Who Will Be the Angriest of All?

I get that the whole point of politics is to get your side angried up so that they will all go out to the polls and vote.

That, I presume, was the whole point of Al Gore not conceding the 2000 election and the subsequent Redefeat Bush bumper stickers on the backs of Subarus everywhere for the next few years.

And that, obviously, is the plan with Hillary Clinton's Russia Collusion excuse for losing the 2016 election.

But I thought that the candidate's lawyers were off-limits. That's so that all shady deals can be run through the candidate's lawyer's office. See the Steele Dossier, for which the financing was run through Hillary Clinton's lawyer.

But with the raid on Donald Trump's lawyer I'd say that the good old rules are finished. Apparently, a special team will go through all the documents to determine which are covered by attorney-client privilege. Perfectly fair and just. But I doubt if Hillary Clinton would like any government  team rummaging through her attorney's files on such a mission. After all, it's nothing to exempt evidence because of attorney-client privilege if your gum-shoes have already been through it all and understand what has been going on and where the bodies are buried.

But the question that I have about all of this is: who will get the angriest? Will it be Trump supporters enraged that, yet again, the Deep State gets to do what it wants when it wants and how it wants? Or will it be educated women confirmed once again in their outrage that Trump has been #MeToo-ing around when everybody knows that the Harvey Weinstein era is over?

Or do the Trump supporters, content with the good-jobs regime of the Trump economy stay home while the woke SJWs all flock to the polls?

The simple answer is: we don't know. All I know is that I put out a substantial contribution to Dino Rossi, who's running for the open Republican toss-up WA-08 district. The last time I got that engaged, and put up real money, was in 1994 in the great mid-term that elected the first Republican Congress in 40 years. And what got me all riled up was the hypocrisy of the 1992 Year of the Woman.

So the question in 2018 is: who is angriest? Is it the lefty liberals, outraged at the inexplicable election of Trump when everyone agreed it was time for the First Woman President? Or is it the deplorables, enraged at the manifold injustices and indignities that they receive every day at the hand of the their local liberal?

You call it.

Sure We Fight, But Then What?

Right now the mad-caps on the conservative right are all singing the same tune. First the liberals want to take our guns and then they want to take our free-speech rights. #1A and #2A.

OK, so we fight. We fight for our gun rights, and the right of self-defense. And we fight for free speech rights; the right to publish our ideas, right and wrong, and petition the government for a redress of grievances, right or wrong.

But then what?

See, my Big Thing is that we conservatives really don't have an answer to the left's program.

The left, as I see it, is filling the hole left by the death of God in the 19th century. But its program is totalitarian: we will bend the arc of history towards justice with a condominium of secular religion and government power and economic power.

The verdict on that is the mass graves of the 20th century. When ideology, government, and economic power are condensed into one entity the result is disaster.

But people still want the consolation of religious hope; they still want government to protect them from pirates and predators, and they still want economic security. And that is the package deal that the left keeps offering. And that is the attraction of "activism" for the well-born crusader. He can be the agent to bring hope and safety and security to the eternally marginalized.

In his Maps of Meaning Jordan B. Peterson tells us exactly what this is about. We live in the Unbearable Present; our constant need is to formulate a solution to this misery, to heal the gaping wound in our society and advance to an Ideal Future.

You will notice that the left has exactly formulated its program on this axis whether with the unbearable exploitation of labor or minorities or women. And they formulate a vision of an ideal future, liberated and emancipated from oppression and exploitation.

Only the left always leads to the silence of the mass grave. So something is wrong.

Peterson symbolizes the problem of redemption from the unbearable present to an ideal future as the opposition between two Hostile Brothers: the Hero and the Adversary.

[The hero] stands on the border between order and chaos, and serves the group as creator and agent of renewal... The hero rejects identification with the group as the ideal of life, preferring to follow the dictates of his conscience and his heart. His identification with meaning--and his refusal to sacrifice meaning for security--renders existence acceptable, despite its tragedy.

But then there is the Adversary. He comes in two forms, the fascist and the decadent.

