African Americans: Please Don't Go into the Wilderness

The whole cunning plan of leftism, since its invention in the 1840s, is to hive off groups of people in nation states into a different loyalty.

The idea is to persuade those newly-arrived in the city that they don't belong with the city folk and shouldn't try. They should instead establish a separate identity, under the kindly leadership of the local lefty rich kids.

This is a very bad idea, and has brought death to something like 100 million humans and misery to countless more.

The best thing for the country folk newly arrived in the city is to learn city ways and the city culture of responsible individualism. But the leaders of the city poor have preferred to appeal to their country tribalism, and teach them to believe that the resident city folk have it in for them, and that the prosperity of the city folk is based on exploiting the poor suffering worker. But not to worry, the rich-kid leaders will make the bloody bourgeoisie pay up. (Bourgeoisie is French for city folk).

After the left had had their evil way with the working class they went on to segregate women and minorities away from the city folk; women from marriage and children, and non-whites from whites.

The left has been particularly successful in segregating blacks from the common herd. Something like 90 percent of blacks vote for Democrats, the party of rich kids and the marginalized. But the next favorite minority group, Hispanics, only voted 66 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

It is not the purpose of this article to inquire why this might be so.

I don't know whose idea it was, but in the last two years of the Obama administration someone decided to angry up blacks after a stupid black thug in Ferguson, Missouri, got himself shot by a policeman after he robbed a convenience store. The consequence is that, in cities where Black Lives Matter activism is strongest, murder is up big time and 20 percent in the US overall in the last two years. The reason is simple. In cities where Black Lives Matter activism is influential the police have stopped using the broken windows/data-driven/CompStats policing strategy that aggressively targets gang-associated thugs. So black thugs kill other black thugs, and liberals know that the reason is racism.

But people are idiots, and so if you are a Democrat you believe that Black Lives Matter and that police are targeting and harassing young blacks. Now black NFL players have got into the action. Of course they have; they are just following the Zeitgeist like 97.2 percent of the rest of us do.

But I plead with our African American friends not to follow this folly and wander out into the political wilderness. Don't let the politicians and the activists run your life. They don't care about you; they only care about your vote.

And I think that in the near future we will see a sea change in the nation's politics. I expect that Hispanics and Asians will move into the Republican Party as they become solid middle class and think of themselves as "whites." The thing about Hispanics and Asians is that they don't have "white guilt." Hispanics, according to opinion polls, think that blacks are lazy. I suspect there will come a time where Hispanics and Asians will unconsciously want to differentiate themselves from the struggling lower orders, as those newly arrived in the middle class tend to do. And struggling lower orders for them will be blacks.

I also expect that the next generation of Democratic politicians will be unattractive to the broad middle class. When the Nancy Pelosis and Chuck Schumers finally retire, white pajama boys like Jon Ossoff and hard-left minority politicians like Tom Perez just aren't going to appeal to the broad middle of America.

The bottom line is that if you want to wive and thrive in the modern world you need to learn the cultural code of responsible individualism, the creed of the middle class. Otherwise you will just be the shock troops in some politician's political army, and when you are no longer useful the politicians will leave you by the roadside to wither away and die.

And the only way for African Americans to finally get their full and deserved membership in the great American nation is to stop the left-wing protest rubbish and just get with the program, the program of the middle class and its culture of responsible individualism.

There is no other way.

Of Course Trump is "Divisive"

All the liberal media is united: President Trump's tweets criticizing the NFL players "taking a knee" during the national anthem are "divisive."

Well, of course it is! Politics is about winning elections, and that means dividing the electorate. You can do it with a scalpel, or do it with an ax.

That's why I have my catch-phrase: Politics is Division. Actually I think a more accurate catch-phrase would be: Politics is the Art of Division.

The question is whether President Trump is a skilled divider or a clumsy one. That is all.

Democrats perhaps are inclined to believe that Trump is an evil divider. Maybe they are right. But maybe they really have no clue how evil and divisive their politics of race and sex is.

For instance, I assume that the NFL players are taking a knee because Black Lives Matter, and young black men are getting killed all over, especially by white cops.

Only, as Jill Leovy wrote in Ghettoside, things are a bit more complicated than that. The basic problem is that when a gangbanger kills someone in the 'hood, the prosecutors can't get witnesses to testify because the gangs intimidate them. So the black residents are angry that the guilty go free. The cops compensate by arresting young hoodlums for minor offenses, for which the cops can testify. But the black residents are mad about that too, because they don't like the police harassing them in their daily lives.

