This is How Your World Ends, Liberals.

There is a delicious piece in Taki mag today about how liberal race politics is hoist with its own petard.

According to David Cole, in the LA school system a high school loses extra bennies if the white percentage of students goes above 30 percent. I know: can you spell racism.

But there is a problem! Some of the Hispanic parents are reporting their children as white, because Trump and deportation. So the white student numbers at Hamilton High  School are about 50 students above the 30 percent limit.

Guess what! Tearful white moms are deciding to re-identify their kids as Hispanic!

Then there is the delicious irony of millionaire black NFL players "taking a knee" during the national anthem because racism, or something. I understand their concern, but I tell you, fellas, the heavy lifting on marching and protesting was done in the 1950s and 1960s. Your present efforts amount to nothing more than nostalgia and posturing.

And that says nothing about the pathetic effort at colleges to "do something" about sexual harassment on campus, which is a direct consequence of the sexual revolution that dumped the traditional rules about courting with a complete free-for-all. Although, it is clear that the kiddies have retained a certain instinctive reluctance to hop in bed at the first opportunity, since nice middle-class kids seem to need to get blind drunk before they do the dirty. I figure that the truth is that women want to be protected from male aggression, but we can't go back to the old rules because that would be too humiliating for liberals.

And that is to say nothing of the effort to erase history by removing statues of colonial conquerors and southern rebel generals. Really, you lefty idiots. We need the statues so that we have the record of our history out there, the good the bad and the ugly.

What really is going on here, anyway? I will tell you.

Liberals are running up against the fact that you cannot solve everything in this world with politics and government. An example of this is the reporting on the Nobel Economics prize for Richard Thaler, who made the obvious point that humans do not necessarily act as rational actors. They tend, for instance, to "have an outsized fear of losses." But then the writer goes a step too far.

More recently, thanks to the efforts of Thaler and his collaborators, companies and governments around the world have tried to use them for people's benefit. They've looked for ways to "nudge" people to save more for retirement, drive safely, go to better colleges and participate in free school-lunch programs.

Oh really. So we -- the ruling class -- are going to use Richard Thaler's insights to manipulate people into doing the right thing, as we wise heads have determined. But what  if our "nudges" are affected by our own ruling-class instinct to have "an outsized fear off losses" to ruling-class power?

In my view, a big problem with economics is that it has encouraged politicians and moralists to believe they can use government to manipulate the culture, the politics, and the economy. Because science. But the trouble is that political actors do not use knowledge to calm the waters and apply science in an even-handed way. They use economic knowledge to manipulate things in their quest for power.

Maybe we should just leave the "nudging" and manipulating to the moral/cultural folks, religious leaders and what-not. You, see, that was the big idea in the First Amendment prohibition of an establishment of religion. You didn't want one religious sect in control of legislating morality.

But our liberal friends are utterly blind to the fact that their movement, the progressive movement in all its facets from Communism to socialism to Social Gospel, is a movement that amounts to promoting an establishment of religion. Only progressive values will be allowed in the public square; only progressive will inform government policy. All other ideas are "hate speech."

The argument against a state establishment of religion in the First Amendment came partly from the fear of New England Puritanism in the non-New England states, and partly from the bitter lesson of the Reformation and the Thirty Years War over Germany in 1618-48, what we now call "religious wars." The Founders understood that religion needed to be a step removed from government. (Yes, but where is the liberal that understands that World War II and the Cold War were also religious wars, as in democracy against fascism, and democracy against communism.)

In my view the whole liberal culture war will eventually collapse in contradiction and stupidity, in part because ordinary people cannot be flogged and kept at ideological fever pitch forever, as Crane Brinton argues in The Anatomy of Revolution. Eventually everyone goes back to wiving and thriving.

The problem is that lots of people, maybe millions, will have their lives ruined in the process. And where will we see the statues of the liberal idiots that failed to see where their idiotic politics would lead?

The Real Reason Columbus is a Scandal

We know the proximate reason why Christopher Columbus is a scandal and his holiday is in the middle of being replaced by Indigenous Peoples Day.