The fascist wants to crush everything different, and then everything. The decadent immolates himself, and then builds the fascist from his ashes. The bloody excesses of the twentieth century, manifest most evidently in the concentration camp, stand as testimony to the desires of the adversary and as monument to his power.

The problem is, of course, that every self-styled savior represents himself as the true hero, and the other guy as the fascist, decadent adversary. So how is a mother to tell the difference? How do we identify the false hero, who is really a fascist in disguise? How do we see the heroism in the man that "everyone" calls a fascist?

In our current world we have the globalists, who see themselves as arching above the fascist tendencies of the nation state. Then we have the nationalists that see themselves as representing the only practical form of large-scale human representation, because, to paraphrase Enoch Powell, globalism cannot work because there is no global demos, no global people: thus all current attempts at supra-nationalism must fail. Then we have the left that experiences itself as the voice from below, giving voice to the silenced, the oppressed and the exploited.

Which of these is the hero, and which the adversary?

That is the great question of our time.

Women, Kevin, Can Be As Mean As Pepper

Right now I am struggling with the assertion in Jordan B. Peterson's Maps of Meaning that the Great Mother represents both creation and destruction. We seem to be getting all Hegelian here, where a thing is the same as its opposite, or very nearly.

But really? Women are destructive?

You see, I am really your average squish and I have been taught to be a gentleman, where women are concerned. So I find it really difficult to deal with the idea of women as destructive.

So you can imagine that I am really interested in the travails of Kevin D. Williamson and the women of The Atlantic. Here is a good set of links from PowerLine. Is the defenestration of Kevin the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything where women are concerned?

Could it be that women are not the innocent virgins and suffering mothers of legend?

You think?

Don't forget the fact that the main actors in all those religious witch-hunts of which we've heard tell were women.

And there is the fact reported by James M. Ault Jr. in Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church. Men hold all the offices in these racist, sexist, homophobic churches, but women control the church through manipulation of their office-holding husbands. How? Well in part it is because the women's gossip network creates "a common grid of 'what everybody sees' and 'what everybody knows.'" In other words, women get to define social reality through their daily conversations and interactions with each other.

Hey, here is something more, that I just read yesterday. It's the lament of a "really beautiful woman" about how hard life has been for her. It's not the men that make it rough. Oh no. It's the women that all hate her.

One of the worst things about being beautiful is that other women absolutely despise you. Women have made me cry my whole life. When I try to make friends with a woman, I feel like I’m a guy trying to woo her. Women don’t trust me. They don’t want me around their husbands. I’m often excluded from parties, with no explanation.

Well, bust my buttons! Who knew?

So really, why be surprised that the women at The Atlantic all ganged up on poor Kevin Williamson. It could not be, it must not be that a man who was adopted as a baby -- and therefore might easily have been aborted, but wasn't -- would have strong feelings in a pro-life direction with respect to abortion.

No! Not to be endured! Nobody is allowed to to tell well-born women the facts of life. After all, what is the point of being a well-born woman working at a prestige media title unless you can define the common grid of what everybody sees and everybody knows, and make it stick.

Oh, and in the same week we have the kerfuffle at YouTube, run by Susan Wojcicki, who is connected with the founders of Google. The problem at YouTube seems to be that while conservatives and alt-right whackos kinds expect to be demonetized and censored, immigrant Iranian women vegans get really angry! How dare anyone censor them or demonetize them? What about their rights!

So here's the basic facts of life from Jordan B. Peterson, as I understand them right now, to help it all make sense.

First of all, our modern scientific world view, of facts, facts, facts, has nothing to do with the case. We do not go through life making rational decisions based on data input and strategic processing of data. Not at all. We -- and all living things -- live moment to moment on auto-pilot, flying along as unconcerned as a seagull. But then something unexpected happens. Enter fear. It means that you have to suspend auto-pilot, stop your life right there until you can figure out what happened and why, and figure out how to deal with it. Until then, you are paralyzed with fear. Reason has nothing to do with the case. It is emotion that rules the world.

