to know is when my Democratic friends and my friends in the Democrat media are going to stop playing the race card so we can get down to solving America's real problems instead of the ghosts of problems past." 

Here's what I think. I think that the politician that figures out how to trump the race card, or how to hit the racist screwball out of the ball-park has got a glorious future ahead of him.

But first he has to have the courage to risk it. Rather like President Trump, who got nominated in 2016 by showing that he had to courage to go up against the Blob.

Yet even Trump didn't have the courage to trump the race card.

But let me tell you, the guy that figures out how to do it, and emerges unscathed from the usual media feeding frenzy whenever there is race-card blood in the water, that guy is going to go places.

Quote Eric Hoffer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." 

And so it goes until the DA indicts the race racketeers for racketeering. But it takes a while, because usually when there is a racket it only thrive because it gets protection from the local politicians.

See, Even Democrats Don't Care About Climate Change

You've probably already seen the opinion poll about the top concerns of Republican voters, and, separately, Democratic voters in the aftermath of the 2020 election. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. 

For Republican voters the following are the top three concerns.

Issue	Percent Very Concerned
Illegal Immigration	81%
Lack of support for the police	79%
High taxes	77%

For Democratic voters the following are the top three concerns.

Issue	Percent Very Concerned
Donald Trump's supporters	82%
White nationalism	79%
Systemic racism	77%

Here are the tweets in question:

Fascinating look at the top concerns for Democratic voters: 

https://t.co/i5dP3fe26O

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 24, 2021

 Do you see the difference? GOP voters are interested in "Issues." Democratic voters are interested in "Hate."

Well, you can certainly see that politics works. Our Democratic friends have spent the last five years in a 24/7 effort to terrify their supporters about President Trump. They have called President Trump and his supporters every insult in the book. And then invented some more. And they have succeeded!

Mind you, I can see the logic behind the hatred of President Trump's supporters. 

Suppose those Commoner Trump supporters should get another Republican president elected. And suppose they elect a Republican House and Senate.

Maybe. Just maybe the Republican leaders would enact policies to reduce the sinecures and the pensions and the bureaucratic powers of the educated Gentry class.

Boy, if I were a Gentry liberal voter with a nice gubmint sinecure and an electric car in the driveway and solar power panels on the roof and a #WeBelieve yard-sign in the front yard, I'd be terrified of a GOP president and Congress.

But like I say: when a religious cult or a ruling class discovers that its prophecies are failing it doesn't just fold its tents and wind up the cult or the regime. No. Insread it redoubles its efforts, and gets out the machete and starts whacking away at anything and everything.

Because it cannot be true that our Truth is in fact a lie. There must be Evil Spirits at work. And we will dig them out and exorcise them. See if we don't!

But. How come nobody cares about Climate Change? I thought that was the defining issue of our time. Saving the Planet! Halting Runaway Global Warming! Stopping the Rise of the Oceans!

I guess not so much.

We Can't Go Away and Hide in our Little Platoons

We humans naturally prefer our own kind, for "man is by nature a tribal creature," writes Robert Stacy McCain, approving of Burke's "little platoons."

How, then, has this principle of group loyalty become so wickedly warped, and turned into a weapon destructive of all social order, by the contemporary practice of progressive identity politics? Why is tribalism in America now asserting itself in such toxic and ferocious ways?

Actually, I would say that all group loyalty has been "wickedly warped" since, well, since humans started to live in communities bigger than "Dunbar's number" of about 150 people. La Wik:

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.

I am relying on the anthropological writings of C.R. Hallpike. In his How We Got Here he argues that hunter-gatherers were pretty relaxed about tribe. They were pretty individualistic, except about sharing food. And they would change from one "band" to another without much fuss.

According to Hallpike, humans didn't start getting really tribal until they started living in village of 2,500+ people.

I take Hallpike's ideas and propose that all modern tribes are "fake tribes," gussied up to unite people against a real or perceived threat. Read La Wik on "Clans" and tell me what you think about clans, bands, and tribes.

So I say that all modern tribalism is "fake tribalism," whether tribalism of religion, of class, of nation, of race, of tribe or clan or band, of occupation, of level of education. All fake. All tribes, all identities, all groups are artificial, using the natural groupishness of humans for a political purpose.

Here is an example of what I mean. America's "Blacks" -- once "black" and then "African American" -- are descended from a whole bunch of tribes in western Africa. Each individual Black got enslaved by some tribal incident of conquest slavery and then sold to a white European slave trader. Yet now, we are told by our betters, all Blacks belong to one race -- except that race is a social construction. Anyway, if you disagree with any American liberal on race you are a "racist." Barack Obama, son of a white mother and a well-born East African, is America's First Black President.

Obviously the invention of "fake tribalism" is the most important thing since sliced bread. Or before sliced bread.

But when McCain proposes that we check out of the crazy world of "victims" and "oppressors" and "get through the week, pay our bills... by clinging to those 'little platoons,'" and when Jackie Gingrich Cushman says our problems must be "conquered in a bipartisan way," I say fuggetaboutit.

All politics is "fake tribalism." All religion is "fake tribalism." All culture is "fake tribalism." There is no checking out of the game and going back to your "little platoon." If you want to be a "man in the arena" then you are a player in the "fake tribalism" game.

There is only one way forward: to create a "fake tribalism" that is better and nobler and more popular than the left's "fake tribalism" of race, of gender, of identity politics, of "allyism." And let it be said right here that Donald Trump's MAGA movement, based on the idea of America as a nation and the American people as one American people, was the first shot fired in developing this new -- better, nobler, popular -- "fake tribalism," No wonder our liberal friends want to kill it in its cradle.

The question is: on what principle do we raise our banner? Our liberal friends have based everything on the concept of victimhood. Whether it was the industrial workers of the nineteenth century or the unemployed of the 1930s, or blacks suffering under Jim Crow, or women from an eternity of patriarchy, or gays suffering from ages of homophobia -- did you know that Edward II of England was gay? -- or oppressed peoples in general suffering under white oppressors but for the heroic "allies:" it's all about the victims.

And about the "fake victims." I buy slaves as victims; I buy blacks under Jim Crow as victims. But post 1965 Civil Rights Act? Well-born educated feminists as innocent victims? Well-born gays as innocent victims? Ahem.

There is, I think, an eternal temptation to don the mantle of "innocence." I say that it is almost universal that small minorities use a "culture of innocence" to maintain tribal unity. But that is not for us; innocence is for the Garden of Eden, not for life in this vale of tears.

I don't think the victims narrative works for us. And the reason is quite simple. We middle-class Americans are Commoners, what I call, in my reductive Three Peoples theory: People of the Responsible Self. Responsible people cannot be victims.