It's because the left has chosen to do so. Because, see, Columbus was a white supremacist oppressor and the people of the Americas were his victims.

Actually, I learned today, this campaign against Columbus goes all the way back to Friedrich Engels in 1847.

According to Engels, Columbus’s westward journeys unleashed the era of “big commerce,” the world market, and the birth of the bourgeoisie. “The discovery of America was connected with the advent of machinery,” he wrote in 1847, “and with that the struggle became necessary which we are conducting today, the struggle of the propertyless against the property owners.”

The KKK were anti-Columbus too, because Catholicism.

But what's the big deal? Conquest and empire has been the song of the Earth for since the dawn of time. Those helpless savages in Hispaniola that Columbus infected with his merry men weren't just parachuted in by God. They had conquered the island in their turn and taken it from some other tribe that is, like the Unknown Soldier, known only to God.

OK, let us conjure up a different Narrative, one that retreats from the delicious culture of name and shame, and looks with a more neutral eye on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

The go-to book is War Before Civilization by Lawrence H. Keeley. He tells us what life was like in the good old days, that happy time, according to Shaw in Fabian Essays, shortly after the first man, Adam, seized the best patch of land he could find. But actually, pace Bernie, the big question about patches of land in the good old days was defense. Each little tribe defended its patch of land from all others. Or, with the dawn raid or a massacre, it might attempt to wipe out the neighbors and take over their patch of land and their women.

The rule was simple. Land was life in the food that could be hunted or grown on it. Lose your land and you lost your food, your tribe, your women, and your life. Actually, the same applies to chimpanzees and, I dare say, lions and tigers and bears oh my.

Notice that our pal Fritz above has it half right. Columbus does represent the unleashing of big commerce and the world market. And he spelled the end of the little tribe on its little patch of land.

It seemed to Educated Youth in the mid 19th century that in the future the old fight between one tribe and another, or one feudal lord against another, would be replaced by the fight between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians, and property owners against the propertyless.

Only they were wrong. That is the fundamental fact of our age. They were pontificating at Year 50 of the Great Enrichment of the last 200 years in which per-capita income has increased by 30 times. And there has never been anything like it, ever. But why were they wrong?

They were wrong because the modern exchange economy has fundamentally changed the relationship between man and man -- and man and woman. Life is no longer a question of defending your patch of land and its life-giving food from all comers, as it was in the hunter-gatherer age. Nor is it a question of attaching yourself to a powerful landowner who would protect you from the armies of other powerful landowners in return for your surrender to his power. Today landowners and their land and its food is an afterthought, a footnote to history. Now the reality is big commerce, the exchange economy.

But now the propertyless are no longer extra mouths to feed; they are now consumers and producers. Now the key to riches is no longer the accumulation of land and the power of an army to defend the borders. Now the key to riches is the latest innovation that can conquer world markets with some new generation of products that every person in the world can buy: something like cheap cotton textiles that the poor could afford; steam transportation that the poor could almost afford. Now we have cell-phones that the sardine fishermen on the west coast of India can afford. The point is that the property owners can only profit from their property if the property can be put to use making products and services for the propertyless.

And so it is that the old necessities of power -- the power to defend your patch of earth -- have dissolved. Now power issues from the ability to deliver products and services to the masses, so there is no longer a "struggle of the propertyless against the property owners." Instead all people are bound to other people in the vast arena of producing the products and services to be sold or delivered to others.

The transition period in all this that illustrates the point was the era of the British Empire. It was not a traditional empire that controlled a great land mass. It was not a marauding host like the host of Genghis Khan. It was a trading, commercial empire. The jewel in this crown was, of course, India, which started out as a few trading posts, at Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta. But then local Indian traders wanted to enjoy the benefits of living within the walls and under the law of a trading polity, and the Brits started playing politics and war with the neighboring princes, and then the British in India developed into that curious, and amazing thing where 100,000 British administrators bestrode India like a colossus until, with the 20th century and the Amritsar massacre, it all became scandalous.

It was not just scandalous, but expensive. Never mind about patches of land and armies to defend them. Try global commerce and navies to keep the pirates under control.

