Brussels: Look on the Bright Side

When the liberals at Vox respond to the Brussels "attentat" by writing that stopping immigration won't solve anything (H/T Steve Sailer), we should applaud.

Because it means that our liberal friends are forgetting nothing and learning nothing.

And the only way we get to solve the Islamist problem is when the liberals get discredited enough to be pushed off the stage.

The basic thing we need to do about Islamist terror is better policing. Call it "broken windows" policing that worked so well to civilize New York City and other US crime meccas. The point is that the police use data-driven methodologies like CompStat and police where the crime is. No more no-go areas surrendered to local militias. This should be easy to do, were it not for liberals that oppose it on the grounds of Islamophobia. So it cannot be implemented until liberals are marginalized and pushed off the political stage.

The next thing we need to do is to militarily defeat militarized Islam. According to German military theory there are three levels of military action: tactical, operational, and strategic. Obviously the US and its allies have the power and the means and the technique to defeat radical Islam at all these levels. It could be messy, but it is doable, were it not for liberals that oppose it on the grounds of colonialism. So it cannot be implemented until liberals are marginalized and pushed off the stage.

Which brings us to the real problem, the political and cultural problem. We are not going to deal properly with the Islamic problem until the west (or perhaps the Rest of the World) gets out of its present funk and faces Islam confidently and openly as capitalist, free, and not afraid to say so. This is a challenge, because the West is stuck in an internal culture war between a not very effective conservative movement that is not very good at standing for freedom and justice and the rule of law and a post-Marxist rump that is determined to ram every foolish idea of the last 200 years down our throats.

But this is why the Islamic crisis is such a good thing. Without it, our lefty ruling class and its poisonous race, gender, and gay/trans politics would be sailing ahead, dividing us by race, sex, religion, whatever, without a cloud in the sky. Instead the Islamic moment has revealed that the liberal emperor has no clothes.

The cultural Marxist movement was bad enough when it was just keeping blacks in a racial ghetto, separated from the rest of America by liberal race politics. It was bad enough when it taught women to hate marriage and children and desire to be eternal victims of the patriarchy. It was bad enough when it taught young Americans that the best thing in the world was to create a thing called gay marriage. But when Muslim extremists are represented as yet another marginalized and oppressed group and Americans warned against Islamophobia, then the liberal ruling class really has advanced a bridge too far. Not only that, but ordinary people in Europe and America can see it and that is why they are abandoning establishment politics and moving towards candidates and parties that insist that the government not just occupy territory, tax the inhabitants thereof and reward its supporters, but actually defend the inhabitants from harm.

Yes, I know. The humanity! The idea that governments should go beyond their petty power games of subduing the population and rewarding their supporters and actually do what they advertise and protect the people they oppress with their guns and their regime thugs!

What we need is a Great Awakening that creates a spiritual rebirth in the West. That is hard, and it can't be called to order.

The other great need is to shame the ruling class out of its poisonous secular religions and divisive politics that has done so much harm to poor and unskilled people in the West over the past 50 years, and demoralized the rest of us. This is what conservatism was called to do and has failed to do, as witness the Year of Trump.

My point is that we should not be horrified and disheartened by the rising Islamic terror. It will force us in the West to confront ourselves and clean the Augean stables. If we are up to the challenge we will create a new birth of freedom and prosperity. If not, well, if not, what's the point?

Government is Always Clueless

What with the coordinated attacks in Brussels today, March 22, 2016, for which ISIS has claimed responsibility, western governments are looking unusually clueless. As usual.

And we also have President Obama giving a speech in front of a building in Havana emblazoned with a mural of Che Guevara. Apparently the building is the headquarters of the Cuban secret police. But what would I know? Never mind that. How clueless can the president's advance team be to get snookered into a deal like that? I thought that optics was their strong suit.

But this is nothing new. I am reading The Sugar Barons, by Matthew Parker, and it tells a glorious tale of British government stupidity and corruption. But let's just stick to stupidity.