What's a mother to do? Well, when I was a juror in a case where a young black guy had been brought up on some minor offense with cops the only witnesses, the solution was simple. We looked to the one black woman on the jury to find out which way she was going to vote. Guilty, she said. So we honkies agreed with her. Go along to get along, as the saying goes.

The problem is that liberals are idiots. Here's an example. The Guardian is all wigged out that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because too many women voted with their husbands than for the "First Woman President." And that is what academic "surveys show."

The key distinction, according to [Oregon State University Assistant Professor] Kretschmer’s research, is that single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, while women married to men vote on behalf of their husbands and families …

 No kidding, Sherlock! And it really is monstrous that married women should be looking at the larger picture, that what matters is that their husband has a good job which helps support them and their children to raise the odds that the kids will get out of the nest and go on to wive and thrive in their turn.

The intriguing thing about the left's folly is that they don't seem to realize that their unmarried, unchild-centered world where "women cast votes with the fate of all women in mind" is going to go straight down the toilet, because the bottom line for human society is not to bend the arc of history towards justice but, as Black Swan guy Nassim Nicholas Taleb says, to bend the arc of history towards Survival.

Because if women don't have babies and raise them to maturity there won't be a tomorrow.

Because only if you and yours survive unto the next generation, only then you can start to worry about justice.

Except that, as I say, there is no such thing as justice. Only injustice.

Meanwhile the results are in on President Trump's political division operation on the NFL. By 64-25 percent, the American people think that "NFL players should stand and be respectful during the national anthem."

The thing about Donald Trump is that he is doing things that nobody on the right dared to do. Nobody dared to take on the liberal cultural hegemony and tell that dominatory hierarchy to put it where the sun don't shine. And that's because up till yesterday, politicians on the right knew that they simply could not win in such a fight. Because as the old saying had it, you don't pick a fight with a guy that buys ink by the barrel.

The thing about sayings is that they are true until they are no longer true. I suppose the old saying has now been replaced with a new one, that you don't pick a fight with a guy that buys his bytes by the billion.

Maybe that's why liberals have been amping up their hate machine these last years and calling everyone "haters." They don't like losing their cultural hegemony, and so they are trying to shut everyone up with naming and shaming while they still can.

Anyway, as I wrote a year ago about the time of the Republican National Convention: "All I Know is that Gentlemanly Conservatism is Dead."

Was I right, or was I right?

Yes, Just What Is "Fascism?"

I don't know if you have noticed, but our lefty friends have been getting very free with their accusations of "fascism" lately.

Oh, I know. It really doesn't mean anything. It is just lefties amping up the volume on their pejorative-spouting machine. It doesn't mean anything more than the vile accusation of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and hate.

By the way, I just read a beautiful definition of leftism, on Taki Magazine.

Leftism is hatred in the name of love.

Isn't that absolutely right on?

So back to fascism. The reason I feel authorized to write on what lefties mean by fascism, is that I've been reading a very readable review of the Frankfurt School, meaning mainly Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. It's The Frankfurt School by Zoltán Tar. H & A write about fascism as though "everybody knows what fascism means" without actually defining it in a way that is helpful to me, a sinner. They write about the "authoritarian personality" of the typical middle-class person, or of fascism as the "highest stage of capitalism." This is how Freud and Marx twist peoples' minds into pretzels.

So here goes:

Fascism is what you get when the middle class can't take it any more.

Fascism is what you get after World War I when the government finances of Germany and Austria and Italy were ruined by the war, and the politicians and the experts didn't have the guts to make the necessary spending cuts to put their national finances in order.

Actually, that is not fair to the politicians and experts. They know very well that the voters will punish them if ever they enact spending cuts. So they don't. They just wreck the nation and the economy with inflation because that is the easy way out.

Incidentally, that is why I demand the end of all government social insurance programs. If you have a financial crisis, such as the aftermath of a war, you can't prune back the government spending on social insurance, because of "the children" and so you end up wrecking the economy and forcing mothers of four into prostitution to keep food on the table. Yeah, that really is you might call "doing it for the children."

But eventually the middle class can't take it any more, and that is when they vote for a man on a white horse.

There is nothing shameful of outrageous about this. It is what any animal does when it is cornered. It strikes out, knowing instinctively that one alternative is certain death while the other alternative is only probable death.