Ironically the socialists, that abhorred empire, were the proprietors of the two last great land empires, the Soviet Union and Maoist China. They set up impenetrable borders with the rest of the world and starved. Now both empires have transitioned into something less on the border front, and a lot more on the exchange and global commerce front.

And this is the irony with socialism and progressivism and all its works. The fact of the world today is that political and military power is no longer the vital element that keeps a people from annihilation by invasion or massacre, and that is why the bourgeoisie and the billionaire are not that interested in power.

In this video with feminist rebel Camille Paglia psychologist Jordan Peterson continually puzzles over the left's worship of power. He shakes his head and doesn't understand it.

The answer is, of course, right in front of us. The left worships power because it can't believe that the modern world is not like all other worlds, where power was everything, indeed, the only thing. It cannot believe that the propertyless and the property owners are not in an existential fight to the death.

They should read their Hegel, whose Master and Slave narrative teaches us that the relation of Master and Slave is not as simple as we might think.

But the truth is that the nature of wealth and power has changed utterly. Wealth and power are no longer good rich acres, or a pile of gold. Wealth today is the present value of products and services that a corporation such as Apple or Amazon can deliver to the world in the next few years. And as for power, who cares? Why not spend the pile of gold on spaceships and go to Mars?

Meanwhile, what should we do about the Antifa idiots that want to erase history and make Columbus into a scandal, when he was actually the beacon of the future?

They Are All Idiots!

Some people are wondering just what the point of NFL players of "taking a knee" is supposed to be all about. Apart from letting NFL players feel they are relevant.

Or what about this? It turns out that, as Bolivarian socialist Venezuela replaced staffers in its national oil company with political hacks, the replaced workers mostly headed for Colombia, with the result that Colombia's oil production is up, hitting almost one million barrels per day, and Venezuela's oil production is down, from 3.5 million to 1.9 million barrels per day.

Or what about here in the United States? Instead of getting Americans to save their own money for the great expenses of life, we have government programs that put lifer bureaucrats in charge of everything from retirement to health care and education, according to systems that were old a century ago.

In California, Governor Brown has signed legislation declaring California a sanctuary state, doing a spot of nullification just like the slave South. By the way, California has the most tech billionaires and the highest poverty rate, and the rich live is glorious comfort on the temperate coast while the peons live in the sweltering Inland Empire and Central Valley. So history does repeat itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

Then liberals these days are running around calling people not just "racists" but "white supremacists." Actually, in this case I think they are right. The culture and politics of the lily white folks from Northern  Europe have transformed the world in the last half millennium, and we ought to be proud of what we have done. Anyone of North European extraction that does not marvel at the achievements of her North European ancestors is a fool and a knave.

And of course our liberal friends are determined that we should "do something" about gun violence in the aftermath of the Las Vegas attack. Do you know why they use the word "gun violence?" It is because two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides.

For me, the best way to deal with all this is to say they are all idiots. Why are millionaires taking a knee when they could be contributing their time and money to personally solve social problems? What was the Bolivarian socialist Chávez thinking when he staffed the Venezuelan national oil company with political cronies? What were the Democrats thinking when they replaced healthy saving with government compulsion on retirement savings? What is Governor Brown doing when he declared that the writ of the federal government does not extend to California? What are liberals doing ramping up the race rhetoric 50 years after the civil rights acts of the 1960s?

Really, there is no answer except to say they are idiots. Because was it not worse than a crime, a blunder for socialist Venezuela to politicize its oil industry? Worse than a crime to weigh down the modern state with vast ineffective social programs? Worse than a crime to lower the wages of American citizens with a flood tide of illegal immigrants that live partly outside the law? Worse than a crime to divide the races with race politics half a century after doing the heavy lifting of removing governemnt racial discrimination?

Over at the Z blog, the Zman is pondering the likelihood that we are coming to the end of an age. Our present age was trying to solve the problem of "how whites would deal with whites" over borders, peoples, and commerce. But now we are entering an age of great migrations -- such as 4 billion Africans on the move -- and great migrations happened to coincide with the end of the Roman Empire. To murder an old song,"comes migration, nothing can be done."

