Dems and Gangs: From KKK to AntiFa

Have you noticed something about our Democratic friends? They seem to be real relaxed about gangs. And that is odd because it is Democratic voters, as in inner cities, that suffer most from gangs. What is going on here?

Let us start with a text from St. Augustine:

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made of of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed upon. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it hold places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity.

I think it is worth thinking for a moment about the saint's words. I would say that they could be improved. I would say that the "addition of impunity" is a necessary but not a sufficient part of the definition. I would add the the notion of "the assumption of benevolence" is usual for the leader of a kingdom, for he is normally someone that "cares about people like me." The robber lord revels in his fearsome and evil reputation, but the kindly king wants to be loved by the people he rules and plunders. This is shown in the experience of Mao Zedong in his Red Base in China in the 1930s. He ruled then only by terror. After he became the emperor of China he began to take on the aura of a benevolent demi-god, a Son of Heaven. And when he leveled the country with the Great Leap Forward and purged it with his Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, he was just trying to do the right thing. Right, lefties?

Let us not forget my definition of government:

Government is an armed minority, occupying territory, and taxing the people thereof to reward its supporters.

Notice that my definition includes a criminal gang that more-or-less occupies territory and more-or-less taxes the people by its "nice little business you got here, pity if something should happen to it" policy of extracting protection money from people within its territory.

So the point about governments and gangs in that they are in the same business. Now, you may observe that governments very often sign treaties of alliance with other governments. Or they might fight wars with other governments, as the mood takes them.

So it would not be surprising to learn that governments can form alliances with gangs, particularly if we accept my definition of a gang as a government merely lacking "the addition of impunity and the assumption of benevolence." In fact, you might easily come to the conclusion that it is convenient for a government to have a gang hanging around, to do the dirty work with what we now call "deniability" for the kindly king or president. Good cop, bad cop, and all that.

Now let us pass in review the gangs or paramilitary forces with which our Democratic friends have treated over the years. I suppose we should start with Boss Tweed, a Democratic politician of Scots-Irish descent who entered public life in 1848 when he organized Engine Company No.6 in Manhattan. All very harmless, no doubt, just handing out a few bennies to the helpless Irish tumbling off the coffin ships onto the Manhattan docks.

But let it be said that our Democratic friends had a relaxed attitude towards political looting and plundering, right at the start of the modern age.

Then comes the Civil War and Reconstruction. In the South the resistance to the Republican Reconstruction was a Democratic Party thing, and the armed wing of the Democrats -- what in Latin America our lefty friends call "death squads" and on the campus of University of Missouri Professor Melissa Click called "muscle" -- was the Ku Klux Klan. Hey! Call them "peaceful protesters!" They didn't really mean any harm, not unless they had to frighten someone. But the point is that when you are conducting a guerrilla war or an insurrection or a counter-revolution or whatever, you need an armed wing that is not too closely identified with the local notables. But it sure doesn't hurt to have those fearsome gang-landers in the background.

And what about labor unions? Back in the day, labor unions were illegal because they were regarded in common law as "conspiracies in restraint of trade." Which is, of course, what they are. We now permit labor unions because the workers wanted them and the workers have the vote. The power of a labor union is its ability to intimidate the workers at a place of work, to intimidate them not to be "scabs" or strikebreakers. Democrats have had a close relationship with labor unions since the late 19th century, and derive much of their money and organizational muscle from the unions. But really, a labor union is a gang of looters and plunderers. And the interesting thing about a labor union is that it usually gets to be the most motivated in the aftermath of a recession when employers are trying to cut wages in order to adapt to the new market conditions just to stay in business, and the workers are desperate to hang onto their jobs. I would say that this sort of thing is counter-productive, but what do I know.

All through the modern era Democrats have seemed to have a curious relationship with urban criminal gangs. We had Irish gangs, then Jewish gangs, then the Italian mafia. And who can forget the Prohibition era gangs in the 1920s and 1930s? All these gangs seemed to coexist rather comfortably with the Democrats running the big cities? How could this be? I couldn't possibly say.

Now here is an interesting thing: in the Kennedy administration, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy started a war on Organized Crime. How about that? Or was this just the newly respectable Irish beating up on the rather less respectable Eye-talians?

But in the post civil-rights era Democrats seemed to lose interest in fighting gangs. For instance, every big city with a large African American population seems to have a gang problem. And yet the Democratic politicians don't seem to want to "do something" about the problem. Why is this? And now we have Latin gangs and the fearsome MS-13 which, I understand, is a Salvadorean gang.