In a societal context, where a whole society has been rocked on its heels by an unexpected event, the problem can only be solved by a "sacrificial hero," who does the work of figuring out what happened and how to change society so that it can deal with the new and the unexpected. As we know, these figures are only venerated when they have departed the scene, often tragically. Think Lincoln, JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr. Or, if you are a lefty, Rosa Luxemburg, Sacco and Vanzetti, Trotsky, the Rosenbergs, Che.

Really, if you want to make a difference, you probably have to die upon the Cross.

But this is not the way of women, as The Atlantic has just demonstrated. And this is not surprising. Women are the agents of creation and destruction; it is men that are the agents of order and tyranny, and specifically restoring order after the lingering death of tyranny, which is the world of the dying king, holding on to his throne with white knuckles while the world crumbles around him.

You can see this in the way that political scientists frame presidential elections. Elections are either Four More Years -- a continuation of order -- or Time for a Change. Time for a Change tells us that the voters think that the order of the previous regime has tended towards tyranny and the political order must be refreshed. That is a man's job. It cannot be the job of people that insist on their safe space and the exclusion of all discouraging words that might upset them.

Meanwhile, our liberal women friends like Jennifer Palmieri are still emoting about the idea of a woman president.

Only thing is that the great women political leaders of our time, Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher, pretty well reinvented themselves as men. Theresa May and Mutti Merkel, not so much.

Because the job of a political leader is not to cuddle in a safe space but to boldly outdare the dangers of the time, the eternal black cloud of the Dragon of Chaos. And that is what men were put on this Earth to do. Women? Not so much.

The Plague of Fake Politics

When you are part of the ruling class -- or even a ruling-class wannabe -- you want to do ruling-class things. And what a ruling class does is politics.

In our age the ruling class is the so-called educated class that first emerged in the Enlightenment and first got its hands dirty in the French Revolution. Then, in the 19th Century we saw the emergence of Educated Youth, the Marxes and the Engels of the time, well-born young men that chose politics as a way to advocate for the lower class.

Thus was born today's over-under politics where the wealthy and the well-connected use the underclass as a tiger-paw to maul the middle class. Marx was the son of the best lawyer in Trier and Engels was the son of a textile baron sent to England to keep an eye on Daddy's business.

The thing is that this sort of politics is fake. Marx and Engels were not advocating for the rights of well-born scions, they were advocating for the workers. Er, what would rich kids like that know about the needs of the workers? Because the telling thing about Educated-Youth activism is that it seems to require All Power to the Scions! In our day we are talking about graduates of selective colleges making their chops as "community organizers" for a year before moving on to a liberal foundation and then a career in electoral politics. Fake politics is great for the well-born scions. And that is the point.

So now we have the fake "caravan of Central American migrants" organized by the usual crew of liberal church groups. Sorry fellahs, but glomming onto a group of Central Americans and using them as camera bait is not "activism;" it is fake politics. It is US liberals looking for an issue on which to perform activism and create meaning for themselves.

And the same goes for the March for our Lives movement that features the teenagers from Parkland as its media bait. Kids don't have the experience and the connections to mount huge rallies in Washington DC. It takes well-connected professional activists and well-connected billionaires. It is fake politics. It is not about "gun violence," which is mainly a problem in black inner cities; it is all about creating meaning in the lives of well-born, well-connected liberals: fake politics.

Next week is going to be Town Hall for our Lives, featuring the same stand-up kids in front of cameras. Sorry liberals; this is fake politics, once again.

If all this stuff is fake politics, what is real politics? I will tell you. It is some whacko guy running for president and discovering a whole demographic that none of the fake activists had ever thought of representing.

The problem with all this educated-class fake politics is what comes later. It is what I call the "little darlings" problem.

Suppose you are Marx and Engels and you want revolution for the working class. Or you are Beatrice Webb and you want legislation mandating labor unions and social services for the working class. Just trust us, they said, and we will change the world for you and protect you.