I think it is pretty obvious what works. We need to base our politics on the "fake tribe" of nation, and the "fake tribe" of the middle-class Commoner, responsibly getting a job, getting married, raising a family, and providing for our own.

And we must stop apologizing. A good start would be Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Every Republican and every American Commoner should be saying: "hey Dems: come and talk to us when you have dealt with the poisonous racists and sexists and anti-semites in your own party. Period."

President Trump fired the first shot heard across America. It is up to us and to a new generation of politicians and culture warriors to continue the fight.

And that means having the zingers ready when the liberals come with their pejoratives. Such as this on the accusation of systemic racism.

So, pal, what is it about the Civil Rights Acts you don't understand? It is illegal in the United States to discriminate on the basis of race. So, if you see discrimination, report it to the police. Don't complain to me. I ain't the system. You are.

And so on. I was talking to a nice liberal lady the other day and she talked about race as a social construction. So what is 23andme.com all about, I asked? Profits, she said. Oh yeah, I said, of course. Silly me.

What is about America as the best country in the history of the world, and the American people as the best people in the history of the world that our liberal friends don't get?

Trump's Biggest Failure: The Race Issue

There are all kinds of articles around today mourning President Trump's out-of-control insults. There's Bush appointee J.T. Young warning us not to throw out the baby -- the populism that Trump fed and watered -- with the bath water -- Trump and his insults.

The Left’s legitimate fear is that conservative populism could be an even more potentially potent political force than the potent one Trump wielded. Instead of Trump suppressing its growth in suburbs and among women, another candidate — such as a woman like former UN Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley — could draw in millions more.

Well, OK. So the suburbs and the women don't feel threatened by the left yet. They still think themselves above the bitter clingers and the deplorables of the white working class, darling. So Ben Franklin's adage still applies, that experience keeps a dear school but they will learn in no other.

Or Breitbart's Joe Pollak on Trump's "will to win:"

His boldness made him an extraordinarily successful president — until his disastrous January 6 challenge, which has left the Republican Party divided and dispirited.

Well yeah. Because the Washington DC GOP has lived for decades in fear of being named and shamed and shunned. And January 6 proved that they still live in fear.

Look, I've been reading a bit about male insults and vaunting in Bernard Cornwell's novels on England's Alfred the Great. His hero, Uhtred, is half way between the nice literate Christian peacemaking of Alfred and the pagan insult and revenge culture of the Danes. But when it is time for battle, then the nicey-nicey goes out the window. It is all insults and vaunting and fighting. And the best man wins.

If you are going to have a guy fighting for you, then he is going to be showing that he is unafraid of the enemy. His insulting, his vaunting, are the way he tells his supporters that he has got their backs, and they can follow him, because he has the victory glint in his eyes.

But one thing Trump never did. He never took on the Race Issue, the number one rule in America today that you are a white racist if "we" say you are. And there is no defense, no recourse.

And in the years that Trump did nothing about the Race Issue, the left came up with a new race canard, the doctrine of "systemic racism" which means that whites are guilty forever.

The next leader of the conservative populist movement has to take the Race Issue, head on, and say to any race accusation: It Takes One to Know One.

Then he should have a stable of follow-on comments, such as: "the American people that fought a war to free the slaves? Those are your racists?" Or, "the American people that elected a Congress that passed the civil rights acts? Those are your racists?" And so on.

This is not that hard. So long as our liberal friends have the cowskin Race Whip in the back pocket we conservative populists are going to be slaves on the liberal estate, touching our forelocks to the liberal overseer and begging Massa not to bring out the whip for a flogging.

Obviously, that man is not Nikki Haley. It will be the politician that first rises out of the current funk and has the courage to tell his populist supporters that the January 6 Capitol riot and its aftermath of fences and riot troops shows that the ruling class is afraid of them, that it fears their strength, and rightly so. And so, On to Richmond!

And yes. No harm in a little Whataboutism. Whatabout BLM/AntiFa? When is our government going to protect us from them with fences and National Guardsmen? Like they jumped to protect themselves in Washington in a New York minute.

This is not that hard. Our liberal overseers will continue to insult us and abuse us and belittle us, and play their race cards and gender cards and now transgender cards. They will continue this until their abuse starts to cost them. And then it will be too late.

Now You Know Why the Germans Did Nothing

When our liberal friends are in a mellow moment, taking time out from canceling everyone for racism, they like to emit moral lectures about the Germans under Hitler. How come millions of Germans said nothing and did nothing while Hitler's thugs were beating up the Jews in the 1930s.

Let's take the German philosopher Martin Heidegger as a case in point. All the following is official revealed truth from La Wik.

• Heidegger was a student of the Jewish philosopher Husserl.
• Heidegger was rector of the University of Freiberg for a year in 1933. A week before his appointment, his predecessor had suspended all Jewish professors at Freiberg, including Husserl. Heidegger did nothing.
• Heidegger joined the Nazi Party a week after his appointment as rector.
• Heidegger resigned his rectorship in 1934 after about a year on the job.
• Heidegger did not go to Husserl's cremation in 1938.

Here is a quote from Hans Sluga, in La Wik.

Though as rector he prevented students from displaying an anti-Semitic poster at the entrance to the university and from holding a book burning, he kept in close contact with the Nazi student leaders and clearly signaled to them his sympathy with their activism.

You mean, like today's university administrators and politicians turn a blind eye towards BLM and AntiFa activism, "clearly [signaling] to them [their] sympathy with their activism?"

And look: Heidegger had published his Being and Time in 1927 and established his reputation as a philosopher for all time, so why didn't he have the guts to be a Sacrificial Hero against the murderous Nazis? To this day, there is a black cloud over Heidegger.

And to this day, our liberal friends have dined off the horrors of Heidegger, and the Germans "who did nothing," and the Americans who did nothing during the McCarthy period.

Yes, liberals. But now the shoe is on the other foot, as you liberals allow ordinary Americans to be canceled by left-wing Twitter mobs, while university administrators and university presidents do nothing. Here's the latest, a girl's university admissions offer canceled from because of a 3-second SnapChat video she sent in 2016 when she was 15: "I can drive, n***a". I assume that she used the word n***a and not n****r, but you never know. Says The New York Times,

[The young woman] was among many incoming freshmen across the country whose admissions offers were revoked by at least a dozen universities after videos emerged on social media of them using racist language.

Pretty cool, liberals isn't it. You chaps boost gangsta rap as really cool, and then your brave college admissions administrators do the cowardly thing and whack a naive little girl for taking you up on it. 

Because, like Heidegger, you wouldn't want to lean against the political wind, no siree.

Earth to liberals: the current leftist cancel culture is exactly like Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Prudent, ordinary administrators and bureaucrats and industrialists go along to get along. Hey, it's the prudent thing to do! After all, who could have known in the 1930s that it would all end in the Holocaust?