In 1654, after teaching the Scots and the Irish a lesson Oliver Cromwell sent a naval fleet to Barbados to conquer the Spanish and lead the world-wide opposition to the Church of Rome in his "Western Design." The only problem was that the expedition was "sent out without arms and provisions," and withered away in hunger and disease after foolish attacks on the island of Hispaniola. Then Charles II sent out a fleet in 1666 to the West Indies to deal with the French. Five years of war ended in nothing. Time after time, the Brits sent out a fleet from Britain with regiments of soldiers that promptly died of malnutrition and disease once they got to the West Indies. You think they would have learned. But government never learns.

And so here we are in 2016 with our western governments stumble-bumming around wondering what to do about the Islamic threat that directly challenges their policy of unlimited immigration, their plan for dealing with unaffordable entitlements.

Mr. President! What shall we do? Everyone is now deciding that free trade and immigration are terrible ideas that hurt the American middle class. The only thing is: compared to what?

I grant that free trade doesn't solve anything. But what is the alternative? Once you start down the road of protection then every special interest in the country lines up for goodies. You end up with the Florida sugar industry that's protected from foreign competition. You allow mature industries to keep on keeping on without modernizing and competing full on with the rest of the world. Then you are shocked when they collapse like the auto industry in 2008.

Immigration? You certainly don't want the current mess of illegal immigration, in which illegal immigrants are not subject to the law of the land, and compete low-skill Americans out of a job. But it certainly doesn't hurt to bring the best and the brightest here, in moderate numbers, to keep the rest of us Americans up to the mark.

My point is that most economic interventions hurt the economy, because government is stupid and is basically interested in power and revenue and buying up support from the right people. If you put government to work on education, it will wreck education. If you put government to work on health care, it will make it unaffordable. If you put government to work on pensions it will stop people from saving for retirement. If you put government to work on welfare it will fail to relieve the poor.

This spring, in 2016, the best and the brightest are all in a dither about Donald Trump, who doesn't know what he is doing and has no experience of running a government.

But the truth is that the great figures of history tend to be men without experience of government. Instead they seem to possess a sixth sense of how to acquire political and military power and then use it. The ruling classes that they topple are full of seasoned professionals and insiders. But somehow, when it comes to the crunch, the insiders are clueless.

So all the clucking and establishment frou-frou over immigration and ISIS and trade and Trump is just noise. The ruling class doesn't have a clue and never did.

My Theory of Slavery and Other Oppressions

While I was recently visiting the Happiest Dogs in the World in Colorado my sister thoughtfully placed in my hand an excellent history of the West Indies sugar plantations, The Sugar Barons: Family, Corruption, Empire and War in the West Indies by Matthew Parker. It tells the story of the Brits in the sugar plantation game and the staggering fortunes that were made on this addictive drug, and also the staggering brutality of the slave plantation system.

One big takeaway from the book for me was that the early visitors to the sugar islands like Barbados did not so much rail against slavery as a system as comment on the cruelty and the brutality of the sugar masters towards their slaves.

The point is that cane sugar production was a highly organized and capitalized system. You needed to grow each batch of cane and harvest it at exactly the right moment so that it could be fed into the processing plant, including the "boiling" or reduction of the cane plant juice into sugar. Only the big boys could compete. Sounds just like the factory system that arose about a century after Brit adventurers transferred the Dutch sugar system from northern South America to the Caribbean island of Barbados in 1640.

Here's my take from The Sugar Barons. Slavery was just a part of the way things were up until it got scaled up into a capitalist endeavor on the sugar islands. Then, and only then, did people start to look at slavery with new eyes, and think back from the individual acts of cruelty and brutality to the idea that the domination and oppression of one human by another was an unjust and evil thing.