Only they didn't. Marx and Engels and their adepts Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Castro and Chavez led the workers into a maelstrom of starvation and killing. Beatrice Webb and US liberals led the workers into a box canyon by promising cradle-to-grave jobs and welfare. But now the working class in England and the US is dying of despair because the world they were taught to live in has collapsed. Go watch the Up Series if you want to see this happen in real time. There are no more lifetime jobs in manufacturing; there are no more secure union jobs except in government. The glorious movement to lift up the working class was not about the working class at all; it was all about the power and the glory of the Marxes, the Lenins, the Webbs, and the college-taught "activists" luxuriating in the activism culture of today.

The same thing has been happening with the women's movement, run by well-born women that fancied a life that was more than marriage and children. No problem, girls, except that, for some reason, the women of today are less happy that the women of the Fifties. Why would that be? Could it be that most women -- well-born women educated at selective colleges excepted -- want marriage and children and a part-time job? Has anyone asked them?

Here's what I keep coming back to. It is that, in this age of politics-with-everything we have grasped the wrong end of the stick. The record of the last 200 years is that the day-to-day work of human social cooperation can best be left to the market in goods and labor, with sensible laws to encourage faithful dealings and reward trust. It is not a good idea to marshal people into political tribes and teach them to trust their leaders. Political leaders are like the generals of armies. They get to go home to a well-earned retirement; it is their foot soldiers and caravaner migrants that get to pay the bills of their leaders with their lives.

Instead of teaching gullible teenagers and migrants to trust in their leaders we should be teaching people to understand and master the bourgeois bargain. The bargain is simple: it is your job to figure out how to contribute to society with your mind and your body, and then do something about it. And don't think that the job is over once you have found your first job. The world changes, and we all need to change with it, or else end up on the dust-heap of history. Sure, "society" can help, and government has role to play. But what if the government is wrong? What if government's health care programs make health care impossibly expensive?  What if government schools don't prepare our children for the real world? What then?

There's a cute piece today by Christopher DeGroot, who sneers at Kevin D. Williamson for sneering at the white working class for not getting with the program and doing something about it when the good old jobs started to fade away.

The problem is that the white working class made its mistake a generation before the jobs started drying up in the Seventies. Their mistake was the trust the activists of fake politics who "cared about people like you."

No they didn't. All politicians care about is your vote. All the activists care about is your body showing up at their "peaceful protest." And that is all.

What Do We Do About the Experts?

I was recommended to read The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor by economics professor William Easterly.

Easterly tells a story familiar to the rebels that don't like being dictated to by the educated elite. The way of the world is for the best and the brightest to decide what is good for us, and then implement it, for our own good, of course.

Easterly approaches the issue with a review of development economics, the notion that experts and administrators know how to bring the backward nations of the world into the modern age with targeted plans formulated and executed by a central government advised by international experts.

On Easterly's telling, this all began a century ago at the intersection of economics and colonialism. The western colonial governments were starting to get a bit uncomfortable with the western domination of the rest of the world. How did democracy and self government mesh with the colonial domination of Africa and Asia? The answer was a clever one.

The backward people governed by the western colonialists were really too backward to be able to govern themselves and come up with ideas and plans for their own development, so the answer was for autocratic governments, colonial or post-colonial, to execute on economic development plans developed by European experts, the chaps who knew what they were doing. Politics was the answer.

It actually makes a lot of sense. If you are the ruling class the last thing you can countenance is to get up and abandon the levers of political power, and say to yourself, OK, our rule is unjust and we should just get the heck out of here. Instead what you do is elide the truth of your unjust rule, and perform a misdirection play. You say to yourself and to the world that, well, these backward people aren't really interested in political rights. So the best thing to do for them is to implement a targeted plan of economic development created and executed by us, the knowledgeable ones.

This is smarter than you might think. It appeals to the existing colonialists, and it appeals to any budding local nationalist revolutionary cadres. It flatters liberal reformers and it sidesteps the whole question of political legitimacy. Thus, between the world wars, there was a big effort to come up with a development plan for China, in which both the Rockefeller Foundation and Sun Yat-sen/Chiang Kai-Shek supporters collaborated. It conveniently dropped the question in which ordinary Chinese people were intensely interested, of western enclaves in China where western law superseded Chinese law.