The kid that outed the girl on the n-word is proud of what he did.

“I wanted to get her where she would understand the severity of that word,” Mr. Galligan, 18, whose mother is Black and father is white, said of the classmate who uttered the slur, Mimi Groves. He tucked the video away, deciding to post it publicly when the time was right.

Of course he is proud. That's what he has been carefully taught: to be a noble activist and fight, as an ally, against white supremacy and systemic racism.

Or you could say that he is a dupe of the ruling class, that wants to use blacks as their political tool: on the one hand getting 90 percent of the black vote, because racism, and on the other permanently cowing the ordinary white working class into subservience, because racism. 

Here's a question for you scholars and philosophers. How come the naming and shaming of someone as "literally Hitler" carries a real zing, while calling someone "literally Stalin" doesn't have quite the same canceling power?

And calling someone "literally Mao" has even less zing. Yet, Mao was a bigger mass murderer that Stalin, and Stalin was a bigger mass murderer than Hitler. What gives?

You know as well as I do. It all comes down to what we have been carefully taught. And our noble and dedicated teachers have been more interested in teaching us about the crimes of Hitler than about the crimes of Stalin and Mao. I wonder why?

And meanwhile, all across America noble philosophers and academicians and administrators are "doing nothing" to stem the tide of neo-fascist leftism.

Two Strikes Against the Ruling Class -- in One Day

Here is a piece right out of Mosca's The Ruling Class. In "Our Coddled Ruling Class and All the Pain They Can't Feel," Oliver Bateman and Malcom Kyeyune write that the problem is not that our elite is censoring us deplorables for deplorableness, but that it is insulating itself from the real world. And that is suicidal.

The true goal, rather unfortunately, is to instead insulate our failing elite in a hermetically sealed bubble, where only those who hold unthreatening, regime-affirming ideas are ever allowed to set foot.

For Mosca is quite clear on this: a good ruling class, while keeping a firm hand on the tiller, is also sensitive to the passions roiling the masses. And does something about it. On the remarkable assumption that the bitter clingers may actually have a real claim to their grievances.

Elites who have stopped listening to the pain signals from the body politic not only risk hurting or killing themselves in similarly gruesome ways, but they also threaten the very societies they supposedly rule over, and the countless lives of the human subjects they are committed to neglecting.

Actually, I suspect that the "ruling clique" does have a clue. But the broader ruling class wants nothing to do with the bitter clingers. And the ruling clique doesn't have the cojones to straighten the lower echelons out.

OK. That's Part One. Part Two is the same, only different. "How race politics liberated the elites" by Matthew Crawford is all about how the basic faith of the elite class that their societies are racist-sexist-homophobes but that they are different, because they acknowledge the evil of racism. And this liberates them from loyalty to their nation states into the rarefied air of the globalist elite. Crawford starts with the superrich and totally dissolute media clan in the HBO series Succession.

Dropping down a rung or two on the pyramid of power, consider the moral ecology inhabited by the broader gentility: the salaried decision-makers and ideas-managers who service the global arrangement from various departments of the ideological apparatus... They, too, enjoy a kind of freedom, but it is decidedly not that of the high-spirited criminals depicted in Succession. So far from living “beyond good and evil”, this broader class of cosmopolitans asserts its freedom through its moralism, precisely. In particular, they have broken free of the claims of allegiance made upon them by the particular communities they emerge from.

These elite chappies have invented a moral hierarchy with themselves at the top. Because they have broken free of the Original Sin of racism-sexism-homophobia.

The decision-making class has discovered that it enjoys the mandate of heaven, and with this comes certain permissions; certain exemptions from democratic scruple.

The permission structure is built around grievance politics. Very simply: if the nation is fundamentally racist, sexist and homophobic, I owe it nothing. More than that, conscience demands that I repudiate it.

This actually traps our ruling class masters in a glass cage, from which they cannot escape.

The white bourgeoisie became invested in a political drama in which their own moral standing depends on black people remaining permanently aggrieved. Unless their special status as ur-victim is maintained, African-Americans cannot serve as patrons for the wider project of liberation. If you question this victimisation, you are questioning the rottenness of America. And if you do that, you are threatening the social order, strangely enough. For it is now an order governed by the freelance moralists of the cosmopolitan consensus. 

Imagine that! Blacks have to be victimized, for ever and for ever, because otherwise we Übermenschen lose our super-status as educated lordlings way above the common ruck of humans.

Maybe that explains why Google has branded my "1584 Project" as dangerous and violent speech. For in that article I asked my readers to consider that black slaves were not unique. There were all kinds of slavery and semi-slavery back in the day, and the "waste population," the White Trash of Europe was right in the middle of it, as the agricultural era waned and the ruling class rural magnates "hurled" their "useless retainers" into vagabondage and beggary so they could strut their stuff as courtiers in the capital city.

But what do we do about it? I've got a series of posts under my topic of "pejoratives" where I argue that we must stop cringing under the accusation of "racist." Or fling it back in their face with the Hegelian notion that racism is the same as anti-racism, an unhealthy obsession with race. Etc.

But these two articles broaden and deepen my thought about all this.

In the first place, maybe we should stop worrying about what the rulers are censoring and just go on about our business, thinking and planning about what the next regime will look like, and stop worrying about the foolish and knavish actions of the bearded @jack and the Zuck.

In the second place, we really do need to stop apologizing, stop acceding to the crime of racism, to stop recognizing the elite as our betters, and utterly reject the pomposity of their claim to virtue.

Government is force, politics is power, cultural domination is about marginalizing the plebs. You ruling class think you are our moral superiors? Get a clue: all power corrupts, pal, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Got that, Mr. Moralist?

My "1584 Project"

Remember when the peerless New York Times journalist put up her "1619 Project" and the editors announced it thus?

The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative. [emphasis added]

Yes, of course, that bold bit has since been memory-holed. Because reasons, chiefly because a lot of historians weighed in and said this narrative is, as they say in Critical-Theory-Land, "overdetermined." And, I understand, the chief writer in the 1619 Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, has taken her Twitter feed private, because reasons.

I get all this. It's because we humans all want to recite "the story so far," the comforting story about how "we" -- whoever "we" happens to be -- are the culmination of the history of the world so far. Educated blacks like HNJ want a narrative special to them. And our liberal friends are deeply in love with the "oppressed peoples, allies, white oppressors" narrative which is all about how liberals are the saviors of the world because they are the allies of the oppressed peoples and plucked them from out of the clutches of the eevil white oppressors.

The purpose of the 1619 Project is, of course, to throw offal on the "founding narrative," that the American people are the best people in the world, the United States is the best country in the world, and our founders are the best politicians in the world.