That is what the German people did with Hitler. Inflation had wiped out their savings, and the Weimar regime couldn't seem to get its act together. Then the incompetence of the US Federal Reserve System led to the Great Depression. But along came Hitler blaming the Jews and the DolchStoß, the stab-in-the-back at the end of World War I. Oh yeah! That was what had caused the problem.

Well, now we have the immigration and the Muslim problem in Europe, and the ordinary people don't like it, and the ruling class is saying shut up or you will lose your job convicted of hate speech.

Obviously that kind of politics is not going to end well.

At some point, the middle class is going to say that they can't take it any more.

But the lefties, they see the growth of Alternativ für Deutschland and Front National and UKIP and Trumpism as the end of life as we know it.

So to lefties any return to nationalism is fascism, straight up.

Actually, I think the lefties made a grand-strategic error when they turned against the nation state. The  fact is that the nation state is the most successful model for organizing humans into a large political unit, based on the fiction of a national "tribe" united by its language and its totally fake common history. Lefties coulda been a  contender if they had made their peace with the nation state.

The point is that all this hyper-ventilation is utter baloney. The fascists are like any political party. They operate on the universal truth of politics: Politics is Division. You unite your supporters by dividing them from some other group. It could be foreigners, or radicals, or different races, or greedy bankers, or Jews or immigrants or Muslims. But that is how everyone does it. That is what our US liberals are doing with their identity politics; they are dividing America up by race and sex and sexual preference. The trick is to present the divisiveness of your own side as the very epitome of good thinking and the divisiveness of the other side that the most horrible extreme hard-right white supremacy ever.

See why "leftism is hate in the name of love?"

Now let us examine the turn to fascism in the light of my reductive Three Peoples theory, because all roads lead to the Three Peoples theory.

On my theory, the people that end up voting for the fascists are the ordinary middle class trying to live as People of the Responsible Self. But the aftermath of World War I, or the travails of the white working class, or the Venezuelan moms-for-hire in Colombia means that the ordinary people of the middle class cannot live as law-abiding People of the Responsible Self. The bottom has dropped out of the world of responsibility and reciprocity; the rules have changed. Now they must lie and cheat and prostitute themselves in order to put bread on the table. So they vote for a man on a white horse that promises to end the lefty hate in the name of love.

Really, this is only hard for those that will not see. I am talking about readers of The New York Times and their ilk.

Who Will Be Thrown Out Of the Dems Next?

A reader just sent me a puzzler. He agreed with my notion of "Fake Protest." But then what?

[W]hat to do about the throngs of self-proclaimed anarchist or anarcho-communists (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one), who state that ANY hierarchy is oppressive and need be subverted in order to empower the individual?  

He continues:

I find these types most frustrating of all since they are ostensibly fighting for the same general concept as me, a libertarian, but in practice walk and quack like standard-issue authoritarians.  As infuriating as these people can be, I think they represent an opportunity as recruits in the ongoing battle of individualists vs collectivists.

The frustrating thing for him is that the refugees from the Democratic Party -- lately, the Trumpists -- have "diluted the Right" and prevented the Republican Party from making a course correction away from the welfare state.

Yeah. What about the anarchist left? Who are they and what do they really want? How do we talk them off the lefty ledge?

This is where I roll out my politics-as-war metaphor. The fact is that once you enlist young men in your army, whether as a 19th century recruiting sergeant or as an Activism 101 prof at the U, the soldiers you enlist will be enrolled also in your ideological army, and they will keep believing until, as I like to say, Napoleon leaves them wounded, hungry, and dying on the road back from Moscow.

That is the whole point of armies; you make sure that the soldiers have no place else to go, except continuing on the line of march and following the orders of their officers.

And that is why the recent additions to the Republican Party have been Democrats cast out of the party, left by the side of the road by a progressive army that had used them up. First it was the fundamentalist Christians who found out they were not wanted in the Democratic Party in the aftermath of the Sixties. Then, in the Trump election, the white working class finally found a home in the Republican Party in the anti-immigrant, pro-patriot campaign of Donald Trump.

And the point is that, as Ronald Reagan said all those years ago: he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. More generally, the Republicans and libertarians do not recruit people into a movement for, yay, justice or something. The Republican Party and libertarians are People of the Responsible Self; we do not do movements and cults and bending the arc of history towards justice.

So where does that put the anarcho-Communists? Nowhere close to giving up on the leftist project.