Or in Africa, the colonialists came up with development plans after World War II to benefit "the natives" without really tackling the who-whom question of whether the western colonialists should be the ones to dictate such matters.

Of course, there were people that questioned the technocratic development model, and Easterly frames this opposition in the contrast between the two winners of the 1974 Nobel Economics prize,  F.A. Hayek and Gunnar Myrdal. Hayek is famous for his opposition to the expert technocratic model; Myrdal was a full-on supporter of the technocratic model. But guess what: the technocratic model enthusiasts refused to engage with the Hayekians, saying that everyone agreed that the technocratic model with its carefully-crafted plans was the way to go. Somehow that sounds familiar.

In other words, people in the political world cannot coutenance anything unless it is a political solution, directed by the powerful. We know what is best, say the colonialist oppressors; We know what is best, say the post-colonialist autocrats. And why not? If you have managed to get yourself to the top of the political heap, you must be a genius, right?

No doubt, but what is interesting me, at the half-way point in the book, is that Easterly is carefully making his case on the argument from racism, that the western colonialists and experts were and are racists that operated on the assumption that ordinary people in the Third World just did not have the chops to develop their countries on their own.

But I want to make the problem bigger. After all, the whole point of the western welfare state is that ordinary western people just don't have the chops to manage their retirement, their end-of-life health care, their children's education on their own. They need the support of technocratic government programs.

I suspect that Easterly will get around to that, but he understands that to persuade the political and cultural elite he must argue from racism and not from economics.

For the extraordinary Great Enrichment of the last two hundred years took place in spite of everything and everybody. In my view nobody knew what was happening in the west 200 years ago, and if they had they would have stopped it. Ruling classes want to rule, and that is all. Ordinary people want to hang on to what they have, and that is all. Both are lemmings, that keep on going until they go over the cliff.

We have increased per-capita income by 30 times in 200 years, yet we can still get a Venezuela. How come?

How to Solve the Lefty Boycott Problem

What do we do about the lefty habit of launching boycotts against conservative media types?

This week it's Laura Ingraham's turn as young teenage activist David Hogg, presumably prompted all the way by David Brock's Media Matters outfit, has successlfully scared most of the Laura's advertisers to stop advertising on her FoxNews TV show.

Oh, and don't forget the NRA. Lefties love to launch boycotts against the eevil NRA.

Of course before Laura it was Sean Hannity,  and before him Bill O'Reilly. And they have tried a few times to scare Rush Limbaugh's advertisers off his program.

So what do we DO about it?

Do we return fire, and punch back twice as hard, as a famous community organizer once said, and target advertisers on lefty shows? Do we ignore the lefties? Do we turn the other cheek?

Or do we adopt the strategy of Vox Day, advertised in his SJWs Always Lie and SJWs Always Double Down ebooks. Here is the SJW Survival Guide from SJWs Always Lie. Rule Three is:  never apologize, because it only encourages them.  Rule Seven is: make the rubble bounce.

So Laura Ingraham should not have apologized to David Hogg.

Vox Day's bigger agenda is that, if you don't like social media deplatforming you then you need to take action and make your own platforms. That's why Day has produced a "fork" to Wikipedia, calling it Infogalactic. Only trouble is that Infogalactic's traffic is going down, not up.

The problem for conservatives and non-lefties is that we don't believe in boycotts. That's because we don't believe in the basic faith of the left in political action. We don't believe that labor unions are the solution for the workers. We don't believe in the wonders of the welfare state. We don't believe in the efficacy of government experts. We don't believe that Affirmative Action or "inclusion and diversity" is going to correct historical discrimination.

So, while everyone on the left believes in the use of activism and "peaceful protest" to fight against injustice, we don't. Oh, we believe in laws against major discrimination, but not much more.

Actually, we believe that only government should be forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race and sex. Because the whole point of freedom is the freedom to discriminate. So, on this view, if Google and Facebook want to drive conservatives out of the public square, go ahead fellahs. Of course it might not be a good strategic plan and good for business to piss off half of the country, but, as they say, it's a free country, and the whole point of freedom is the right to make mistakes.

