Here is Why MSM Is Not Serious

There is a piece up at CNN worrying about how "Democrats face their own powerlessness." But look at the assumption behind the following paragraph:

The party has no clear successor to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton who can speak with one voice for the party. And there is no consensus yet on a strategy to thwart Trump's legislative agenda -- or even how to prioritize the issues they plan to challenge him on.

Erm. Do not the Democrats and CNN realize that they lost the presidential election, and are minorities in the House and the Senate? And we will not talk about state governors and legislatures.

When you lose the White House and are the minority in Congress you are really not in a position to "thwart Trump's legislative agenda" any more than Republicans could thwart Obamacare in 2009-10. You can attempt to guide the majority's legislation into channels more comfortable to you. That is all.

Oh, I see the Democrats' problem. They are the nation's ruling-class party and so they kinda assume that it is their agenda that must be the basis of governance and legislation. It is offensive for them to deal with the fact that the people have elected the other party to power. That's not the way the world is supposed to work.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said -- and Barack Obama repeated -- the arc of history is long and it bends towards justice.

That's a very profound-sounding notion, but it misses out a lot. The point is that different people have rather different ideas of justice, and rather different ideas of how to get there. For the last century an educated administrative, cultural elite has been the ruling class and it has enforced its idea of how to bend the arc of history towards justice.

Chaps like me think that the ideas of the educational/administrative/cultural elite are all wet -- when they are not directly cruel and unjust -- and that history has shown that following its agenda does not bend the arc of history towards justice but to something rather different.

I like to use Coming Apart by Charles Murray at this point. He argues that the rule of the educated elite has been rather beneficial to the 25 percent of people in America in the political/cultural/economic elite. They have good satisfying jobs, successful merger marriages with little divorce, good children that do well in life. But life for the middle half is not so good, in the work-place and in the family. And the bottom 30 percent is decidedly in bad shape: the men don't work much and the women don't marry much.

Liberals like to argue that the leaders of the Republican Party are cynical corporate manipulators that use social issues to head fake the social conservative rubes while the corporate CEOs make piles of money. But maybe the opposite is true, where the Democratic Party is all about teachers' unions and government employee unions, and the social issues about abortion and gays is just a smokescreen to head-fake the NPR listeners and liberal faithful.

Here we are in 2017 with President Trump in the US and Brexit in the UK. Maybe, just maybe, the voters are sending a message that they don't think that the rule of the liberal/media/university elite is doing them much good.

Maybe the voters elected President Trump and a Republican Congress because they think it is time for a change.

Maybe it is time for the liberal ruling class to stop thinking about how to stop Trump and start thinking about how they could have misread the American people and misread the election, and got to their present state, where Democrats, despite owning the culture, owning the schools, owning the media, owning the universities, are facing their lowest electoral ebb since 1928.

But then maybe the liberal ruling class is right about everything and I am just a rube.

You never know.

So The Immigration Protests Were Carefully Planned

As if you didn't know, the left had carefully prepared to protest Trump's immigration actions. Here is the Daily Beast:

On the dark and cloudy morning in Brooklyn after Donald Trump’s Election Night upset, 20 members of the nonprofit Make the Road New York gathered in the conference room of their office for an all-hands emergency meeting.

Daniel Altschuler is "their director of civic engagement and research."

Can you spell AstroTurf?

Actually, according to my theory of politics, it is right and proper for the left to organize immigrants that are not legal, are not yet permanent residents, or are not yet citizens.

Because people like that do not have the vote. They are therefore not automatically considered in the councils of power. So there only recourse is the language of the streets.

And that is what the left is always looking for. The left believes in political violence; that is the left's religious faith.

But there is a problem for the left. Over the years, as the left has identified group after group of unfranchised and/or marginal people, the system has brought them into the system, by extending the franchise and enforcing civil rights.

As each group has been brought into the light the left has been forced to find new groups for whom violence and intimidation are the only ways to get respect.

When the left organized the workers they were organizing a majority of the nation. When they organized women and blacks, they organized half the nation. When they organized gays, they organized less than 3 percent of the nation. Now they are organizing immigrants and Muslims, a small minority. You could say they are running out of victims.

The natural instinct of the elected politician is to do a deal, to broker a compromise that will lower the ideological temperature. That is why, on immigration, the Washington establishment has tried to blur the issues and accede to the demands of the immigrants and their leftist organizers.