I suppose that anarcho-Communism is basically a young man's game. It appeals to the natural instinct in young men that is looking for trouble, the rebellion against the father. Maybe what happens to these radicals is that they grow up and get jobs and wives. And then they find themselves voting Republican.

And after all, Antifa and Black Block is great fun; you get to rumble and break things and fulminate against the Man, and the ruling class pats you on the head for being anti-fascist. Where in this story is anything pushing these youngsters away from their gang-like lifestyle?

No, I think the next candidates for Deplorability would be blacks and women. At some point, more and more blacks are going to tumble into the truth that liberals don't care about them; they only care about their votes and stirring up their hate. And women are going to tumble to the fact that abortion and the sexual revolution are denials of the very truth about womanhood.

Rightly or wrongly, I take the larger view. Our era is the most astonishing cultural revolution in human history, from the necessarily hierarchical agricultural age to the individual responsibility of the bourgeois age. We should expect, we should know, that the transition would not occur in a divine flash of light, but in an endless to-and-fro of trial-and-error.

But underneath all the Sturm und Drang is a profound truth. The exchange economy rewards people for serving other people faithfully and cheerfully. The more you accept this culture in your work and in your life, the better your life will be. And places that try to restore the old hierarchy in new clothes end up cratering, not just at the national level but at any level.

And that is my faith. We have an exchange economy and the prosperity of the Great Enrichment not because of wise rulers that cunningly executed on the bourgeois agenda. We just stumbled into it, and we thrived because the bourgeois agenda works for today's city economy.

As Nassim Nicholas Taleb says, the bottom line is survival. If you do things that enhance survival you survive. If you don't, you won't. Survive.

What Fools These Liberals Be

If my concept of Fake Protest means anything, it must issue from a Great Error, a profound misunderstanding about the meaning of life, the universe and everything on the part of our liberal friends.

Because, as we observe the fatuous conceit of liberal Fake Protest, we have to ask ourselves: what went wrong? Why are these people making such fools of themselves? Why, at the end of two centuries of The Great Enrichment in which nearly all humans, North Koreans excepted, have enjoyed part or all of the increase in income from $1-3 per day to $100 per day, inflation adjusted, why are there people running around insisting that great swathes of humans are the most abject victims of racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., and that the only recourse is more government power, more administrators, more regulatory intervention in the normal to and fro of human exchange?

Now, I am something of a Lone Wolf, tending my garden without much regard for others and how they do it. But I am social enough to know that the one thing I hate is making a fool of myself. So we must ask ourselves: why are liberals making such fools of themselves? Or let us ask another question during the current madness of tearing down Confederate war memorials. Do not liberals understand that they in their turn will be the target of the iconoclasts, as a new generation judges them as the most foul and most ignorant oppressors and exploiters since the dawn of time. Have they not read Charles Murray's Coming Apart in which he judges that the top 20 percent of white Americans are doin' fine, with university degrees, satisfying careers, and merger marriages, that the middle 50 percent is doing just so-so, and that the bottom 30 percent is not so good, with the men not working much and the women not marrying much? What about "the children" of that bottom 30 percent?

So what have our liberal friends got wrong? What has led them into their folly and, by hanging onto their folly, what has driven them to commit injustice and oppression and call it bending the arc of history towards justice?

I think that their fundamental error is to believe that the hierarchical society of the agricultural age can and should continue as the model for the industrial and post-industrial age, that the only problem was that the wrong people were in charge. In the agricultural age, the fundamental fact was that land equals life, and the only thing to do is to defend your patch of land against the world. In reality, of course, it turned out that the farmers had to subordinate themselves to a warrior lord in order to defend that land, and the warrior lords took full advantage of the situation. subordinating the farmers to their rule in exchange for the offer of security. Thus the hierarchical feudal society. But in the new world, the evil and ignorant lords and the superstitious churches would be replaced by educated and evolved activists and experts: totally different, man; totally.

But in the industrial city the old culture of hierarchy cannot serve. This means that city people must learn how to conduct their lives in a different kind of subordination: to the market and its prices, rather than the lord and his lordly rules.

When the waves of people first arrive in the city the individuals are still peasants that know subordination to a lord; they have not yet learned the culture of individual responsibility and subordination to the market. So they subordinate themselves to urban political machines, to labor unions, to big corporate bureaucracies rather than to the market, for that is all that they know.