Same thing with the workers. I am sure that workers in every walk of life have been cruelly treated and exploited by their masters since the dawn of time. But when the industrial revolution brought hundreds and thousands of workers into a single manufactory and subjected them to industrial discipline, then and only then did people start to discover a moral problem with the exploitation of man by man.

Likewise the end of feudalism. I am sure that serfs and peasants were buffed about by their lords since time immemorial, not to mention droit du seigneur and all that. But when the Tudors disarmed the nobles and nationalized the armed forces and the nobles chucked their now useless peasants off the land so they could make money from agricultural improvements, then we had a scandal of landless peasants and predatory vagabonds that prompted the Tudors to enact a Poor Law to "do something" about the problem.

So my theory is that capitalism, with its concentration of resources and its scaling-up of economic activity, creates a scandal out of injustices that were just accepted as the "way thing are" in olden times.

It's one thing to oppress and starve peasants out on the feudal manor, but another thing when the landless are nationalized by the end of feudalism.

It's one thing to have house slaves and harems and beat them and exploit them and rape them, but another thing when you scale slavery up to a sugar plantation and the white overseers are casually raping and beating everything that moves.

It's one thing to starve and exploit your 'prentices in your family shop or business. It's another thing to exploit hundreds or thousands of workers in a big industrial plant.

Notice that I am not saying that we are morally superior to our ancestors. I am just saying that the modern era has shone a light into dark corners and that we have not liked what we saw. So we made the depopulation of the countryside into a scandal; we made plantation slavery into a problem; we made factory labor into a scandal.

One other thing that has been scaled up in the modern era is government. You could say that in the old days the petty oppressions of small governments were just part of the way things are. But now, with big government maybe it is time to shine a light into the oppressions that big government presses onto the brow of modern people. Like the sugar barons, our modern ruling class focuses on its power project; the people it crushes under its heel are just collateral damage.

But if my theory is correct our ruling class has a rendezvous with history. The huge scaled-up operations of modern government are going to bring its casual oppressions into sharp relief. Maybe that's what the Trump phenomenon is all about.

Nobody Likes the Other Guys' Strongman

Everybody hates strongmen and men on a white horse. Why? Because it represents a breakdown of democracy, of the peaceable back-and-forth of civilized politics.

Wait. What they are really saying is this.

We are the ruling class and we like being the rulers and we really like our role as the middlemen between the contending factions of people that want something from government. Naturally, we don't like the idea that some yahoo might come along and bewitch the people with his honeyed -- or angry -- rhetoric and push us to the side. In fact we think that such a thing would be totally sick and wrong, and a violation of the Constitution and all accepted values. In fact it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

In other words, the ruling class -- any ruling class -- believes in one thing. They believe in themselves as the ruling class. Anything else is oblivion.

Of course, any ruling class operates according to my catchphrase about the nature of government.

A government is an armed minority occupying some territory and taxing the inhabitants thereof to reward its supporters.

In our world, the "supporters" include almost everyone. We all get something from the government. The overwhelming majority of Americans get to partake of a smorgasbord of goodies, from Social Security to Medicare to free education to student loans. The one thing we cannot endure is that our favorite smorgasbord goodie should run out.

Our ruling class therefore has a little problem. Everyone is demanding more and better dishes on the smorgasbord and complaining about the quality of the dishes as they get a little stale; a good smorgasbord should always be fresh. But one thing really sets us off: if someone should remove our favorite dish. Ever.

So, as Mona Charen writes today, politicians run around lying, and we demand that they lie. They cater to the outrage that everyone feels about "Them". For Democratic voters "Them" is the 1% and the insurance company lobby and the banksters and the racist, sexist bigots. For Republican voters "Them" is the Establishment or Ted Cruz's Washington cabal.

Of course, when politicians run around lying about all the wonderful things they will do for us with the sweet use of force, they are going to promise more than we are willing to pay for. So eventually the government runs out of other peoples' money.

When that happens, it is time for a strongman to appear and command the squabbling factions to silence.