Which is really cool if you are a liberal, but not so much fun if you are, say, a gap-toothed white redneck. Where do you fit in to all this virtue-signaling?

Enter my "1584 Project." It is critical theory on steroids, because it is a critique of the "1619 Project" as a prime example of the domination and hegemony of the educated class. You see, it may very well be that August 20, 1619 marked the arrival of the first slave ship in North America. But back in 1584 the first ships from England arrived off the coast of North America to found the Roanoke Colony.

What was the Roanoke Colony? According to La Wik, It was the brain-child of Sir Walter Raleigh, who was awarded a charter by Queen Elizabeth I to "discover, search, find out, and view such remote heathen and barbarous Lands, Countries, and territories ... to have, hold, occupy, and enjoy." He sent an expedition out in 1584 which made landfall at "Port Ferdinando" by Roanoke Island. Raleigh's people spent the next couple of years trying to establish a colony, but gave up, probably abandoning a few colonists to their fate.

But what was this colonization all about? If you read Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, it is all about the problem of "waste population" in England in the 16th century.

I know, let's tell a story.

Back in 1000, let us say, the Brits lived in a pure feudal system where they lived as serfs in a medieval manor. They could, if they chose, become slaves of their lord, and get their three squares a day directly from the loving lord rather than scratching for it as agriculturalists farming the open field system.

But in the 12th century, according to La Wik, "some fields in England tilled under the open field system were enclosed into individually owned fields." Then came the Black Death and that really got the break-up of the feudal system going.

Many farms were bought by yeomen who enclosed their property and improved their use of the land. More secure control of the land allowed the owners to make innovations that improved their yields.

The nobles also liked the enclosure concept. Their idea was to enclose land so they could graze sheep. This became a political issue by 1500, so that in his Utopia Thomas More could speak of how when gentlemen "that carry about with them... a great flock or train of idle and loitering serving men" die, their heirs "thrust [them] out of doors."

And what do they do, these landowners?

[They] leave no ground for tillage: they enclose all into pastures... and leave nothing standing but only the church to be made into a sheep-house.

The money, says More, is in the growing "of the finest and the dearest wool" and that is what the "noblemen and gentlemen" were doing. Not coincidentally, the first vagabond act was passed in 1495.

To add insult to injury, monarchs in the 16th century started disarming their nobles and creating national armies. This created another reason for nobles to kick their "idle and loitering serving men" out of doors.

By 1584, Richard Hakluyt in his "Discourse Concerning Western Planting" proposed not just the advantage of merchants and artisans improving the waste lands of the Americas, but the benefit of exporting the human detritus from the improvement and enclosure movement. Isenberg:

[T]he bulk of the labor force was to come from the swelling numbers of poor and homeless... Idle and unused they were waiting to be transplanted to the American land and be better... put to use.

Then the convicts. Here is what Hakluyt planned for them in America.

Among the first waves of workers were the convicts, who would be employed at heavy labor felling trees and burning them for pitch, tar, and soap ash; others would dig in the mines for gold, silver, iron, and copper. The convicts were not paid wages. As debt slaves, they were obliged to repay the English commonwealth for their crimes by producing commodities for export.

Anyway, after the Roanoke Colony failed the Brits tried again with Jamestown, founded in 1607. It struggled as badly as Roanoke, but then in 1609 John Rolfe introduced a strain of tobacco from Bermuda, and "tobacco quickly became the new gold --  the ticket to wealth."

But for that the planters needed labor, and so they pleaded for "more indentured servants and laborers, who, like slaves were sold to the highest bidder." Actually, the normal game was that men that did not pay for their own passage to the Americas paid instead with a term of indentured labor. And contracts of indenture bound servants to their masters and even their heirs. If an indentured servant died, his wife and children were expected to work out the term of indenture.

So the waste population of England was not that different from the conquest slaves of West Africa.

Of course, some of the indentured servants escaped, and learned to live off the grid as squatters and crackers.

They lived off the grid... disappeared into unsettled territory and squatted down... anywhere and everywhere.

As early as the 1750s they were called the "scum of nature" and "vermin"; they had no means of support except theft and license.

Thus the whole pejorative vocabulary of White Trash, from Nancy Isenberg:

Waste people. Offscourings. Lubbers. Bogtrotters. Rascals. Rubbish. Squatters. Crackers. Clay-eaters. Tuckies. Mudsills. Scalawags. Briar hoppers. Hillbillies. Low-downers. White [n-word]. Degenerates. White trash. Rednecks. Trailer trash. Swamp people. 

Don't you think it is time for a new movement among the elite, to champion the White Trash against their oppressors? Oh wait. In that case the moral narrative would be about "oppressed white trash, gentry oppressors, and don't cares."

Did you know about the "maroons?" They were communities of escaped African slaves all up and down the eastern coast of the Americas. They usually lived just far enough out of town that the powers-that-be wouldn't be bothered to bother them.

So really, the maroons were the same as the white trash, the squatters and crackers, that lived far enough out of town that the powers-that-be wouldn't bother them. Both white trash indentured servants and negro slaves were useful to the ruling class to work in their money-making plantations, if they could keep them from escaping.

In my narrative of The Story So Far, I reckon that, at some point, the benefit of slave labor began to burn out. Eventually the powers that be started to realize that free labor was much more profitable than slave labor. And so indentured servitude and slavery became a scandal to the great and the good.

However, I maintain that the pendulum has swung back somewhat to feudalism, for in my critique of the left as a Great Reaction, I call socialism a return to slavery and the welfare state a return to feudalism. In the welfare state the workers give a lot of their wages back to the government in return for benefits. And what is that, in effect, but a kind of quasi-serfdom?

There seem to be only two ways of recalling the past. Either it was a golden age or it was a shameful barbarism. Or both.

But I think a better way is to be understanding about the past. It was what it was. We should be hesitant to praise it unduly, and we should be disinclined to sneer at it.

For who knows how our own age will be judged by those that come after us.

Codex of Preferred Progressive Pejoratives

The following is a Codex, manually assembled from Ancient Progressive Manuscripts and diverse Instructions to the Faithful and brought into the public square for public information and education.