The problem is, of course, that immigrants start out in a new country by banding together for protection from the larger community, and the larger community starts to view the organized immigrants as a threat. Sometimes the migrants transform the host society. Then Normans that invaded Britain in 1066 were originally Vikings that had been harassing Normandy and the lands around the River Seine for decades. They were made into a dukedom by a Frankish king that wanted to turn them from raiders into defenders of France.

So the question for Europe and for the United States is where the nation of immigrants ends and the protection of the native population begins.

In US history a wave of immigration typically provokes a reaction to stall immigration, as the immigration wave of 1900 provoked the immigration restrictions of the 1920s.

We are presently engaged in a political battle to determine if the US will repeat the immigration restrictions of the 1920s or not. Obviously President Trump has been elected by people that are fearful of today's immigrants and want more protection from the government. The Democratic Party and the activist left has clearly chosen to champion the interest of the immigrants, legal and illegal, and to identify with Islam.

What will happen? We don't know. It all depends on how the coming battles precipitate out in the next elections, in 2018 and 2020.

If Democrats succeed in rallying the country against Trump and immigration restrictions, then immigration will go into high gear and America will be transformed. If Trump succeeds in rallying the country to build the wall and restrict family-unification immigration and sparks the economy, then Democrats will be in for a period in the wilderness until they moderate their agenda.

But right now, We Don't Know.

No, Liberals, It is not 1848, or 1963. There is No Call for Riots

I was out in liberal North Seattle, minding my own business yesterday, just minutes before the UC Berkeley riots against free speech, when I passed this little item of free speech.

Isn't it precious! Isn't this the ultimate virtue signal? You can see that it covers the whole liberal waterfront, from support of black racism to climate alarmism. But hey, that's OK. Everyone is a hypocrite, and everyone is confident in their own virtue and goodness. I can live with rich liberals in the tony part of town.

I would take issue with the notion "Science is real." That is unscientific. I've looked into this a bit and have become a complete Kantian. All we know are sense impressions; we cannot know things-in-themselves. Which means that science is just the latest human attempt to get a handle on how the world works given that we don't know things-in-themselves, the reality hiding behind our sense impressions. Is science real? Maybe, but stay tuned for the next exciting science revolution that turns our view of the world upside down.

But then I got home and the Berkeley riots against the free-speech rights of Brit Milo Yiannopoulos, his ability to speak on the UC Berkeley campus, were in full swing.

Thanks liberals. Now we know who you really are. You are the People of the Lie. Here is an example, from the statement of Berkeley mayor Jesse Arreguin. He begins:

Destruction and violence are contrary to progressive values and have no place in our community.

Sorry, old chap, but that is a bald-faced lie. The whole point of the progressive movement is that force, through politics and government, is needed to bend the arc of history towards justice.

The basic Truth that good little girls are taught in college today is that politics is a march to City Hall. I know this because I heard it direct from a good little girl in a University of Washington class on David Hume.

The whole point of a march to City Hall, or a so-called "peaceful protest," is the threat of violence. That is why they used to call the "peaceful protest" a "demonstration." You Latin scholars will know that demonstration means a show, as in show of force. It says, in no uncertain terms, that we are angry, we are many, and if we get really angry, why we will advance from a show of force to actual force. Otherwise what is the point?

As was demonstrated last night, February 1, 2017, on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley.

The basic faith of the left is that things are so bad that only revolution will resolve it.

You could have argued that revolution was needed in 1848 when rich kids Marx and Engels issued their Manifesto. The Industrial Revolution was in full swing and it looked like it was immiserating the workers and that the capitalists didn't care. In fact, the political system took note of the plight of the workers and gave them the vote and legislated various protections for workers. Meanwhile the capitalists through successive innovation revolutions enacted the Great Enrichment that gave prosperity to the poor unlike anything ever dreamed of.

Sorry liberals, it isn't 1848 any more. Although you could argue that liberal legislation has made things worse for workers, by advertising with the welfare state that life is safer and more secure than it really is. Ask the white working class that dying of despair about that.

You could have argued that revolution was needed in 1963 when Martin Luther King Jr. lead his iconic March on Washington and gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. Only the very next year the Congress passed the Civil Rights Acts enforcing full civil rights for African Americans.