And really, it is only the strongmen that ever get anything done. George Washington, the rebel general during the Revolutionary War. He got to be the first president of the new nation. Abraham Lincoln, the president that wasted the South. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the president that pushed through the transition to a welfare state. Ronald Reagan, the man that stopped the follies of the 1970s and engineered a 20-year boom.

The hit on Barack Obama is that he has been a strongman that failed. He pushed a stupid "stimulus;" he pushed a stupid Obamacare; he pushed a stupid green crony capitalism; he meddled weakly in the Middle East. There is nothing worse than a failed strongman.

When people talk about a strongman or a demagogue we immediately think of Adolf Hitler. We do that because Hitler is the bad dream of our liberal ruling class. He came to power because the previous ruling class had failed. The problem is that Hitler was a failure worse than the ruling class he replaced. He ruined Germany in twelve short years.

But the truth is that we all like strongmen: we are humans, after all. It's just that we only like our kind of strongman, the guy that will come in and put things right our way. Liberals loved Barack Obama; they swooned over him as a Lightworker. They thought that he would preside over a liberal golden age. Conservatives loved Ronald Reagan (although not at the time, because we were primed by the MSM to think Reagan was a lightweight). Reagan got things done; he fixed the economy and won the cold war.

Since Republicans and the white working class are totally pissed off because the political system hasn't been catering to our whims in the Obama era, we are ready for a strongman. There is nothing remarkable or scandalous in this. It is the natural human instinct for getting out of a jam.

Donald Trump bids fair to become the next all-American strongman. This is neither good or bad. It is just an indication that a lot of Americans think things are in a bit of a pickle in the good old US and A.

If Donald Trump gets elected three things could happen. Things could get better, things could get worse, or things could stay the same. If things get better, conservative Americans will nominate Trump for the pantheon of good conservative strongmen, er, heroes. If they don't then conservatives will push Trump down the memory hole.

Liberals, of course, will ever after consider Trump a disaster. If he fixes things, they will hate him for showing up the Lightworker. If he fails they will say I told you so. And how.

Trump: The Monday Morning Quarterbacks

Now that Donald Trump has pretty well clinched the GOP presidential nomination, the recriminations are are in full cry. At least by Thanksgiving, the GOP hopefuls should have seen what was coming and taken Donald Trump out, writes David French at NRO.

But really, what is so special and so wrong about Trump's supposed populist agenda on immigration and trade? If everyone else already has the government putting a finger on the scales for them, from blacks to women to gays to greens, why not the white working class? Why not shut down the border? Why not bring those jobs home? Why not use the clunking fist of government to make things right? Everybody else does.

You can, of course, explain the whole thing with the benefit of Hegel's master/slave concept, according to Ralph Peters.

We, the fortunate, created Trump when we failed to shake the hand of the repairman.

It's important, you see to treat everyone as if they matter. Or, if you prefer, there is Sartre and Camus. Good faith, to the Existentialists, is the imperative to consciously choose. But if the political system radically restricts and constrains the choices, what is a poor schmuck to do?

But when the constraints become intolerable — when the walls close in — the individual of character rebels, despite the consequences. 

 Of course, that's what Black Lives Matter is saying. And the Bernie guys. And every "peaceful protester." They are all saying: "I'm getting screwed, and I'm not going to take it any more." Therefore force. So why not the Donald leading the white working class to the Promised Land on a hope and a prayer?

Call it the Gospel of Force, the good news that you can solve your life problem with a nice little application of muscle, à la Melissa Click.

As I keep saying, the sorrow of the white working class is nothing new. The economic history of the last 500 years has been one economic revolution after another. And though humans as a whole benefited enormously from each revolution, there were always those that got hammered. The agricultural revolution "hurled" the rural proletariat on the labor market. The textile revolution hammered the putting-out hand textile industry. The railroads hammered the coaching industry. The illuminating oil industry hammered the whalers.