Item	Explanation	Applies to:	Toxicity
Racist	One who does not profess enthusiastically and support the orthodox progressive doctrine on race, mostly as it applies to Americans descended from people enslaved by the tribes of West Africa and sold to European slave traders.	Whites1	Very high
Sexist	One who does not profess enthusiastically and support the orthodox progressive doctrine on sex or gender, particularly one who does not bend the knee to educated American women.	White Males2	High
Homophobe	One who does not profess enthusiastically and support the orthodox doctrine on non-heterosexual identity and activity, particularly as it relates to homosexuals and lesbians.	Straight White Males	High
Transphobe	One who does not profess enthusiastically and support the orthodox doctrine on transsexual identity and activity, particularly as it relates to young people "transitioning."	Hetero-sexuals	High
Xenophobe	One who expresses skepticism about immigration and who mentions the word "border" or "illegal immigrant".	Patriotic Americans	High
Islamophobe	One who worries about "terrorism."	Patriotic Americans	High
Fascist	One who fails enthusiastically endorse the progressive political enthusiasm of the moment.	Non-Left Person	Medium
Nazi, Hitler	One who has just won an argument against a progressive. See Godwin's Law.	Non-Left Person	Medium
Bigot	A general term of abuse against one who might not profess enthusiastically and support an unspecified item of progressive secular-religious orthodoxy.	Religious Believer	Medium
Hater	One who does not hate the haters that all progressives rightly hate.	Unspecified	Medium
Science Denier	One who fails to enthusiastically endorse the progressive political position on progressive planetary prophecy.	Oil Co. Grantee	Medium

Notes:

1. Progressives of European descent are not included in this category.

2. Not even progressive white males are exempt.

Understanding the Power of "Fascism"

What exactly is fascism? It has been such a bugaboo for so long that a guy wants to know. Why should we be so terrified of it? Why should all good people want to cut it down the moment it appears? Why do the young lefty thugs of AntiFa choose anti-fascism as their escutcheon?

I read a piece about fascism at Quillette and I'm still not sure. Obviously, fascism as a monster was created by Stalin in the 1930s. Why, exactly? Because fascism was a rival to Communism? Because Stalin needed an enemy for his Bolsheviks and for other lefties to hate? No doubt, as Paul Gottfried has written, fascism is a

slur “hurled at anyone who holds what are now unpopular opinions.”

And, I suppose, anyone that wants to occupy the commanding heights of culture or politics tends to need a convenient lightning bolt to hurl at the despicables and the deplorables.

And, I suppose, after the glorious victory of 1945 both the ruling class of the US coalition and the Soviet Union found it convenient to have something "that must never happen again." Still, what exactly was it that we were supposed to fear?

Even in the 1940s, at a time when genuinely fascist dictatorships threatened to extinguish freedom over much of the world’s surface, George Orwell noted that misuse of the term had rendered it “entirely meaningless.” Decades later, American journalist Tom Wolfe would note the “morbid tendency” of his colleagues to apply the word to everything from Christian revivalist movements to hippies.

Maybe the meaning is just as Tom Wolfe described it in "The Land of the Rococo Marxists."

Anti-fascism, he wrote, “became a universal ray gun, good for zapping anybody, anywhere, from up here… on the intellectuals’ Everest of Indignation.”

Really, then, it is no different than the universal kill-shot, the accusation of racism. The whole point of calling someone a racist-sexist-homophobe is to shut them up, because there is no defense against it.

So the accusation of "fascism" or "Nazism" is just a ranging shot, because if you say a word in its favor then you are obviously in favor of killing Jews.

I suppose that is why I have developed my usual "across the grain" aphorism, where I say that

Trump is the idiot you get when the usual idiots have screwed up.

For you can also say that "fascism is the idiocy that people grab for when the usual idiots have screwed up."

But really, I think that fascism is much more cunning than socialism or communism. Because fascism and Nazism exploit the obvious power of nationalism, the identification that ordinary Commoners have with the nation state. It is a powerful combination of the ancient and the modern.

The power of socialism as an idea is its lurch to the primitive. We all have programmed within us the yearning for the community of the kindred, where people are as one and are perfect social animals. And we all have the other primitive instincts, that if something goes wrong there is a fault at the bottom of it, either our own fault of the malevolence of another. And the solution is vengeance or the scapegoat of Rene Girard's Violence and the Sacred.

But we humans have learned over the last 500 years to identify with the community of the nation. So when things go wrong we look to the leader of the nation to lead us back to safety. The lesson of World War I was that the workers of Germany, supporters of the Social Democratic Party, identified first as Germans before they identified as the class of proletarians.

And the lesson of World War II is that when Stalin wanted to rally the Russian people he did it by appealing to them as Russians and not as Communists. Hey, guess what: Stalin (and Bukharin) came up with the notion of "socialism in a single country" in 1924! According to La Wik.

So, when the rubber hits the road, even socialists need to rally the workers to the nation. Because that is what works.

Really "fascism" is just a pejorative that people with cultural power use to shut other people up. 

So, the only question is: how do we respond? And I would say that we should understand that all lefty 

heroes are really fascists, national socialists at heart.

So the way to respond is to say, if you are a man, "Whatabout Obama? Here was a progressive trying to bend the arc of history towards social justice in one country. Fascism, in all but name."

For "Obama" you can substitute any Democratic leader that seems appropriate, from FDR to Speaker Karen Pelosi (D-CA).

If you are a women, you say, "I can't believe you said that." And then you text your friend to complain.

Pejorative Politics - Table of Contents

Confronting the Left's Pejorative Politics

1. Taking on the Powerful
   
   
2. "A Nation of Cowards"
   
   
3. The Year of the Race Card
   
   
4. The Wages of Hate
   
   
5. Let's Play the Race Card
   
   
6. Trumping the Race Card
   
   
7. No, New Yorker, YOU are the American Tragedy
   
   
8. Exactly Who Calls Himself a White Supremacist?
   
   
9. What Do "Toxic Masculinity" and "White Supremacist" Have in Common?
   
   
10. Anti-Barker: Don't Know Much About Philosophee
    
    
11. Why Don't We Normals Have Anti-left Pejoratives?
    
    
12. If You Call Someone a Racist You are a Hater
    
    
13. Accepting the Fact of Exile In America's Jacobin Terror
    
    
14. Of Course I'm a Racist. How About You?
    The only thing to do is to own it


15. Of Course I'm a Sexist, How About You?
    I believe women need more protections than men


16. Of Course I'm a Homophobe. How About You?
    Reality is that you should be afraid of homosexuals, because "cancel" 


17. Pejorative Politics: Nothing New Under the Sun
    The way to deal with pejoratives is to embrace them


18. On Race, Is It All Over Bar Shouting?
    It's time to push back on race
    


19. Which Is Worse: Trump's Insults or The Racist Canard?
    If women don't like Trump's insults, then whatabout accusations of racism?
    