Sorry liberals, it isn't 1963 any more. Although you could argue that liberal race politics has made things worse for blacks, by enslaving them on a liberal plantation in inner cities with gangs and anesthetizing welfare and Affirmative Action benefits. Ask Black Lives Matter about that.

You could, if you could hold back the snigger, argue that revolution was needed before women could get a no-fault divorce in the 1960s, and before they could get an abortion in the 1970s, and before they were able to participate in free sex courtesy of The Pill, and when women were expected to be wives and mothers and not have careers. But I don't judge this to be on the same level as the grievances of 1848-era workers and 1963-era blacks. These are not the concerns of marginalized women but well-born women of the middle class.

You could, if you really tried, argue that revolution was needed before gays could "come out" and get "married." But again, these are the concerns of well-born men and women that can afford to get creative with sex. This is not the grinding poverty of the masses that argues for "peaceful protests" and shows of force.

Meanwhile, the concerns of ordinary men and women -- for decent jobs, for decent homes and neighborhoods, for a decent education for their children  -- have been ignored and sneered at. And this is a growing and monstrous injustice.

The ordinary men and women do not choose to go into the streets with a show of force. They just want to elect representatives that will honestly represent their needs, and a president that understands and respects their problems.

Hello President Trump and the Republican Congress.

To understand the modern left I turn to Shakespeare -- who else? -- and his Wars of the Roses plays.

Huh? You will say. Just read on.

Let us just take Henry IV Part One. Part of the play, of course is the high jinks of Prince Hal and his pal Falstaff. But the guts of the play is about the rebellion of the rich kid, Harry Percy, son of the Earl of Northumberland, and other well-born rebels. They are pissed off that they are not getting enough respect from King Henry, the chap they helped put on the throne of England. And he insists that they send to the King the prisoners they captured! So they form a head of rebellion against the King. That will show him.

Fast forward to the late 20th century and the revolutionary trilogy Empire-Multitude-Commonwealth where Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri realize that the old idea of the mass-producing "masses" is a bit old hat. They need revolution on behalf of a new "multitude."

They ache after a life "in common" in a multitude that creates a social product in creative "performance" rather than mechanical mass production.

Yes, well. Don't we all. Especially the principals in La La Land. But the modern leftie isn't content with a hope for creative accomplishment. They want more.

 Like Marx and Marcuse, their worldview reduces to a lust for the moment of Kairos, the "moment when a decision of action is made ... a radical insurrectionary demand" in the streets.

Well, of course. That is what all rich kids have lusted after, from the days of the endless border wars of the hunter-gatherers down Harry Hotspur to yesterday's AntiFa rioters in Berkeley, California. Yeah! Let's take our "radical insurrectionary demand" to the streets!

The basic lie of the left is that the capitalists and the middle class and the religious believers are cruel overlords that cannot be persuaded by anything less than force. But I would argue that the history of the last 200 years, when the middle class emerged as a world-historical movement, belies the faith of the left, that only radical insurrectionary force will bend the arc of history towards justice.

It is just not true that only force will persuade the middle class. And the reason is that the middle class, from the capitalists down to the religious believers are not that interested in power. You have a problem? Come into this conference room and give us the details. Maybe we can work something out.

Why would this be true? Because in the modern era, unlike all previous eras, everything is bought and sold on the market. No longer is wealth a question of land and the food that grows on it. Wealth now issues out of the mind of man, his ability to perform services for others and exchange his labor and his innovations for money. In such a world the need for force shrinks radically. Because it is almost always cheaper to negotiate and compromise on the differences between man and man rather than fight it out on the streets.

So what is the left all worked up about? I will tell you.

Much of what the left has achieved over the last century and more has been achieved with force: not always direct military force, but the force of political will rather than compromise and good will. So the left is terrified that any political change will bring all their "gains" into question.

They are right to fear that. They should have thought about that before they put their faith in politics and in force. Live by the sword of politics, die by the sword of politics.

But really they should not worry too much. That is because, here in America, the great middle class of racists, sexists, homophobes, and deplorables is just not that interested in power.

Will Trump/Bannon End in Ruin?

Today Jonah Goldberg writes that President Trump is following the Bannon way of politics and it will all end in ruin.