The problem is that each industry in its heyday starts to think that the sun rises and sets on it. The classic line is from David Copperfield's boss Mr. Spenlow, member of the monopolistic Doctors Commons that had the inside track on wills and divorces in early 19th century England. Touch Doctors Commons, said Spenlow, and you bring down the country.

That's what they are saying about "manufacturing" in the US these days. And it's true. Manufacturing jobs, and many others are fleeing the United States for the factories of China and office jobs are fleeing for the call centers of India. The sugar jobs in Marco Rubio's Florida would be fleeing to subsidy-crazed Brazil and Thailand if it weren't for tariffs and quotas keeping the Everglades sugared.

Yes, but. John Hinderaker at Powerline reminds us of the real choices.

Which is a better job, designing the new sensors that will keep cars from crashing into each other, or snapping the same two pieces together on an assembly line two hundred times a day every day of the year? Creating a new computer chip to maximize gas mileage, or screwing on door handles all day long? I say, good luck to the Mexicans and Chinese with those rote assembly jobs. Within our lifetimes, they will mostly be done by robots.

For a while after World War II, with the help of big labor unions and big government and big business in collusion, the US was able to pay big bucks to unskilled workers snapping two pieces together on the assembly line. But then the dam broke, especially when China gave up Marxist economics and went full Adam Smith. The unionized, cartelized big auto and big steel corporations were dead meat. Their rigid work rules and hidebound management could not respond to the challenge of Japan and China. So they cratered.

Because the auto and steel companies were unionized and cartelized and favorite sons of the government they got to tell their story to a sympathetic audience. Right now, of course, coal miners are losing their jobs as a direct consequence of Obama administration policy and nobody cares. We do not hear their wailing like we heard about manufacturing jobs. And I well remember in the aftermath of the energy crisis of the 1970s how the gas stations on every corner started going out of business, replaced by self-service company-owned high-volume stations. Nobody cared.

Capitalism is creative destruction, a constant turmoil of business creation and business destruction. There's a lot government can do to help business creation and to assist the victims of business destruction. But probably the worst thing government can do is shower any business sector with subsidies and privileges. Because that only gives the incumbents a sense of privilege and makes the eventual decline the harder to bear.

And then, when the former "little darlings" face their inevitable decline, they look for a Bernie Sanders or a Donald Trump to lash out at the system on their behalf.

And the rest of us stand around in judgment, asking how the government, or the GOP was stupid enough to let it all happen. After all, they shoulda known.

Can Trump Win? We Don't Know

After pretty well clearing the board on Super Tuesday, Donald Trump will have to be the nominee of the Republican Party. Or else mayhem.

It does no good for Jim Geraghty to assert, in his daily email, that the GOP cannot be unified under Trump. That is what people always say at this stage of the game.

But that is why we have elections and conventions and speeches and all the froo-fra of politics. At the end of the process you have a winner, validated by the process.

It is time to stop worrying about who wins the nomination. It is time to start thinking about who wins the election.

On the one hand the polls tell us that Trump has big negatives. On the other hand we have people like the American Spectator's George Neumayr walking around New York City and finding that a lot of people you would think of as Democrats find him interesting.

A black man walking his daughter to school came over to me one morning and asked, “Where can I get that hat?” He was eager to pick one up and vote for Trump. He explained that he doesn’t typically vote Republican but liked Trump for his crafty business sense.

Trump's signature issues are immigration and trade. The Democrats like to frame immigration as a race issue: you are a racist if you oppose immigration. But any fool can see that immigration is an issue that divides voters mainly down the line of whether you have family that wants to immigrate. If your family has all immigrated then you probably think that immigrants compete for your job. If you still have family waiting for green cards then you want more immigration.

Up to now Democrats have framed immigration as a race issue. No doubt Trump will try to frame it as a jobs issue. He might also successfully frame illegal immigration as a rule of law issue.