20. Our Elite's Crimes Against Humanity
    Its solutions for workers, blacks, women and LGBTs were the wrong solutions


21. Canceling People for Racist Tweets
    When you can be fired for quoting Shakespeare
    


22. Facing the Racism Issue Fair and Square
    You have to reply with an insult
    
    
23. Time to Kill The Racism Virus
    
    
24. Understanding the Power of "Fascism"
    You call someone a fascist if you want to shut them up
    
    
25. Codex of Preferred Progressive Pejoratives
    
    
26. My "1584 Project"
    The year they started sending the "waste population" to America
    
    
27. Two Strikes Against the Ruling Class -- in One Day
    
    
28. Now You Know Why the Germans Did Nothing
    
    
29. Trump's Biggest Failure: The Race Issue
    
    
30. We Can't Go Away and Hide in our Little Platoons
    
    
31. See, Even Democrats Don't Care About Climate Change
    
    
32. Sen. Ron Johnson Pushes Back on "Racist." Sorta
    
    
33. The Day the Universe Changes. On Race.
    
    
34. "Gammon:" The Latest Leftist Hate Pejorative
    
    
35. Implementing a National Liberation from Lefty Colonialism

Time to Kill The Racism Virus

By now everybody knows that the MSM has jumped on board the Xi train and accused President Trump and others of "racism" for calling the COVID-19 virus the China virus.

Oh yeah! You should always go with the experts at the WHO. And the propagandists in the totalitarian regimes.

Never mind that the US media -- hello New York Times -- has been carrying water for the Commies since the 1950s, what with NYT reporter Herbert Matthews hailing Cuba's murderous dictator Fidel Castro. Not to mention the 1930s when NYT reporter Walter Duranty wrote of the Ukrainian famine: What famine?

And never mind that the Chi-Coms are batting on a bit of a sticky wicket now that facts on the ground are telling us that we need to be a lot less dependent on the global supply chain. I mean, the Chic-Coms, that apparently produce 95 percent of our antibiotics, have been threatening us with a cutoff. If we don't stop the racism! See, they are looking at a real economic depression if the US and Europe decide to lower their dependence on manufacturing in totalitarian countries. So of course they are trying to intimidate us and change the subject.

You would think that any journalist worth her byline would be extremely skeptical of government memes out of China right now. Even if she was emotionally consumed with writing her next article about her hair.

But hey! If you are a mindless liberal journalist "racism"-in-the-air is like blood-in-the-water for sharks. You can't help yourself.

Now if I were the editor, or the publisher, or the owner of The New York Times I would have put the race-baiting journalists on Social Distancing without pay for 30 days or until the arc of the China Virus epidemic curve started to bend towards justice. That's what I would do. But I dare say that NYT owner Carlos Slim rather enjoys watching the gringos in a cat-fight.

I say, never mind about them. Whatabout us?

And I say that it is 30 years past the time when there was any moral warrant to name, shame, and shun "racists." Because hey, racial discrimination is illegal. And the only real racists are loser white crackers parading around with tiki-torches. If there is still racial discrimination in America then pull the FBIs off Michael Flynn and put them to work on investigating acts of racial discrimination and sending the results to the local Soros-funded prosecutor.

I mean. There is a difference, dontcha think, between some guy making a racist tweet and some innocent POC being denied a job or a place in university because of racial discrimination. One of the two is not like the other. One of them is an act of racial discrimination, and the other is just some jerk mouthing off.

So I say that this China Virus racist flap is the ideal moment to declare that we deplorables are not going to cringe in fear any time someone call us racists. Not any more. It is time to stop apologising.

Indeed it is time to hit back, using the eternal male Culture of Insult that is connected back into the male culture of honor, which is courage. We males are expendable, anyway, as the millions of men that died in the armies of the rulers of the world down the ages have proved.

Here are a few insults for you to try out when next you are accused of being a racist.

"Wait a minute! I thought you cupcakes said that race didn't exist!

"That's an insult to all the African-Americans that died under slavery down the ages!"

"So's your father, buttercup!"

"It takes one to know one!" 

"Know what racists and anti-racists have in common? A vile obession with race."

"Yeah, call me racist-sexist-homophobe, snowflake. I don't care!" 

"Know what really gets me? The hate that educated whites have poured on poor white trash down the centuries." 

"Wow! You really are a hater. I had no idea!"

Notice that you should add the patronizing "cupcake" "buttercup" or "snowflake" according to taste and opportunity.

Now, if you are lunching with a liberal woman friend the rules are different. Because with women we cannot use the male Culture of Insult. Instead we are acting out the female Culture of Complaint and are always talking about a third person who has said or done something that should be named, shamed, and shunned.

So when some third person is branded a racist, as in "I can't believe she would say something so racist," you say:

"But, like, Susie in my book club who is, like, a Gender Studies professor says that race doesn't exist." 

"So, like, I always worry about which are the worse haters, the racists or the activists." 

"I worry that making that a racism thing makes it, like, harder to deal with real racism."

I leave the "like"s and "I can't believe"s and "uptalk" to you. You know best how to emotionally manipulate your women friends.

We can't finish this without reminding ourselves of the words of the noble Democratic sage, Rahm Emanuel, who said:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste."

And two can play at that game. Cupcake.

Facing the Racism Issue Fair and Square

A friend just wrote about how a TDS acquaintance accused him of racism three years ago. And how he is not a racist.

Then there is Edward Ring at American Greatness writing in "What is Racism Today?" about the utter bankruptcy of the racism issue today: "Unconscious Racism", "Institutional Racism", "Racial Profiling", "Disparate Outcomes/Wealth Inequality", "Environmental Racism", "Racist Voter Supression": all that stuff is just ruling class manipulation.

Listen. We passed civil rights laws half a century ago that made it illegal for the government and private institutions to commit racist acts. Did you observe a racist act yesterday? OK, get onto the Feds. Because racist acts are illegal.

Whatabout racist opinions? Yeah. Big problem. Only thing is that opinions aren't illegal, and can't be prosecuted. Because? Because down the years the legal system has decided that peering into peoples' minds is a very tricky business. And, if you didn't already know, the lefty totalitarian governments of the 20th century with their show trials showed in black and white why basing the legal system on the hunting down of bad thoughts is Not Good.

And anyway, everyone prefers their own kind: by race, by sex, by political allegiance, by every other way that people distinguish themselves as humans.

But here's the problem:

We have made white racist thoughts shameful, but we have celebrated black racist thoughts.

We have made male sexist thoughts shameful, but we have celebrated feminist sexist thoughts.

We have made homophobic thoughts shameful, but we have celebrated homosexual bigotry.

And yes. I am a racist-sexist-homophobe. How about you?

The problem is that, right now, even President Trump lacks the cultural power to tell the lefty racist-sexist-heterophobes to go pound sand. So what do we do about it?

We The People need to get out in front on this. And we need to do it with the male Insult Culture.

"I'm a racist? Oh yeah? So you advocate "diversity and inclusion." That's racist to the back molar."

"I'm a sexist? Oh yeah? Tell that to the feminazis! Talk about toxic sexism!"