The Bannon Way might work on the campaign trail, but it doesn’t translate into good governance.

The problem is that Democrats have been going the Bannon way since Al Gore un-conceded the 2000 presidential election, and every Subaru Outback for the next four years sported a "Redefeat Bush" bumper sticker. You could say that smash-mouth politics is in their DNA because Democrats all, more or less, believe in the religion of activism, to "peacefully protest" their grievances in marches and demonstrations. That means, in the word of President Obama, getting in their faces and punching back twice as hard.

For as long as I can remember Republicans and conservatives have decided not to go the punching back way, because well, because we should resolve our differences peacefully.

I don't know how that works out for Republican politicians and notables, including media notables like Jonah Goldberg, but clearly, over the last eight years, the conservative base has had it.

That's what the Tea Party was about. That's what the 2010 election was about. That is what the 2014 election was about. And that is what all the talk about RINOs and squishes and GOPe and cuckservatives has been about.

In the 2016 presidential election, we saw, the only candidates that got traction were the ones promising to take it to the Washington establishment. Only the guy that thought he was going to get the anti-establishment vote, Ted Cruz, came up short because Donald Trump was much better playing the role of the anti-establishment candidate.

So now we have Donald Trump as president and he is going for the establishment 24-7. Which is pretty well what his supporters were voting for.

Will it work? Nobody knows. All we know is that the old collegiate Republican party got hornswaggled by the liberal/Democrat/activist activist machine.

But here are a few ideas from my reading about conflict to give you hope.

First of all, the importance of acting. In the Franco-Prussian War the subaltern Prussian officers had been trained to a culture of acting now. It got them into a number of problems tactically, but it didn't stop them from winning the battles and the war. Ever since, military culture has moved more and more towards pushing responsibility for action down to the lowest level possible. Right through World War II the Germans were the leaders in this.

Second, the OODA loop, invented by US Col. John Boyd. OODA means Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, and then repeat. That is what every economic or political or economic or military actor does. But the key is to do it faster than the opposition. That is how you will battles, wars, market share, and elections. By running your OODA loop faster than the opposition so that they are confused about what is happening and why.

Now, Jonah Goldberg is worried about the reckless way in which Donald Trump, advised by Steve Bannon, launched into the "Muslim Ban" without proper preparation and consultation. And he may be right. But the OODA loop philosophy says that you shouldn't worry too much about getting things right the first time. The important thing is to act, and get ahead of your opposition.

And really, what in the world is Goldberg thinking when he writes about "good governance." There is no such thing as good governance, certainly not in a big government society where government chews up 35-40 percent of GDP to hand out to its followers. Government is a train wreck, always and everywhere. That is why it is important for people trying to deal with government to act, and act fast, in the knowledge that the government blob is slow to act and react.

Nobody knows how all this will turn out. All we know is that the old way wasn't working and that the GOP base and the Trump voters despaired of the old way and wanted someone to get in the face of the establishment and tell 'em to put it where the sun don't shine.

Car Crash Politics

If we go back to the day before the presidential election of 2000 we can see that the two political parties in the US were both trying to stake out the center ground. Democrats were the New Democrats of the Clinton era. Republicans were the "compassionate conservatives" of George W. Bush.

Obviously, that era is over. Instead of Clinton's promise to end welfare as we know it, triangulating the Republicans on welfare, we have Donald Trump doing a Macchiavellian forced march to get his entire agenda done in the first weeks of power. And we have Democrats erupting over Trump's first immigration initiative.

Obviously President Trump's shock and awe rollout was carefully planned. Someone decided that Trump had to get his agenda going before the Democrats had time to get organized. Obviously the Democrats' immediate response to Trump's immigration pause was carefully planned. Reducing immigration destroys the Democrats' strategy to replace today's America with a new nation of immigrants that will vote Democrat for a generation or two.

Both sides in the political wars are deciding that they have to go for broke. You can see how that makes sense for both sides.

For Republicans the "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush years turned into a bust. A bipartisan No Child Left Behind education effort with Sen. Ted Kennedy failed because Republicans compromised on more spending but got stiffed on school choice. The Iraq invasion, a continuation of the bipartisan "regime change" policy, fell apart after Democrats got redirected by their anti-war faction.