Trade is probably a wash. Both Trump and the Democratic nominee will be against free trade, because as everyone knows, free trade outsources jobs to China.

The thing is that Donald Trump, because he is a celebrity, has a better chance to define himself for the election than any recent GOP presidential nominee. And he is pretty aggressive about defining himself. I suspect that Hillary Clinton will find it difficult to deal with him.

For instance, if I were Donald Trump I would say, every day from now to the election, that I couldn't understand any president doing a dumb thing like setting up my own email server. Anyone that knows anything about computers knows that a private email server is an open invitation to hackers. And I'd say that I couldn't understand anyone that would come up with such a tawdry lie over Benghazi. In other words I would be raising the issue that Hillary Clinton just doesn't love America.

But one thing is clear. Win or lose, Donald Trump has changed the Republican Party forever. That is the real beef of the #NeverTrump folks at National Review and the business and political elite at Sea Island. If Trump is nominated, and especially if he wins in November, the parties will have been shuffled from the 50-50 red-state blue-state standoff of the last two decades.

The point is that every ruling class like stability. They like to be able to control events and deal with the same people and manipulate the same political dials and levers. But every few years the old order gets shuffled. And obviously any shuffle means that the current ruling class is going to take a hit.

That's where we are in 2016 and nobody knows what will wash out in November.

Kevin Williamson is Wrong About the White Working Class

The chaps at National Review have gone pedal-to-the-metal against Trump. A recent example is my man Kevin D. Williamson's Father-Führer piece in the magazine. You can see the gist of the article here.

Kevin's idea is that it's the white working class's own bloody fault that, as Michael A. Cooper Jr. writes, and I agree, they are "dying of despair." Even the white working class has "moral responsibilities," according to Kevin.

Aha! There's that word: "responsibilities."

You see, according to my reductive Three Peoples theory, the white working class are People of the Subordinate Self, like serfs and slaves down the ages. This means that individual working class people do not experience themselves as responsible to themselves or to God for their lives.

On the contrary, they believe in sheltering under the protection of a powerful lord, or politician, or union boss. For them, that is the way to survive in this world. And most humans down the ages have believed the same.

Here is what the goddess Fricka thinks about serfs and peasants in Die Wälkure. The word is "Knecht" in German.

But I bring you a miracle. About 3,000 years ago humans started to believe the remarkable notion that they were not merely "die Knechte Gottes" the slaves of the gods and the Big Man of the village but individuals that could understand the world and do something about it. In that case they were responsible for doing something about it. That's what all the Axial Age religions are all about according to Robert Bellah in "Religious Evolution."

Now, in my view, the transition from subordination to responsibility is necessarily intermediated by religion. You cannot advance from membership of the People of the Subordinate Self and graduate to the exalted realm of the People of the Responsible Self without becoming Judaized or Hinduized or Christianized. The point about the white working class is that they have not made the transition. They minds were never melted in the crucible of Christianity.

In my view the way to experience this truth for yourself is to read George Eliot's Adam Bede set in 1800. The hero Adam Bede is a carpenter (!) and a Methodist and the heroine is the transcendent Methodist lay preacher Dinah Morris. So you can see that they come after the Great Awakening that stirred the masses in England and in colonial North America. My favorite quote about this is from Finke and Stark's The Churching of America. They quote a preacher active in the Great Awakening.

When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of ages—they seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings, and that a refusal to use the means appointed was a damning sin.

See what I mean? Just in case you don't get the point I have bolded the important words.

Now, what Kevin D. Williamson is saying that the behavior of the white working class is a "damning sin." But the problem is that the white workers are still dead to the world in the "sleep of ages." They have not yet woken up to see that they are "responsible beings." And until you have woken up and become a responsible being you have no clue that you are refusing "to use the means appointed." So Kevin is missing the point.