We are all like the coward Falstaff, that whimpered before a battle that he wished it were evening, and all well.

When you think about it, it is impossible that the meaning of life, the universe, and everything could be tucked up into bed each night.

Stupidity, mistakes, evil, storms, hurricanes, massacres are all part of the inscrutable mystery of life. For the only constant in life is that is stumbles from one disaster to another. And yet the world keeps turning.

And after all, what is a little hurricane and a few feet of rainfall compared to the Armageddon of a supernova?

Or Is It Just Well-to-do Women That Are The Problem?

Yesterday I raised the outrageous suggestion that maybe it ain't men that are the problem, but women. Of course this is nonsense; everybody knows that women are helpless victims -- Lady de Courcy and Lady Arabella excluded -- since the dawn of time and the invention of patriarchy by a clique of men within the inner ring of Stonehenge. Or something.

But now I just started a biography, Jane Austen: A Life, by Claire Tomalin and I have to admit I was wrong. It is not all women; it is rich women.

You see, back in Jane Austen's time, the normal thing for gentry women to do was to suckle their babies for about three months, and then send their babies out to some woman in the village to raise the baby for the next couple years. Only when the baby was properly civilized was it returned to the maternal nest.

So Charles Dickens was not making it up! Little kiddies were subject to the most frightful and routine abuse in the good old days -- at least from our modern and enlightened perspective with its proper and necessary substitution of scientific peer review for the old ways of wives tales.

Actually, I would say that, down the ages, rich women have routinely handed off the raising of their children to the servants: nurses, governesses, etc. And this has caused not a little sorrow to their children.

Now comes the New York Times with its celebration of 100 years of communism. You see, communism liberated women, but only in part. It got them out of the home but didn't really allow them to rise to executive positions on the collective farm and the factory.

In other words, communism didn't really raise women to the level demanded by the feminist revolution and make them into Simone de Beauvoir's "Independent Woman," with her career and all.

And they talk about male privilege!

The reason that men work, girls, is that, down the ages, that was the only way they could get laid. If men, in the last 200 years, have sought careers, it is because that was the way to get laid with high-status babes. Settled science: hypergamy.

Also, of course, upper-class men work these days because the poor do not. The whole point of being rich is to differentiate yourself from the poor. Back in the good old days the poor worked their tails off, at least that is what we are told. So it was shameful for a rich man to work. But now the poor don't have to work, what with welfare and disability and all, and so now all rich people are busy, busy, busy morning to night. Those that don't have a proper job work their tails off in the family charitable foundation.

Before I get back to women, a word from my old liberal boss. He was frustrated by the folks working for him, especially the programmers, because they were always going off on tangents, such as rewriting subroutines that already worked to make them more elegant.

Of course, this was never true about me. Oh no.

Now it is my view that the job of women on this earth is to bear children and raise them to adulthood, to "keep them alive," as my daughter says. Everything else is tangents.

The job of men is to make themselves useful, as in keeping women safe so they can bear children and keep them alive. Everything else is tangents.

Since our age, thanks to the Great Enrichment, is the richest age ever, you would expect more people than ever before going off on tangents. You would expect to see women schucking off the kids on day-care and government child-custodial facilities so they can go out and have a career. You would expect to see men filling their lives up with meaningless hobbies and all-night video game sessions.

And you would expect a lot of people to be opting out of the whole mating and raising the next generation thing. Because they can.

In my view, following my reductive Three Peoples theory, this is a particular problem for People of the Creative Self. In fact I believe that the cult of creativity is precisely a tangent, a distraction, from the real job of creation, which is creating children. It is just the sort of thing you would expect well-to-do women and well-to-do men to do to differentiate themselves from the common herd and its daily grind of wiving and thriving. The clue, I think is in Charles Taylor's notion of "expressive individualism," or George Simmel's "qualitative individualism" in which individuals would want to differentiate themselves from other individuals.