For Democrats the whole New Democrat era was a massive frustration, because Democrats live for big new programs, universal health care, climate change, bending the arc of history towards justice for all the marginalized and oppressed of the world.

So when Democrats retook Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 they went for broke. They didn't say they were going to do that. They didn't have to. They just needed to let their activists go to work and let the media nod it through. And anyone that objected was a racist, sexist, homophobe, or a denier.

The only problem with the Democrats going for broke was that it immediately provoked push back. First there was the Tea Party in 2009. Then there was the flip of the House in 2010. Then there was the flip of the Senate in 2014. Now we have the most Republican national government since 1928. Obviously, someone out there in the hinterlands ain't happy.

Notice the difference between the two movements. The Democratic push to the left was driven by its activist core that is connected to its leaders in Washington by ties of patronage in the vast administrative state and the activist community.

But the Republican push to the right was a genuine populist rebellion that took the GOP establishment by surprise. It was telling that House Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke of the Tea Party as astroturf. Of course it was; all Democratic activist groups are astroturf, so Nance assumed that the same was true of right-wing activism. But it wasn't. It was earnest middle-class people doing their earnest civic thing.

The populist rebellion wanted leaders that would fight back against the Democratic administrative state and political correctness. But how? The whole GOP establishment was reared on the idea of go along to get along with the liberal power structure. As blogger Mencius Moldbug writes, the Democrats are the Inner Party; they get to rule when in power. The Republicans are the Outer Party; they get to govern when in office.

But where would the Republican populists get a leader they wanted: a man who would take the fight right down the Democrats' throat?

Amazing isn't it, that Donald Trump should turn out to be that man. Who woulda thunk it?

Obviously, nobody knows how this will turn out. Both parties have stopped circling each other; each is driving right at the other. It is going to end in a mighty car crash.

The only thing to hope for is that the crash doesn't end up as a real shooting civil war.

Democrats are Chained to Their Activist Base

Democratic activists are totally pissed off that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has voted for three of Trump's nominees.

But President Trump is pissed off that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is slow walking his nominees, with the confirmation rate way behind the confirmation of President Obama's nominees in 2009.

And the word is that the battle over President Trump's first Supreme Court will go nuclear, with Democrats filibustering until Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) changes the rules and eliminates the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees.

And of course left-wing activists have surged to the nation's airports to protest Trump's immigration executive order.

I'll bet that, in his heart, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would be quite happy to deal with President Trump; that's what politicians are like in their heart of hearts. They happily do deals with each other to spend the taxpayers' money.

And that is what most Americans believe in their heart of hearts. If you put a group of Americans into a room to solve a political problem they will solve it by giving everyone a piece of the action.

But then we have the revolutionary tradition of the left. It believes in "resistance," in "direct action," in "peaceful protest." And all the other deceptive words in the left's lexicon. It thinks that the only way to bend the arc of history towards justice is through politics. And politics is civil war by other means. And that is the point of the leftist code words like protest and resistance. It is a show of force; it argues that, unless you concede to us, we will make the streets run with blood.

As I have written before, we had a left that thought that street action was going to transform America 50 years ago. Inspired by chaps like Herbert Marcuse, the left flooded the streets and rioted and rampaged.

But the result was not what the left expected. The American people hated the street action and elected Richard Nixon, twice. Then they elected Ronald Reagan, twice.

After losing three elections in a row the Democrats decided to nominate a man that presented himself as a centrist, a New Democrat. Bill Clinton got elected in 1992 and got reelected in 1996.

But after George W. Bush got elected by a hair Democrats restarted the activist machine. And, what with the failures of the Iraq War and the Crash of 2008, Democrat Barack Obama got elected with big majorities in Congress. And community organizer President Obama encouraged the activists to activize. (Daughter Malia recently attended a protest against the Dakota Access pipeline. Daddy's daughter.)

The question is whether the American people are going to react against the new wave of left-wing activism and resistance the way they did in the 1970s and 1980s.

The answer is: We Don't Know. That is why we have elections.

But we have a clue. After Obama comes President Trump. A Republican Senate. A Republican House. Tons of Republican governors. A lot of Republican state legislatures Somewhere in there I think that Americans are sending their leaders a message.

But we really don't know what the American people think. But we will get another clue in the 2018 midterms and again in the 2020 presidential elections. Until then, everything is fake news and poll-tested talking points.