Today, I understand, the problem of the US border is intimately involved with the problem of gangs. Gangs bring drugs and people over the border; they are intimately intertwined because the people are used to carry drugs. Not only that, but it seems that the drug cartels amount to a de facto government in huge parts of Mexico outside Mexico City. You may have noticed that our Democratic friends want to disband ICE, and open the border. Hello?

Let us assume that the gangs and cartels are predominantly lower-class outfits, doing the dirty work of trafficking in drugs and people that more perfumed people are reluctant to do. But then we come to "activism" and "peaceful protest" which is an activity of the best and brightest. Here there is a whole universe of political activity from environmental groups to race-based activist organizations like Black Lives Matter and La Raza.

What then do you call the Occupy Movement, the Black-bloc, and AntiFa? These groups are obviously condoned by Democrats as "peaceful protesters" and activists whose hearts are in the right place. Unlike the truly peaceful protesters of the Tea Party that were deliberately harassed by the Obama administration acting through the IRS. Imagine the IRS harassing AntiFa!

So how do you make sense of this brief history of Democrats and gangs? I think the simple thing to understand is that Democrats and the left believe in the saving truth of political power, and political power spans the whole spectrum from upper-class politicians from Ivy League schools to the election-day muscle in the inner city, whether we are talking about the Irish carving out a place for themselves in the Gangs of New York period, or the KKK taking back the South from the Yankees, or the gangs that help organize and pacify the inner cities for the pols at City Hall. On this view I think that Occupy and AntiFa are just upper-class conceits, pretty boys and good little girls playing at "activism" while the dirty work is done by others lower down in the activism hierarchy.

See, if you are a middle-class professional, a businessman, or even a white working-class deplorable, you are really not interested in political power, because your life is mostly defined by your work in the market economy, and your family and work relations, and you can live pretty well the life you want by going along with the market and its prices and its trust. So, for you, there really is not point to intimidation and street action. Hey, let's work it out and make a deal. But our lefty friends believe in political power.

Here's the thing, expressed by a couple of folk today. We are going to be at war with Mexico, which is going to fail worse than usual under newly-elected AMLO. That means more gang action. And more Mexicans fleeing the violence to the US. And more violence at the border. What do we do about it? Invasion? Occupation? Exporting democracy that worked so well for Iraq? Special Forces hunting down gangs like ISIS? Yet the Democrats want to open the border and shut down ICE.

Here's the big thing that I think is coming down in the next few years. Do you notice that the law does not apply to Democrats? Hey, Occupy and AntiFa are just mostly peaceful protesters. Illegal aliens are to be protected from federal law enforcement. Hispanics in the Central Valley can strew garbage around, but don't you dare use a plastic straw. The homeless get to camp out in the cities against the law. Labor unions get to muscle workers, and it's OK. Hillary Clinton gets to expose national security secrets with her illegal emailing of classified documents, and hey, she was just careless. Oh, and diversity and inclusion administrators get to administer colleges and corporations according to race and sex in violation of the spirit of our civil rights laws.

I don't think that this lawlessness is going to end well for Democrats. And that is why I have created my maxim to explain it: "There is no such thing as justice, only injustice." See, liberals think that justice is something that their political action is going to create, and I think they have it backward. Government doesn't create justice. On the contrary, the primary product of government is injustice. Of course it is, because government is force: you want to work, to sell a product, to drive a car? First you gotta pay the government so it can reward its supporters.

And this injustice machine often needs the help from its informal "muscle," the chaps at the KKK or its modern instantiation AntiFa.

Proud of America on the Fourth of July

I have loved America since the first morning that I woke up in Denver in December 1965 after flying from England to spend Christmas with my parents. This is what I saw, from my parents' apartment at  8th and Clarkson, on that glorious morning as the sun prepared to rise into the gin-clear mile-high sky:

Hey! What is not to like! And pretty soon we were heading West on the 6th Avenue expressway into the mountings. That's the Rocky Mountains to you.

When I went back to Limeyland after my trip I was startled to find out that my fellow Brits were unimpressed. OK, I said to myself: I'm outta here.

Oh, all right. I didn't quite say that, because I hadn't yet learned to talk like a baseball umpire in the movies. But you get the point.

Ever since I have loved America, more and more. And I have often shed a tear for Britain, the land of my childhood.