Of course, it may be that in the future well-to-do and high-status women will want to differentiate themselves from the common herd that goes out to work as assistant director of diversity and inclusion at Amazon's HR department and drops the kiddies off at school. I suspect that the home school movement and similar cultural developments are signaling this.

Here is another thing. If you are a well-to-do woman, educated, liberated, and independent, why would you want your little kiddie rolling in the mire, getting polluted by the lower-class culture of the child-minder and the government teacher?

But then there is the bigger question: how should we raise our children, given that we still do not know the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, despite the best efforts of prophets, divines, ideologues, and our modern social justice warriors?

Are Women The Big Problem?

Dear old Ben Stein is upset that a long-time liberal friend, Mrs. B., has cut off their friendship after the 2016 election. Apparently her "daughter had apparently undergone an incident in Carmel in which she felt threatened by a Trump supporter because she was wearing a Hillary T-shirt."

As for why Ben should choose the initial "B" for his onetime friend, I couldn't possibly comment.

Then there is the CBS lawyer, Hayley Geftman-Gold, who on Facebook inadvertently advertised after the Las Vegas shooting her contempt for country-music fans. Frankly, I don't think she should have been fired. All she was doing was expressing the conventional wisdom that all Good Little Girls share in the liberal bubble. Like Mrs. "B."

It's interesting that one concert goer said she likes country music concerts because everyone there acts like family.

Is this the new woman, roughed up by the sexual revolution and radicalized by the feminist movement?

Not at all. I'm happily re-reading Anthony Trollope's Dr. Thorne right now (available on DVD, etc.) and the two notable adult woman are both "Bs." There's Lady de Courcy of Courcy Castle. What a piece of work she is. And then there is Lady Arabella Gresham of Greshambury. So I suppose we should talk  about "Lady Bs." The big thing about these two women is the rules about the young marriageable women they allow in their august houses. The rich Miss Dunstable, heir to the Oil of Lebanon cosmetic fortune, is invited to Courcy Castle, because son-of-the-house Frank Gresham must marry money. But the sweet innocent Mary Thorne, our beloved heroine, the girl next door that Frank really loves, must be banished from Lady Arabella's house, because she has no money and, worse, she is a bastard with no breeding, no bloodlines, darling, for all that she is Dr. Thorne's niece.

Yep. Women may not commit horrendous mass shootings, but they sure know how to stick in the knife, and they always have.

Now, if you ask me, this is a Big Problem in our global society going forward. The whole point of the Great Enrichment is that people consort with all kinds, anyone that can be trusted. Playing high school or aristocratic Mean Girls is not what it's all about. Any more than lifetime employment. Any more than affirmative action and quotas and diversity and inclusion and all the other reactionary government policies that liberal force on us.

You can see the problem in the basic difference between male honor and women's honor, as explicated by James Bowman in Honor: a History. Honor among men is the reputation for physical courage, standing in line with his brothers and not acting like a coward and breaking and running. But honor among women is different. Honor among women is the reputation for chastity, and I mean that in the broadest sense of being pure and undefiled. Two cultures, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

The thing is that our modern societies need the kind of person willing to do stuff and make mistakes, and then get up, sadder and wiser, and do it all over again. It does not really want the reckless courage of the soldier; neither does it want the person that will not act because she does not want to make a mistake.

Sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago that the entrance of women into the public square would transform it to "suit a more feminine sensibility."

Obviously, there are advantages and disadvantages to that. My view is that some things are better left to men, such as software startups, which require a certain recklessness and standing with the brothers in the chaos of startup battle. But other things are better left to women. Caring for grandma, for instance. Men do a pretty sketchy job of that, if they can be persuaded to do anything at all.

I suspect that men and women have starkly different ideas about mass shootings. Men are perhaps too cavalier about the inevitability of mass carnage, as in battle. Women are perhaps naive in imagining that presidents can "make us safe."

Meanwhile I must get back to Dr. Thorne. We are approaching the denouement, when...

Well, I can't possible give the ending away. Let us say, following Trollope, who is always breaking the fourth wall, that Mary Thorne will either die of a broken heart or life happily ever after.

Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been, A White Supremacist?