Silly Scientists Don't Know From Science

Of course, the very idea of a Scientists' March on Washington is an oxymoron. Science doesn't care about politics; it says, with Galileo, Eppur si muove, and yet it moves, whatever you political and religious chaps say. These scientists are like the officials of the physicists' union in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams: "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."

The brilliance of that statement never ceases to amaze me.

Anyway, I decided to take a look at the website of the Scientists' March on Washington. Because I reckoned that, being silly liberals, they were bound to have bollixed things up. And I was right.

There are only three paragraphs on the website. But what a bunch of baloney.

Slashing funding and restricting scientists from communicating their findings (from tax-funded research!) with the public is absurd and cannot be allowed to stand as policy. 

Er, no. The modern research university was invented by the Prussians in the Napoleonic Era. The idea was to strengthen the state, to use and develop knowledge to make the German lands strong enough to end the hegemony of France. Ever since, science has been a creature of the state, and scientists have ever been willing to spend taxpayers' money on whatever the ruling class wanted. Bombs and airplanes to help the state fight its wars? No problem. Social sciences to help the government regulate and control the populace? No problem. Dodgy computer models to assist the global ruling class in its climate change hysteria? Yes, siree.

When you sign up with the devil, scientists, you have to dance to the devil's tune. But you would know that; you are scientists.

Here's another beauty:

There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives.  The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action.

Oh dear, oh dear. Ain't you scientists ever read (or heard about) David Hume? That philosopher argued that we cannot know cause and effect; we can only know correlations. You can never say that "this" caused "that." Because Hume.

We do not know that the Earth is becoming warmer due to human action. We have a) a temperature record going back about a century and a half that tells us that the Earth is warmer now that it was then, and we have b) a theory that the increase in temperature is due to the increase in so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor. That is all. The temperature record may or may not be accurate. The theory may or may not be valid. Period. That is all that science can say; all the rest is politics.

Here's another one:

The diversity of life arose by evolution. 

Don't you scientist chaps realize that a statement like that is equivalent to the statement that God made the world in seven days, or that the Universe started with the Big Bang. All three statements are creation myths. They are not science. But they are very useful ways of making a statement about what we believe life, the universe, and everything to be, to summarize the Story So Far.

For my money the two things to remember are these:

First, science is a social endeavor. There is a community of scientists, as argued by Thomas H. Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. And the community tends to enforce the current model of how the world works. Just like right now where you better not raise your head in the scientific community if you have a problem with climate science as practiced by the scientific establishment. Not if you know what is good for you and your career in science.

Instead, Kuhn argued that science was a battle between normal science and revolutionary science. La Wik:

Normal scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science.

We have come to call these periods of interruption the "paradigm shift." So the fact that 97 percent of scientist believe in climate change and that activists declare climate skeptics as "deniers" means nothing. The question is: does the current "normal science" of climate change do the job of predicting what is going on? The fact is that the community of normal scientists will go on practicing the normal science that believes in the notion of global warming by greenhouse gases until the paradigm is overturned by another theory.

All this goes back to the basic claim of Immanuel Kant, who responded to Hume's skepticism with a new view of science and knowledge. Kant argued that we only know sense impressions; we cannot know things-in-themselves. What we do is process the sense impressions to construct a world view that makes sense of the sense impressions, and is good enough to be a basis for successful action in the world.

This may seem limiting and a cop-out. I believe that the opposite is true, because once you say we don't know what lies behind it all then you have prepared your mind to think innovative thoughts, such as the idea that space is curved, and that the microscopic world is strange thing of wave-like quanta.

The marching scientists are still stuck in the Enlightenment paradigm that reason is all. But they have never read lefties Horkheimer and Adorno and their Dialectic of Enlightenment. These two lefty rich kids understood that reason is domination, not enlightenment. As I have wriitten:

Instrumental reason, the Enlightenment, write Horkheimer and Adorno, is a dance of domination, domination over nature and domination over man. "What men want to learn from nature is how to dominate it and other men."

Today's dance of domination is an argument about whether we men want to dominate nature or dominate each other, or both. As Lenin said: Who Whom, or кто кого.

But I get the rage of the scientists. Here is Donald Trump giving them a cold that is like to ruin their filibuster. How dare, how dare the American people elect a man like that to be President of the United States!