Now, Reuters does an annual poll about Americans being Proud to be an American, and Reuters is anxious to tell us that, for the first time there is no longer a majority of Americans that are Extremely Proud of America. The poll question is thus:

How proud are you to be an American -- extremely proud, moderately proud, only a little proud, or not at all proud?

The all-time high was in 2003 after 9-11 when a full 70 percent of Americans declared themselves Very Proud. Ever since Very Proud has been going down. Even the existential moment of Barack Obama's first Fourth as president did not provide an uptick.

The folks least proud to be an American are Democrats, college graduates, and liberals. Gosh, I wonder what that is all about? I mean, Only In America can a crass real-estate developer from Queens get to be president! And yet only 23 percent of liberals are now Very Proud to be Americans.

Extreme pride among liberals has dropped nine points in the past year and 28 points since 2013.

What is wrong with these people? Don't they have compassion and respect for the ordinary real-estate stiff?

But really, this is not surprising. All my life I have observed that my liberal friends affect a supercilious skepticism with regard to the glory of America. You might say that among liberal college graduates it is fashionable to be skeptical about America. I mean. Whatabout slavery, racism, toxic masculinity?

And given that liberals run the schools and the university, what else would you expect but that Good Little Girls like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with BAs from Boston University would be non-patriotic Democratic Socialists. What Good Little Girls learn in school is to follow the neo-tribalism of identity politics rather than the more elevated tribe of the nation. Because Hitler.

And really, I can't say that I am particularly proud to be an American. Rather, I feel blessed beyond all measure to be an American, to enjoy the immense fortune of being an American and the residual legatee of chaps like George Washington, the man on a white horse than won the revolutionary war, served two terms as president and then went home; Alexander Hamilton, the "bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar" that served as Washington's chief of staff at age 25, wrote a good part of the Federalist Papers and founded the US financial system. And so on.

How could we deserve such political leaders?

To me, the terrifying thing about America is that, again and again, we have gotten just the leaders we needed: Reagan, to clear up the follies of the Johnson and Nixon and Carter years. And now Trump, to clean up the follies of the administrative state in the Obama years.

For my judgement is that we are dealing with a Great Reaction, that wants to return to the past, with the neo-tribalism of identity politics, the neo-feudalism of the welfare state, and the neo-piracy of using the government to loot and plunder your fellow men and women. What is so wrong in these hearts and minds that they return to the failures of the past for their inspiration?

In my view we are witnessing an almost titanic struggle in our time between the worship of politics-as-salvation and the emerging culture and economy that rewards people for simply contributing honestly and faithfully to the welfare of all in the market economy.

It is natural and physical that people should look to the past for inspiration, and natural and physical that they should be skeptical of the utter miracle of the last 200 years of the Great Enrichment.

But all of life is an act of faith, to live and grow in the hope that things will work out. And the greatest act of faith has perhaps been the faith of the Founders in their Declaration of Independence that a free people could govern themselves, and did not need to submit to the knout of a supercilious ruling class in order to secure safety.

And that is something to be really proud of.

The Globalists Still Don't Get It

There's a perfect article from Der Spiegel castigating the German interior minister Horst Seehofer of the CSU for holding up Bundeskanzlerin Merkel over immigration. Why, they say, he could wreck the CDU-CSU relationship and let the right-wing populists, the Alternatif für Deutschland, into power. Says Der Spiegel:

The fallout from Sunday night's drama will have consequences that go far beyond the power-sharing agreement. It could have dramatic consequences for Germany's entire political party system. The center-left Social Democrats (SPD) have already sunk to below 20 percent in public opinion polls. And the CDU itself is now headed in the same direction.

The party that has emerged as the primary beneficiary from all this is the Alternative for Germany (AfD). There's no better gift the CDU and CSU could give the right-wing populists than to tear each other apart over refugee policy.

Oh no! Not that!

Notice the basic assumption. The junior  partner in the CDU-CSU coalition should not put the whole thing at risk, not if it means letting the AfD into power. Because fascists.

Or you could put  a different meaning on Seehofer's actions. You could say that unless the CDU-CSU coalition moves to accommodate the German people on immigration and their desire to keep Germany German, then it doesn't matter what Seehofer or Merkel does. The German voters will elect another party that does believe in protecting their homeland and their way of life. On this view you could say that Seehofer is desperately trying to jerk the CDU-CSU coalition in the direction of political survival before the hole in the side completely overwhelms the bilge pumps.