But what they need, in order the wive and thrive in the city, is to slough off the old ways of the subordinate peasant and put on the armor of a new culture, the culture of individual responsibility, and this is the only way because the city economy is too complicated to be directed by some lord, whether the lord of the land or the lord of the bureaucracy.

In my view the great error of the liberals and the socialist and progressive project has been that the leftists have hindered rather than helped the new arrivals to the city, by confirming them in their subordination to some great lord, or political big-shot, or corporate machine, rather than putting on the armor of light, the culture of individual responsibility that alone prepares the city dweller to wive and thrive in the new order. And as the years go by, the error is deepening into a crime, a crime of willful ignorance, at best.

I have written a book about the four skills people must learn on The Road to the Middle Class. Those cultural skills are: education, religion, mutual aid, and law. By education I mean the basic skills of literacy and numeracy that first emerged in the Fertile Crescent 3,000 years ago and more in the counting houses of the merchants and temples. By religion I mean in particular the cult of enthusiastic Christianity which has been down the ages the religion of people learning the ways of the city. It teaches people that they can be responsible beings bathed in the love of God. By mutual aid I mean the culture of social insurance in fraternal associations that grew up in the 19th century before it was blindsided by the welfare state. By law I mean the replacement of the traditional culture of feud with the culture of submission to the authority of the law.

In different ways our liberal lords have queered these four pitches. In education they have substituted regime propaganda for the basic skills needed for city life, and separated learning from working to a degree they never were before except for rich kids. In religion they have substituted their cults of creativity and victimhood for the city religion of Christianity. In mutual aid they have substituted top-down government programs for the social and mutual culture of fraternal association, the charming and cunning pretense of brother- and sisterhood among people that are no longer living in and around their blood kindred. In law they have substituted top-down administrative law for the reciprocal judge-made law common law. What all these actions do is put roadblocks and barriers on the Road to the Middle Class, and sequester the new arrivals to the city in ethnic, pre-middle-class ghettos. And this is no longer merely a dreadful mistake as it might have been a century ago, but a stupid crime against humanity, a willful blindness about the facts of the matter. It is, of course, unthinkable that our liberals lords have fought to block the Road to the Middle Class not because of folly and ignorance, but cynically and consciously in the knowledge that it enhances their political and economic and cultural power. Surely they are not that evil.

Because if the liberal barriers on the Road to the Middle Class are not accidents of stupidity, but planned and thought through, then the culture of Fake Protest is not just a foolish knee-jerk, a nostalgic attempt to re-create the world of 1850 when all the world was new, but a cynical ploy to enact a fake Theater of Protest that has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.

The basic science was set forth a century ago that socialism -- and by implication any administrative system -- could not work because it could not compute prices.

And so the question that every disciple of power must answer is to show why their new power proposal can possibly hope to outperform the individual actions of millions of consumers and thousands of producers as they interact with each other through the price system.

And that is why they resort to Fake Protest and invoke the power of government by a thousand dodges and catch-phrases, for they cannot answer the question.

The Three Stages of Fake Protest

Yesterday I first developed my idea of Fake Protest, the idea that any protest accepted with equanimity by the ruling class and its supporters is "fake protest," really the ruling class and its supporters pretending that they are the wretched of the earth, desperately crying for justice, when all they are doing is demanding new privileges and free stuff for themselves and their supporters to be taken by force from the unorganized middle class.

The idea of Fake Protest sharpens my previously developed idea that the left is founded on the idea of advocating for those left outside of the political system. Obviously,on this view, the political grievances of the "left-out" cannot be redressed by the normal process of representative government, because the "left-out" are not represented.

I also argue that the Left is a messianic faith that believes that they are the "chosen ones" called to represent, to lead, to advocate, and even to mount bloody revolution on behalf of the wretched of the earth left out of the system. That is the logic underneath the left's culture of Protest.

In 1850 the left was right. Here we had a profound economic revolution that had sucked starving peasants from the countryside and fed them into factories; and the system knew them not. So the workers rioted and presented Charters to the ruling class. Fanatics like Karl Marx prophesied bloody revolution, and the immiseration of the working class, but in the event the rising bourgeoisie listened to the cry of the oppressed and willingly gave them the vote and adjusting the law of the workplace to redress many of their grievances. This was Genuine Protest, and it worked because the bourgeoisie was not that interested in power.