"I'm a homophobe? So what! The gays already got their gay marriage."

The truth is that everyone is a racist. It's just that in our society the cultural wokerati have arrogated to themselves the power to determine what kind of racism is bad: anything expressed by white deplorables; and what kind of racism is good: "mostly peaceful protests" by Black Lives Matter.

Now President Trump is developing a masterful campaign to encourage blacks and Hispanics to leave their racist ghettos and identify as Commoner Americans in the coming elections. Dear God, I hope he succeeds.

Because the educated Gentry is driving us down the road to the racial and sexual War of All Against All. They have the conceit that, because they are educated and evolved, they will be able to control the battle -- as maybe the Capitol guys in the Hunger Games.

In fact they are fools and knaves playing with matches in the middle of a drought. They have no idea of the disaster that they are setting up. Of course not. Because they have never had a serious thought in their lives.

Bottom line: we made racial and sexual discrimination illegal half a century ago. Now it's time for all the activists to go home and find something else to activate.

And the rest of us must stop being terrified of being called racists, expecially old geezers like me that can't be fired from their jobs by a lefty mob.

"Call me a racist? Sure. So what yer goin' to do about it? String me up from the nearest tree? Burn me like a witch?"

Canceling People for Racist Tweets

Oh dear oh dear! Oh No! A couple days ago Alistair Stewart, a newsreader on ITN in Britain, issued a  Shakespeare quote that included the word "ape."  Now he has been fired for racism.

Let me say here that I am a profound racist. I believe that race is real, and I believe that everyone must live with that reality.

And, as they say, we are all descended from the apes. Bless their hearts.

But in the United States and in the United Kingdom racial discriminaton is illegal.

That means that government actors and corporate actors are not allowed to discriminate against minorities and women on the basis of race or sex.

Although in practice, governments and corporations the world over are encouraged to discriminate against white men on behalf of women and minorities, and are named and shamed if they don't. Yeah. You tell me.

But here I want to say. What does it matter what people say? On Twitter, or anywhere else? If racial discrimination is illegal, that is final. (As President Coolidge said in a different context.)

And if, 50 years after the Civil Rights Act blacks are paid less than whites then, if they are actually being paid less than they are worth there is an opportunity for what the speculators call arbitrage. An opportunity to make money. And since people that hire minorities acquire status in today's society...

Yeah. Imagine the kudos to be obtained by creating a company that exploits the arbitrage between what minorities and women are paid and what they are worth. There must be billions, trillions of dollars to be made in that market!

Here's another thing. Black men in the arts and on the streets these days are notorious for their testosterone culture of "rap" which celebrates the rough tough hombre that is fearless and projects masculine power.

So why do blacks need protection from the ruling class? Aren't they already rough and tough enough to take care of themselves?

I mean, do blacks need the cultural protection of ruling class apparatchiks to go about their daily business safely? In addittion to the protection of the Civil Rights laws? Are they sissies? I mean, if they are to be free and equal then they surely must ache to demonstrate it by dispensing with the clammy grip of ruling-class hangers-on and bravely going about in the world without that ruling-class security detail.

And anyway, getting on Twitter and complaining that "Johnny looked at me" is girl stuff. Are all lefty activists really girly boys? (Don't answer that!)

Let me say here that I am a profound sexist. I believe that sex is real. Also gender. Also the next twist that girly lefty activists come up with.

I mean. All you girls are superheroes, right? You can get on movies and TV and kick and overwhelm men twice your size with your amazing martial-arts superhero skills, Right?

So why do you girly girls and girly men not use your amazing superhero skills and instead do the Community of Women's Culture of Complaint thing that appeals to the nearest man to protect you? Which presumes that you are not in fact the superheroes you claim to be but are in fact, despite the legal protections of the Civil Rights laws and the actual political and cultural power of the ruling class, weak helpless girly girls and girly boys that really aren't ready for prime time.

When black artists strut their stuff they are saying that they are ready to defend themselves in the public square without the assistance of a security detail from the ruling class.

When women twitter on about Girl Power they are saying that they do not need the protection of a father or a husband from the patriarchy of which you've heard tell. Right, girls?

But when some poor chap gets canceled for racism because of a tweet, then we are saying that blacks are helpless forever more.

Which means that we may as well cancel the Civil Rights laws and all the cultural apparatus that protects and inflates blacks. Because they can never be equal, not without the guns and truncheons of the ruling class. They are second-class citizens forever. Because reasons.

See, the point of good old Worcester saying in Henry IV Part One, that

It was myself, my brother and his son,
That brought you home and boldly did outdare
The dangers of the time.

is to declare that the essence of male honor, which is courage, is to boldly outdare whatever might happen to be the dangers of the time.

But to be a man of color, already protected by the Civil Right laws of every clime, and whine that "Johnny looked at me" is to say that "I am a helpless subordinate slave and nothing will ever change that, not laws, not cultural support from the ruling class, not principalities, not powers: nothing."

I don't think that was the idea back in the day. I don't think that civil rights activists imagined that 50 years later, with the protection of the laws and the cultural support of the ruling class, there would be a need to cancel TV anchormen for a Shakespeare quote.

And if they did, they shoulda told us.

Actually, of course, equality is a lie and always will be. There always was a hierarchy, an order of rank, and always will be. That is the point that Jordan B. Peterson is trying to make to girly girls in the media with his reference to lobsters. Hierarchy is coded into lobsters, honey. You think that we humans can un-code something that is so deeply coded within us that it got expressed in primitive creatures like lobsters?

And the point of hierarchy is to reduce violence, so that animals need not contest every incident in their lives, but can live in peace.

The point is: how shall hierarchy be determined, who shall regulate it, and what kind of escape from hierarchy is beneficial and allowable?

Got any ideas on that, precious?

Right now, we have a pitiless hierarchy based on whether you can get Mommy at Twitter to cancel your rivals. Conservatives need not apply.

What does that mean? Does it mean that conservatives are brutes? Or does it mean that the Little Darlings of the ruling class are pathetic sissies?

And what does it mean if you are the kind to run to Mommy and are not willing to establish your position in the status hierarchy without adult assistance?

It must not escape the notice of every sentient human that it was the most extreme advocates of equality that gave us the slave states of the 20th century and the most severe political and economic hierarchies.

So it might be that an excessive concern for equality might be a problem.

This would not suprise us Hegel scholars, who understand that the thing is pretty well the reflection of its opposite. But some of you naïve others might not be so well prepared to boldly outdare the dangers of the time where opposites are concerned.

Here's the fact of the matter. If you are a Little Darling, in the special care of the ruling class, then you are advertising to the world that you are not yet ready for prime time. You need a safe space, and you are less than you should be.