Today I was reading John Derbyshire marvel that there are actually 21 percent of white people in the US that are in favor of open borders. How can they possibly not see that open borders means the end of the US as they know it?

Well, the answer is pretty simple. Most people don't read, don't think, don't go beyond the conventional wisdom in their circle. And, I would say, this is particularly true of women, who are much more social than men and much more sensible and sensitive to other peoples' views in their social circle, and much less inclined to express unconventional thoughts.

Actually, I would go further, based on my personal experience. I have been reading and thinking about life, the universe and everything ever since, in 1974, my lefty cousin visited me down in Kent, Washington, and I realized that I needed to have ideas to counter the nonsense I was hearing from her. But I would say that I have only recently begun to have a personal world-view that is not just completely derivative from some other thinker.

OK. Let's suppose that I am a little above-average on IQ, etc., but not astonishingly so. It took me 30-35 years to get to the point where I could really synthesize ideas into my own personal framework. And I read a lot.

So of course 21 percent of white people in America are in favor of open borders. That's what they hear from the media, from their college professors, and from their fellow knowledge workers in corporate and deep-state America. And they know that expressing some idea a bit too far from the norm could cost them.

Why, for instance, would all the nice liberal ladies in my neighborhood be driving Toyota Priuses and Nissan Leafs, and displaying #WeBelieve yard signs? Not because they ever had a thought in their heads, but because they are Good Little Girls that pick up the Zeitgeist and appropriate it as their own.

The only reason that I am different is that I say to myself: what's the point of just parroting what everyone else is saying? Especially if I have the conceit of being some kind of a writer.

So of course the chaps at Der Spiegel still don't get it. Of course the 21 percent of whites in the US don't get it. That is the way of the world. It goes along in the same old way, until one day, it doesn't.

By the way, "Spiegel" is German for mirror. When you hold up a mirror, all you see is yourself.

The Fault, Dear Liberals, is in Your Religion

The conspirator Cassius famously says to Brutus:

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

He means that it is not fate that ruins us but our failings.

So here we are with liberals in terminal hysteria about Trump. What gives?

This time, I don't think it is fate, nor even the personal failings of a tired and incompetent ruling class. It is the very ideas, the secular religion taught to all Good Little Boys and Good Little Girls in our schools all across the land.

Poster girl for that is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the democratic socialist that won, on June 26, 2018, the Democratic Party nomination for Congress in New York's 14th Congressional District that includes parts of the Bronx and Queens. Alexandria is the daughter of an architect, and grew up mostly in Westchester County. She got her BA at Boston University. So of course she believes in socialism, in activism, and all the rest; if she believed anything else she would be a notable rebel, going against her whole upbringing. And Good Little Girls very seldom do that; it's in the genes.

When you see pictures of "protesters" these days they usually seem to be well-brought-up young women. Why is that? It is because well-brought-up young women all go to college and they all ingest the "activism" culture that is being taught in the various Studies curricula.

As you know, my whole life and every word I write is devoted to explaining and exploding this leftist nursery tale. To paraphrase Marx,

It is high time that [normals] should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of [activism with a return to common sense].

But I get it. I understand who the left are and how they got there.

To begin with, in 1848 when rich kids Marx and Engels wrote their Manifesto it was reasonable to assume that the rising bourgeoisie would become a ruling class like the feudal nobles and thus, instead of the exploitation of peasants by nobles we would now have the exploitation of workers by capitalists.

Then Marx wrote Das Kapital that used classical economics to prove that the whole capitalist experiment would end in "immiseration" as profits were slowly squeezed out of the system and the workers took in in the solar plexus.

Makes sense, doesn't it. Only Marx turned out to be wrong. Dead wrong.

In the first place, it turned out that the bourgeoisie and their top dogs, the capitalists, were not that interested in power. Did the workers want the vote, labor unions, and social insurance? OK. You got it, even though it plays merry hell with the ability to adjust to the dictates of the market. It didn't even take bloody revolution to get it. That happened after, in Russia and China, in the aftermath of defeat in war.

In the second place, the promised "immiseration" did not take place. Oh sure, individual industries rose and fell, and the workers lost their well-paying jobs (and the investors lost their money). But there was always an economic revolution around the corner to rescue the economy and drive it to further heights. Hello fracking.

Yeah, the Great Enrichment, that has increased real per-capita income in places like the US from $3 per day in today's dollars to $150 per day. There has never been anything like it, ever. And certainly not in the old feudal era.