Fast forward to the 1950s and the civil-rights revolution. Here we had blacks, that in the South were genuinely excluded from the system by the gentle persuasion of the KKK and Jim Crow laws. And we had women that had the vote but had read Chapter XXV of The Second Sex and wanted to be "The Independent Woman." And we had well-born college kids that didn't want to fight Communism in South-east Asia. Black leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King had learned from Gandhi and the Indian National Movement and understood that under the rule of the bourgeoisie the people outside the system didn't need to actually riot in the streets to get the attention of the ruling class. Non-violent protest was sufficient, because the bourgeoisie is sensitive to the cry of the oppressed. Why? Because the bourgeoisie is not that interested in power. But note this: the well-born women that wanted careers and abortion and the well-born kids that didn't want to go to war were already in the system. They just wanted in on the protest action, or had read their Marx and Marcuse and wanted to practice a little intolerant tolerance for the fun of it.

So this was Semi-Fake Protest. Part of the Sixties civil-rights protesting was the genuine cry of the oppressed; part of it was the well-born supporters of the ruling class faking it.

Now we have the progressives of the 21st century that are running around marchin' and protestin' about everything. But there is a problem. Because the bourgeoisie is not that interested in power just about everyone that was outside the system in now inside the system. No need for protest, kids: just call your congressman. But wait! Illegal immigrants and Muslims are not in the system. Yay! So let's all protest for the poor helpless illegal immigrants and Muslims of the world. And let's bring them here, because it is a little tricky to protest for people that aren't actually here in the United States. And let's teach all the Good Little Girls that go to government schools and government universities all about protesting, and teach them how to be activists just as we taught the working class to read a write and vote and protest a century and more ago. So now we have a protest culture that is almost entirely about the creative ruling class that is interested in power. And they are protesting in support of people outside the system that they actually had to import into the United States in order to say: Look, here are the wretched of the earth and we demand that the racist sexist homopbobic deplorables of the United States give them their rights!

This is Fake Protest. It is practiced by people inside the system that have the ear and the support of the ruling class -- that is when they are not in fact paid-up members of the ruling class -- and they are pretending to advocate for those outside the system, whereas in fact they have invented and imported these supposed victims in order to have something to protest about. Look, I don't blame these unfortunate scions of the ruling class. For all their lives they have been taught that activism is the highest form of human life when in fact all the heavy lifting was done a century ago. What are the poor things to do? Go and get an ordinary job doing useful things for other people?

Worse, there was never any need for heavy lifting at all, because the bourgeoisie, then and now, is not that interested in power. This has nothing to do with any supposed virtue of bourgeois people, not at all. It is simply that life in the burgs, the 'burbs, the cities, the trading centers of the world, does not require the operation of political power to succeed. Its differences and quarrels are adjudicated by the price system, the marketplace. All that is needed is for people to surrender to the verdict of the marketplace rather than the political process, and everything turns out copacetic.

Alas, for our liberal friends, for the mainstream media, for the belted knights of the academy and the princesses of the academic administration, this must not be true. It cannot be true. If it is true then their lives, every they believe, everything they have protested about is meaningless.

And so they are embarked upon a monstrous journey of piracy, plunder and injustice, where they seek injustice for ordinary people in the name of justice, and silence those who have every right to have their voices heard.

You might say that these people are evil, and you might be right. But I rather prefer to think that they are idiots, people that have never for a moment had a single thought un-curated by the academy, the popular culture, or the mainstream media.

If these people have committed a crime it is that they have been, for over a century, teaching people newly arrived in the city that the way to wive and thrive in the city is not to take on the raiment of responsibility, to go to work, obey, the law, and follow the rules of the marketplace, but to Protest, to have faith in the saving grace of politics.

In the age of Genuine Protest, in the 1850s, this attitude was understandable. Who knew that the new industrial system would, in the Great Enrichment of the last 200 years, bring everyone to unimaginable prosperity?

In the Age of Semi-Fake Protest there was at least an excuse. Who knew if the bourgeoisie would in fact extend its enrichment and its arms around the black and the brown?

But now there is no excuse, and the proof is that the Fake Protesters have had to import their victims from abroad and gin up the idea that these imports are the same as the factory workers of 1850 and the oppressed Negroes of the 1950s and that anyone that disagrees is a xenophobe and an Islamophobe and a white supremacist to boot.

History will not treat kindly with these mind-numbed robots of the ruling class.

Introducing "Fake Protest," the Newest Thing in America

On Monday, September 18, a speech of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was interrupted by "peaceful protesters" chanting their non-negotiable demands about the rights of the undocumented children of undocumented immigrants. Or, you might say, if you wanted to avoid cowardly euphemism, the illegal immigrant children of illegal immigrant parents.