The big risk for companies that bail on conservative media advertising is that sometimes the boycott backfires as the listeners and viewers decide to boycott the boycotters and, sometimes, the conservative show won't have the advertisers back if they suddenly get sadder and wiser.

The best thing to happen would be that all the rumpus and accusations the 2018 activist wave result in the reelection of the GOP Congress in November. Because what cooled the jets of the last lefty activist era, the fabled Sixties, was that the voters elected Republican Presidents five times out of six between 1968 and 1988. It was only when Bill Clinton declared himself a New Democrat that the voters elected a Democrat. And then, after he sicced Hillary on the health care system, the voters elected the first GOP Congress in 40-odd years.

That is the sort of thing that people with a faith in the saving grace of political power really understand. The trouble is that there is always a new generation of well-born youngsters with a desperate hunger for revolution, baby.

Myth and Religion in an Age of Science

I sent a piece to American Thinker last night to urge that we reclassify all lefty ideologies as religions. The idea was to be able to apply the First Amendment to our lefty friends respecting establishments of religion.

Because if the US has an official religion right now it is the congeries of lefty ideologies, and don't you dare question the experts on their political correctness.

However, I was also reading Jordan B. Peterson yesterday, and he says this about your modern ideologies. And he means all of them, from the story of "benevolent nature threatened by the rapacious forces of the corrupt individual and the society of the machine" to the brave pioneer "wresting the good life... from the intransigent forces of nature."

These stories are all ideologies... [But they] are dangerous. Their power stems from their incomplete but effective appropriation of mythical ideas... Ideologies only tell part of the story, but tell that part as if it were complete.

Peterson wants us to understand that everything is two-edged. Benevolent nature? Yes, but it includes malarial mosquitos. Noble pioneers? But what about the original inhabitants? The Great Mother is creation and destruction. The Great Father is security and tyranny, and if your appropriated myth doesn't weave that into the story then, in the words of Mary McCarthy, every word is a lie, including "and" and "the."

Yes, but isn't myth and religion old hat, because science? Well, I quoted Rodney Stark in my AT piece to the effect that

The everlasting basis for religion will be the human conviction and hope that life has meaning.

Or, as I like to quote from Douglas Adams, it is all about "the meaning of life, the universe, and everything." I think the point is that the reason that all living things do what they do is that they act as if their life has hope and meaning. Maybe there is no meaning of life in this universe. But it seems to me that everything in the universe seems to be acting as if there is. Or, to put it in terms of Jordan Peterson, our lives are based on affect, responding to unexpected stimuli with the response we call "emotion."

I see that he gets some of this from Nietzsche. I am reading Beyond Good and Evil at the gym and Nietzsche is pretty clear on science, philosophy, and everything. Kant and his categories? Sure, but suppose he was mistaken? Schopenhauer and his "will?" So let's unpack it:  the fact is that "will" is not something simple and certain, but complicated unit into which a whole world of meaning has been packed. Cause and effect? We should use them "as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication -- not for explanation." Or,

It is perhaps just dawning on five or six minds that physics, too, is only an interpretation and exegesis of the world (to suit us, if I may say so!) and not a world explanation[.]

That is to say that science demonstrates the world; it does not explain it.

Actually I think the whole thing can be understood by turning Marx on his head. In his Theses on Feuerbach he famously writes:

Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

Er, no Chuck. Let's look at this from the Peterson point of view. We achieve new interpretations of the world from experiencing the unexpected as an irruption of the dangerous unknown. There is a whole universe out there of which we know nothing, because it does not affect our lives. But when the universe whacks us upside the head we struggle to achieve a hard-won new interpretation the world. The point is not to change the world but to change  ourselves so we can better continue our lives in a less dangerous and more effective way.

Going along in the old way and ignoring new interpretations of the world may be sensible, or it may be suffocating. Going off in a new way may be beneficial, or it may be suicidal.

Changing the world, Chuck, might be the point or it might be a recipe for 100 million dead humans.

The point is to figure out the difference. And that is the job of myth and religion, not science, and not half-baked lefty ideology.