But if you want to tread the world as a citizen, as an equal to any other, then you must accept the challenge of making your own space and defending it without the power and might of the ruling class.

Or, to put it another way, there is no way out of getting out there and fighting for your status in the hierarchy.

Otherwise you are just the Little Darling, the subordinate serf of the ruling class, protected so long as you discharge you duties as its loyal subject, and not a moment longer.

Our Elite's Crimes Against Humanity

What? Our noble elite and our creative Educated Gentry? Crimes against humanity? Isn't that putting it on a bit thick, old chap?

Not if you subscribe to my notion of the Great Reaction, that socialism is gussied-up slavery, the welfare state is gussied-up serfdom, and identity politics is gussied-up tribalism. Etc.

Not if you subscribe to my notion of "Little Darlings," that our modern ruling class cultivates client groups to increase its power and then dumps the Little Darlings when it is time to move on to a new, lusciously curved, younger and innocent Little Darling.

Whatabout women? Christopher deGroot has a long piece on how the feminists are making things worse for most women. And men too. Oh, things are pretty good at the top for Gentry women that can afford careers and marriage and children and cheap immigrant servants. But whatabout the rest of women, for, as he quotes G.K. Chesterton:

“Feminism is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.”

Wait! I thought that only approved Educated Gentry intellectuals had the right to opine on slavery!

But I think this is a very good way of approaching "issues." You should ask: "in what way is this better than slavery?" Or, alternatively, "in what way is this better than serfdom?"

Our Democratic friends on the presidential campaign trail are outdoing each other in various "Something for All" comprehensive and mandatory programs, from Medicare to College to Childcare.

So, in what way are these programs different than life in the good old agricultural estate, with the noble lord enserving his underling famers in exchange for free benefits? Or, if you prefer, the good old slave plantation and the good old slave driver with his cowskin whip.

See, I interpret the history of the last century or so in this way.

Part One: The Educated Gentry declared themselves the protectors of the workers. Now, did we have an open and frank discussion of the issues about this, trying to balance what the Gentry thought about the helpless workers with what the workers thought about the workers and also what the taxpayers thought about helping the workers? And did the activists intern with noble philosophers and social scientists to imagine what "we" wanted the workers to be in 100 years?

No. In fact what happened is that the Educated Gentry won the votes of the workers by offering them free stuff, and things were copacetic for a while as certain workers obtained above-market wages, and everyone's children got rough, tough education in the Three Rs from rough, tough schoolmarms in government schools. But in the end the workers all lost their high-paying manufacturing jobs and the schools became mere government child-custodial facilities doing useless fad-following.

Now, I think that the right thing to happen would have been to continue the culture that the workers were developing on their own, from unions (without special privileges) to mutual-aid societies to mechanics' institutes to the Christianity of the kind practiced by the hero and the heroine of George Eliot's Adam Bede.

Part Two: The Educated Gentry declared themselve the protectors and the liberators of women. Now, did we have an open and frank discussion of the issues about this, trying to determine what the Gentry thought about the helpless women with what women -- high, middle, and low -- thought about their lives and also what the taxpayers thought about helping women? And did the feminist activists intern with noble philosophers and social scientists to imagine where "we" wanted women to be in 100 years?

No. In fact what happened is that Educated Gentry women set the agenda, and basically forcing the rest of womankind into their notion of what women needed. And what women needed, according to Gentry Women was to have fascinating careers just like the men in their lives. Er, did they ask their men about just how fascinating those careers were? No, I thought not. Then Educated Gentry women wanted all women to have access to abortion and divorce and the right to have sex without humiliation. Yep, it turned out that Gentry women in the workforce -- and the right to have their incomes counted when applying for a mortgage -- has made everything more expensive, so that, while it more or less works for Gentry women, it doesn't work very well for Commoner women. And let's not even think about lower class women where the men don't work much and the women don't marry much. Oh, and, girls, how great is it when the sexual revolution means that women are expected to "put out" in the immortal phrase of Tennessee Williams. And when women are expected by their lovers to "get rid" of the products of liberation? And when divorced women end up as cat ladies?

Now, I think that the right thing to happen would have been to continue the culture that worshipped women and wives and mothers and put them on pedestals. Because, after all, "career" comes from the French "carrière" or racetrack. I think that we should have patted the Educated Gentry women for their conceits about career and "leaning in" and wanting to be in politics, First Woman President, etc. But whatabout Commoner women that want marriage and home and children? And whatabout lower-class women that just want a male provider, thank you very much? Gee, I wonder what they want?

Part Three: The Educated Gentry declared themselves the protectors of the blacks -- and subsequently every imaginable oppressed group under the sun. Now, did we have an open and frank discussion of the issues about this, trying to determine what the Gentry thought about the helpless blacks with what the blacks thought about themselves and also what the taxpayers thought about helping the blacks? And did the activists intern with noble philosophers and social scientists to imagine where "we" wanted the blacks to be in 100 years?

Well, we started out right, with a genuine civil rights movement that used non-violent protest to demand equality of rights. And we passed a Civil Rights Act and Sen Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) promised to eat the paper the bill was written on if it led to quotas. But, of course, in accordance with the divine law divined by longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer, every political movement ends up as a business or a racket. And we have had quotas, timetables, diversity, inclusion, and flat out racism ever since.

Now, I think that the right thing to happen would have been for Hubert Humphrey to spend the rest of his live advocating against quotas and timetables, and for the Supreme Court to retire all the activist groups that supported the civil rights movement. And I think that the right thing would have been not to have the welfare expansion under Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and I think that blacks should have been encouraged to develop the responsible culture already flourishing in their black churches. Instead Educated Gentry activists have whipped up racism into a national crisis, decades after the passing of the laws that made government and corporate racism illegal.

And let's pass over in silence the question of Latinos and LGBTs, etc. Not to mention the nightmare of xenophobia and Islamophobia.

Now Christopher DeGroot finishes up his piece worrying about single women electing more Democrats, and how stopping that

may be just as important as checking excessive immigration and trying to preserve what Peter Brimelow calls the Historic American Nation, each essential if there is to be an American right in the future.

But I don't think it is a question of "an American right." I think it is a question of forming a head of rebellion, civil or otherwise, against the monstrous and heedless Educated Gentry that, as they say, "literally knows nothing." Except the selfish status  and power games it plays within its Educated Gentry bubble and expects the rest of us to ooh and ahh over. Or regret it.

Look, as Bismarck said: "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America."

And I would say that the emergence of Donald Trump as the champion of the Commoners is another proof of God's existence, and Bismarck's claim to wisdom.

All we need to do, as "an American right" or anything else, is march towards the sound of the guns. That is all any man, since the dawn of firearms, has needed to know.