Since the new liberal insult-du-jour is "white supremacist," I think that, to paraphrase the words of Marx,

It is high time that White Supremacists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of White Supremacy with a manifesto of the White Supremacy itself.

Yes, Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Let us unmask the spectre of White Supremacy and see it for what it is: the most extraordinary breakthrough in human socialization since the beginning of agriculture. And, naturally, it has provoked the most horrendous movement of nostalgia and reaction for the Good Old Days of tribalism and hierarchy since whenever.

Call the reactionaries and nostalgists anything you want: Communists, socialists, progressives, activists, peaceful protesters, idiots.

As Marx so perspicaciously noted, a very large part of human socialization is driven by the underlying economic realities, and a lot of human culture is in fact a superstructure built atop the economic realities of the age.

The reality used to be that land was life, and you protected the food-growing land of your tribe or your lord to the death. Much of what we think of as natural human behavior is predicated upon this truth that is no longer true.

Today the reality is that food is cheap and available everywhere for money. Great ships are constantly lying in the outer harbor in Vancouver, BC, ready to steam into the inner harbor and load up each of them with 100,000 tons of grain from the Canadian prairie provinces and then transport that grain to the ends of the earth. So the food problem has been solved.

Thus it is no longer a matter of moment to defend our food-growing land to the last warrior. Now the question what each of us can do to serve other people so they can pay us the money we need to obtain the necessaries and the abundant non-necessaries of life, at Walmart or at Nieman Marcus according to taste.

Where once the boundaries of trust ended at the border of our food-growing land, now the boundary of trust extends across all the world to include all people that demonstrate their trustworthiness. See here.

This extension of the Culture of Trust from our own comfortable tribe to the whole world of people that demonstrate trustworthiness is the most mind-blowing development in human history. It is the foundation of what our lefty friends call White Supremacy, the culture that trust is universal and should be extended to all that are trustworthy. No wonder the people that believe in this new belief system have surrendered to the notion that they are the lords of creation and the last best hope of mankind on Earth, and superior to whatever came before.

But the old culture of mistrust still obtains. That is what government and politics is all about, to define the divide between "us" and "them" and to defend "us" to the last young 20-year-old soldier, or in our own time, the last "mostly peaceful protester."

And so the great worldwide movement of reaction and regression arose, to honor and revere the good old practices of divide and rule to maintain the old tribes and the old borders. Of course it did; that was the way that political leaders had always acted, in the good old way in which they had served humans well for tens of thousands of years. First it tried class politics to divide the bourgeoisie from the proletariat; then it proceeded to what we call identity politics, dividing race from race and sex from sex.

But this is all rubbish, because the old territorial imperative no longer operates. These folk are, we might say, superstitious believers in the old gods, Homeric heroes still looking to Mount Olympus for the word from on high.

And why not? The old divide-and-conquer, hierarchical culture worked pretty well for the rulers, from their legalized plunder of the farmers to their delicious droit de seigneur that would have made Hugh Hefner blush.

But what about right now? How does the divide-to-conquer culture work in the modern age? I am glad you asked me that. Fortunately thoughtful and caring people, inspired by arch-reactionary Karl Marx, went to work in Russia and China to see if the hierarchical divide-and-conquer culture could still work in the modern age. After 100 million human deaths and unimaginable suffering the verdict came in. The old way just doesn't work in the modern age. In fact, the old way makes things worse, much worse, for ordinary humans in the modern age, because the modern age has opened a new social contract: in return for the unimaginable prosperity of the Great Enrichment, people must surrender to the hegemony of the market, accepting the movement of prices and markets without demur, from the proudest billionaire down to the lowliest worker. Anyone that resists the new culture is doomed to disappointment and the killing fields.

Hey, I call that a pretty good deal. Instead of subordination to a proud and powerful lord we humans merely get to accept the collective decisions of our fellow humans as expressed through the intermediation of the price system and its markets. In return we get the prosperity of the Great Transformation, which has increased per-capita income from $3 to over $100 per day in 200 years.