But. The idea of activism, of rich kids turning to revolution, baby, in order the right the wrongs of the "excluded and the dispossessed," caught on big time. Marx and Engels: rich kids. Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse: Frankfurt School rich kids. Sixties radicals: rich kids. Michael Moore: not quite a rich kid, but he is now.

Really, it makes sense. If you are a rich kid you have a real problem finding a life that has meaning. You could just retire to an estate in eastern Connecticut and let the private bankers take care of the money stuff. Or you could go to parties in Manhattan. Or you could get New Age religion. Or you could go into activism and become a "author, social activist, and filmmaker" like Naomi Klein, daughter of a physician. Much easier than doing a business start-up that might end up losing all Daddy's money. Yeah. My feeling is that political activism is not that hard. You don't really get judged on your results, but on your effort.

Yeah. I don't envy your modern rich kid. There's a lot of potential downside and, what with the reversion to the mean, not so much upside. And mere marriage and children! That's for deplorables and nannies.

The problem is that the warrant for 21st century activism is a lie. Back in 1850 there was an excuse. Nobody knew back then that the capitalists were not that interested in power, that Rockefeller would retire at 50 and invent modern philanthropy. That Ford would allow the unions, after the Battle of the Overpass, to loot his car company and eventually turn Detroit into a hollowed-out shell. That Gates could be shamed out of Microsoft and crank up his Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation ten years earlier than he planned.

And nobody knew in 1850 that the slaves would be freed, that women would get the vote, that Jim Crow would eventually be tamed with the civil rights movement. But now we do, and the only sensible reaction is that activism, the threat of street action and revolution baby, is not warranted. The activists are believing and living a lie.

That is how I make sense of the lefty hysteria we are experiencing right now. Their activism is utterly superfluous, because in the modern state, if you have a real grievance, the government will eventually get to you and do something about the injustice that is raging in your breast.

But activism is what they do, it is their faith, their religion. And what would happen to them if a yellow-haired Nietzsche should come forth and declare "Your God is Dead!"

In my view, the whole left cultural and religious experience is a Great Reaction, as follows:

1. The welfare state is neo-feudalism, a nostalgia for the agricultural age.
2. Identity politics is neo-tribalism, a nostalgia for the hunter-gatherer age.

There is a sword of Damocles poised over every lefty, and inscribed upon its flashing blade is the awful motto: your activism is a lie.

No wonder our lefty friends are upset.

Sunsetting Labor Unions

Of course, The New York Times is deeply worried by the US Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al. It significantly reduces public sector union power by allowing government employees to opt out of paying union dues.

Now, the Supreme Court's conservative majority justifies their decision of the First Amendment rights of government employees: they shouldn't have to pay for political action they disagree with. But Justice Kagan said this was baloney. This was just an attack on labor unions.

Actually, I agree with the dissent. Let's face it, government employee unions deploy their finances to support politicians that will pour money into the pockets of government employees, with salaries, benefits, and pensions and tenure that would be complete fantasy for almost any worker in the private sector. So any government employee objecting to paying for this is living in fantasyland, and merely wants to be a freeloader, benefiting from the union's political power without having to pay for it.

And let's face it, from the point of view of the average government employee, the government worker unions have been a stunning success.

So really, what the conservative wing of the Court is doing is finding a convenient way to scupper the government worker unions. And hey, why not the First Amendment, on which liberals have hung a bunch of their big-government goodies over the years!

But the irony is not lost on me. The whole point of the welfare state, what I call neo-feudalism, is free-riding. The legislature passes a law to give benefits to e.g., senior citizens for end-of-life health care, and senior citizens like me get to free-ride on the benefits forever. Until the whole country goes Venezuela.

And the whole point of the labor union movement is to free-ride on the wealth created by business corporations. Back in the early 19th century the courts held that labor unions were conspiracies in restraint of trade, like business price-fixing cartels. But then the courts started to bend to popular opinion and decide that, hey, da workers got their rights!

Well, yes. We all want to be able to defy the market and its prices when it benefits us.

But then there is the long term. In business a labor union can end up bankrupting it, as the business commits to pensions 30 years out that no corporation can responsibly agree to. Hello Detroit auto companies.

And in government a labor union can get politicians to legislate pensions in the great hereafter that can crowd out basic expenditures on services and bankrupt the government. And in fact in many blue states in the US the states are well on the way to bankruptcy and are cutting services. Because, you see, it's in the state constitution. Pensions cannot be reduced. Because justice.