But that is not the end of the story. On my reading of society, every group that entered into the city used the means appointed to deal with the fact that the city demands that you act responsibly. It demands that you figure out how to contribute to the city economy rather than idle around on some great lord's estate until the steward comes around and tells you what to do. Yet somehow the white working class came to the city and didn't learn this lesson.

How come? The answer is obvious. Liberals. Well, not just liberals but the whole leftist movement from communists to socialists to progressives.

The left movement told the working class that it did not need to learn the culture of responsibility. It could continue to slumber in the sleep of ages as subordinate peasants, as the subordinate servants of the leftist avant garde. The promotion of labor unions meant that workers did not need to go forth themselves to negotiate with the world and keep updating their skills and work to excel. No, the union would take care of them. The enacting of social insurance legislation meant that the working class did not need to learn about savings and looking out for the future. No, a wise and evolved elite would do that for them, and all they needed to do was to vote for progressive politicians.

Only, of course, the day came when the progressive elite tired of the white working class and decided that the grievances of African Americans and women and gays and Hispanics were much more important. So they tossed the white working class to the side of the road and marched onward to bend the arc of history to racial and sexual equality.

This is the one little problem about selling your birthright for a mess of pottage. Eventually you lose both your birthright and your mess of pottage. The truth is that if you are one of the People of the Subordinate Self you will find, one fine day, that you have been abandoned by your lord, when you are no longer useful to him.

That, in my view, is the story of the English peasant. As late as the Wars of the Roses the peasants were useful to their lords because they could be used in their baronial armies. You can see, in Shakespeare's Wars of the Roses plays, that each baron had "our powers" that he could bring to the battlefield. But then the Tudors disarmed the nobles and destroyed their castles. Instead they created a nation state and a national army. Correlation is not causation, but at the same time their armies were being disbanded the nobles got into the idea of "improvement," of improving their estates by drainage and enclosure. And they kicked the surplus labor force off the land. By the end of the 16th century the surplus population was enough of a problem that the political system decided to "do something" about it. The result was the Elizabethan Poor Law. For 200 years the poor slowly starved on this welfare program until the industrial revolution suddenly put them all to work.

Now we have the white working class in exactly the same position. Nobody needs their labor; nobody needs their votes. Sayonara, pal.

I am not a chap to be shy about reductive theories. Attached to my reductive Three Peoples theory, with its People of the Suborinate Self, its People of the Responsible Self, and its People of the Creative Self, is what I call the "little darlings" problem, here and here.

The idea is that once you become the little darling of the ruling class then you are toast. You lose the ability to live life without the fatherly assistance of the great lord. The English peasant was once the little darling of the warrior nobles, until the nobles didn't need him any more. The worker was the little darling of the educated ruling class until the educated ruling class decided that blacks and women were much funner.

So the white working class is toast, unless it gets religion and wakes up from the sleep of ages and realizes that each and every one is a responsible being. But that is not the end of the story.

What about African Americans? What happens to these current little darlings of the liberals when the liberals tire of them?

What about women? What happens to the special snowflakes in their safe spaces when the ruling class tires of them?

You can see the point. Whatever the rulers say, the rulers really do not care about people like you. They only care about your vote, or using you as a pawn in their games of power. Right now, people all over the place are shocked, shocked, at the way that Donald Trump is bewitching the white working class into believing that Trump cares about people like them.

So what's the difference between Trump and Obama?  Obama, who bewitched a generation with Hope and Change. Or Bill Clinton who promised, as the economy came out of a mild recession, to fix "the worst economy in the last 50 years."

The fact is that if you become the little darling of the ruling class you are setting yourself up for misery, like any hot young woman that sells her pneumatic youth to some sugar daddy.

To avoid the fate of little darlings down the ages, of People of the Subordinate Self that got left by the roadside, you have first to become like Adam Bede or Dinah Morris and join the People of the Responsible Self.

There is no shame, Kevin D. Williamson, in being a member of the OxyContin white working class. But there is no future in it, either.