I only heard the protest in an audio clip, but I did notice that the protest chants were led by a young woman.

Now according to my theory of politics, it is entirely appropriate for these young people, who are outside the system as extra-legal residents of the US without proper documentation and without the right to vote, to stage a demonstration, a show of force, to suggest to the powers that be that they better give them their rights or they will take their grievances to the streets. Because they don't have the right to vote.

But, as Eric Hoffer wrote years ago about movements in the US, "What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation."

In this case we are talking about a racket, because the "peaceful protests" of the so-called Dreamers, even when they disrupt the speech of the august Nancy Pelosi, are not the demonstrations of people genuinely outside the system. The Dreamers are in fact fully represented and supported by the Democratic Party, its office-holders and its supporters; they are the little darlings of the Democrats. That is why their shows of force are reported by the MSM as "peaceful protests." And that is why, incidentally, the MSM reported the riots of Black Lives Matter in St. Louis after the not-guilty verdict on a white policeman that shot to death a black drug dealer in 2011 as "mostly peaceful" with plenty of use of the passive voice.

You might say that "peaceful protest" is code for a street action that is tacitly approved by supporters of the regime.

You will remember that the activities of the tiki-torch wielding white supremacists in Charlottesville recently were not reported as "mostly peaceful" in the mainstream media.

By the way, I thought the tiki-torch march to the statue of Robert E. Lee was rather cute, a demonstration catered, you might say, by K-Mart. And what is more demotic than K-Mart? But I have a question. How come our lefty friends have never thought of tiki torches as appropriate illumination for their mostly peaceful protests? I am sure that there is some kind of equivalent, but rather more tasteful, illumination available at Whole Foods or Trader Joe's or Restoration Hardware.

But the real "tell" about the Dreamer peaceful protest against Nancy Pelosi was that the chants were led by a young woman. Rosa Luxemburg excepted, women do not do revolution. They do what they have been carefully taught at government schools and colleges. The reason that you see mostly young women in college protests these days is that only young women are foolish enough to go into debt to take Activism 101 courses. No young man who is not a Pajama Boy would be seen within a country mile of an Activism class. For one thing, who needs to pay good money to earn college credit for something that makes you less rather than more employable? For another, what fool of a young man would take a course that requires him to enthusiastically agree that white males are guilty! Of patriarchy! Of white privilege! Of white supremacy! Of injustice! Can anyone spell Stockholm Syndrome?

So if a group of young women were protesting right in the face of Nancy Pelosi, you can bet your bottom dollar that the protest is basically condoned by the liberal ruling class and their bribed apologists in the mainstream media.

So Monday's protest was not really the revolutionary cry of the wretched of the earth, but Fake Protest, bought and paid for and stamped "Approved" by the ruling class, and echoed by their bribed apologists in the mainstream media.

Like Black Lives Matter, like Antifa, like Black Block, etc.

Here's another test for Fake Protest. Are the protesters going to be expelled from school or lose their jobs as a result of the protest? If they are, they are genuine protesters. If not, they are the shock troops of the regime.

At some point, I think that Chuck and Nancy will realize that Fake Protest is just as much of a problem for the right kind of people and a rallying cry for the deplorable opposition as Fake News.

I think they will find that it will be a bit difficult to shut down their pet Fake Protesters, because the truth is that protest is great fun for youngsters: why, it is even fun for ageing baby boomers with graying ponytails. It's kinda like a drug -- or even eevil carbs -- easy to try, but hard to give up.

But wait! How do we know the difference between a Fake Protest and the genuine cry of the wretched of the earth? I think that the answer is quite simple. If the great and the good all disapprove, if the protesters are universally reviled with ready-to-hand pejoratives, then you know it is the genuine cry of the oppressed.

You will notice that both Houses of Congress sent a resolution to the president condemning the white supremacists at Charlottesville, and the president signed it.

So now we know that the tiki-torch white supremacists are the genuine article. The ruling class utterly deplores them.

Let's face it. The only people that really need to get into the street to advertise their grievances are the people of whom all respectable people that take their cue from the ruling class strongly disapprove. The rest are just faking it.

And I suggest that next time you encounter a protest led by a young woman or some group funded in part by George Soros or some other lefty billionaire, you speak truth to power and shout "Fake Protest" at the little darlings of the ruling class.