Yep, I reckon that White Supremacy thing has been the most amazing thing in human history. And anyone with half a clue in their brain has got on board. In particular I notice that the folks in South and East Asia, the great civilizations of the old days, are getting on board the White Supremacy train, after a bit of a slow start, and are adapting their societies as best they may to the new order.

I always like to quote a Chinese Christian on what White Supremacy has meant to the Han people.

At first, we thought [the power of the West] was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity.

Wow. Imagine that. Christianity. What is it about Christianity, do you think, that has enabled the rise of White Supremacy? Could it be that the central concept of love, that you love God and God loves you right back, is exactly the right culture for the new age and its culture of universal trust for people that demonstrate their trustworthiness?

And that people that accept the culture of trust become unimaginably wealthy and powerful and almost by accident grind the old ways of tribe and borders into dust?

You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

Trump the Insult President

I always get inspired when I lunch with my liberal friends. Something about their conversation opens doors in my mind to the mysteries of life, the universe, and everything.

And something happened last week to help me understand the fact that Trump is the Insult President and that is what we elected him to do.

OK, so I've been writing about this at least since "All I Know is That Gentlemanly Conservatism is Dead."

The point is that for fifty years liberals have been insulting ordinary white middle-class Americans as racist sexist homophobes and our political and cultural leaders have failed to defend us.

And now the preferred liberal insult is "white supremacist."

Last week "protesters" invaded a speech given by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and you can see a protester next to her with a huge sign "WHITE SUPREMACIST".

Imagine Harvard allowing an alt-right protester to stand right next to Al Sharpton with a huge "BLACK RACIST" sign. That kid would have been gone before you know it.

Hey, you know what real white supremacy looks like? It looks like lefty protesters not even thinking of daring to insult a Secretary of Education with a lefty insult slogan, because the enforcers of White Supremacy would make sure that they would pay, big time, for such  an insult.

Also, there is the little problem that the people most shortchanged by the bureaucracy-is-everything government school system are minority kids in the inner city. And that is the boil that Betsy DeVos is trying to lance. So what do those protesters know about anything?

And last week President Trump had an insult interaction with the blonde mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico. Yeah, the sweetie pie was trying to Katrina him, and naturally Trump punched right back.

It makes you think of Martin Niemöller. First they called us racists, and conservative leaders did nothing. Then they called us sexists, and conservative leaders did nothing.

Well, the purpose of government is to protect people from existential dangers, and I'd say that failing to counter the left's propaganda machine counts as a failure to protect.

When the usual idiots can't or won't protect us from the lefty thugs then we are forced to look for other idiots to protect us.

Yep. What made Trump stand out in the Republican debates was his willingness, and his shameless talent for insult. And the Republican voters liked it. They obviously wanted a candidate with the talent and the cojones to tell his opponents to take it where the sun don't shine.

I don't blame liberals for being embarrassed and insulted by the Trump presidency. Why, the whole point of the Constitution and civil rights is that liberals can insult anyone they like and, when losing an argument on the merits, play the race card.

And for fifty years, Republican politicians didn't know how to respond. Until Trump.

And still, a bunch of Republican officeholders still don't get it. Here is Speak Paul Ryan saying that Trump needs to be more "inclusive with people." No, Speaker Ryan, you do not use lefty catchphrases like "inclusive" except ironically and sarcastically as a way to reverse and denormalize the left's culture of name and shame. In fact, the left's notion of "diversity and inclusion" is a lie, part of a political grand strategy to divide the American people into silos of race and gender identity so that liberals can conquer. And you, Paul Ryan, should know it.

Bottom line: We elected Donald Trump to take it to liberals and tell them to put it where the sun don't shine. It may all turn out to be a disaster, returning Democrats to power for a generation. Or it may not.

But if Democrats return to govern for a generation we are basically returning to the old trajectory, of what Margaret Thatcher called the "ratchet" where each lefty program ratchets us another step to the complete administrative state, and the succeeding conservative administration fails to restore the status-quo ante, let alone actually letting freedom and limited government unfold its wings. Hello Obamacare.

So why not try Trump the Insult President? He might lift morale among us normals and actually alter the course of civilization as we know it.