So the Supreme Court's decision on Janus is piled high with irony. Here we have a decision based on First Amendment absolutism, just like liberals used to do. And it enshrines the right of a union member to freeload, just as liberals insist on everything else. Naturally, the dissent is outraged at this monstrous injustice.

Actually, I happen to think that no government employee should be allowed to join a union. Period. But I believe that anyone in the private sector should be allowed to belong to a union. But for one thing. No defined benefit pensions, not guarantees about the future. At. All. If you wanna have a pension, then it is a defined contribution pension, with absolutely no guarantees about the future. When you retire, you get the capital sum, or an annuity, based on your contributions and your employer's contributions and their increase over the years due to the magic of compound interest. Nobody gets to defer their contributions: not the employee, not the employee. Because reality.

The interesting thing to me is the utter decline of labor unions in the private sector, presently down to 6.7 percent. Why is this?

I suspect it is because, willy nilly, people now accept that it is their job to become and to stay employable. And no labor union can protect you from that.

But 35 percent of employees in the public sector are union members. Of course, because labor unions have produced amazing gains for their members. That's because government is not governed by the prices of the private sector. The only cloud on the horizon is the bankruptcy of the government in question, and how can that ever occur, given the state's power to compel taxes from the people to pay its supporters?

A Conservative Supreme Court is Not the Answer to our Prayer

With the resignation of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy from the  US Supreme Court the nation is plunged into another no-holds-barred fight over a Supreme Court nomination.

For liberals, evidently, there is a full-on panic about abortion and gay marriage. Do you see the problem, liberals? If you make the Supreme Court the supreme arbiter of everything cultural and moral, then your very lives, your fortunes, and your sacred honor depends on a majority on the Supreme Court. The proper way to go is to persuade the voters to elect representative that will write laws to enact your agenda.

Of course conservatives have our own problems with the Supreme Court. It was called the "Strange New Respect" problem by Tom Bethell at the American Spectator 30 years ago. Simply put, when the Washington Post starts according "strange new respect" to a conservative in Washington, DC, it means that the said conservative has surrendered to the ruling-class culture and will no longer hold out for conservative principles. Justice Kennedy is the poster-boy for the "strange new respect" syndrome. The strategy of the Federalist Society and the apprenticing of staunch conservatives in the judiciary has been a conscious effort to inculcate heroic values in young conservatives so that they will go to their deaths like Antonin Scalia without ever getting "strange new respect" from chaps like Peter Strzok.

OK, great. So President Trump gets to convert the "strange new respect" Kennedy that voted for abortion and gay marriage with a guy that won't. But that doesn't solve our problem.

Our problem is that the elite culture of the US is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. What we need is an America in which educated evolved people in the ruling class would say: look, I understand the liberals and the feminists on abortion: it's a terrible burden to bring a child into the world because of a breakdown of contraception or without the support of the father. But we are talking about human life here. Or they would say: I understand the yearning of gays for the stamp of normality, to come in from the cold of the sexual wilderness, but we are really talking children here. The purpose of marriage is not to make life all cozy for couples, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual or the lastest wizard wheeze of intersectionality.  The purpose of marriage is to protect the mother of children, to bind the father of her children to her, to enforce the woman's instinct for eternal love against the male appetite for sexual adventure.

So, we are faced with the Andrew Breitbart maxim: "politics is downstream from culture." If you want to win in politics you have to win first in the culture. And conservatives are not winning in the culture. Instead our children are being marinated in left-wing culture K thru grad school, and every day by the left-wing entertainment and news industry.

But even that is not the whole story, as I wrote just yesterday. And I got that from sci-fi author and Christian John C. Wright, who wrote in "Last Crusade: Fighting the Wrong Battle" that it is not enough to fight the left on the cultural front knowing that "culture is downstream from religion."

[I]f the Left retains the moral high ground, the people (who in the long run always seek moral validation before any other factor, including wealth or gratification, applause or power) will cleave to the Left.

The Identitarians will find that their cultural ammunition, the memes and short videos which are this generations version of folk songs, will not have any deep or lasting effect.

One cannot change a man’s mind unless his heart allows it. But one cannot change a man’s heart unless his soul allows it.

In the same way politics is downstream of culture, culture is downstream of religion.

See, when that foolish woman owner of the Red Hen chucks Press Secretary Sarah Sanders out of her restaurant she thinks she is doing the moral thing. Because she is a Good Little Girl that has learned her lessons well.

So I believe that our present problem is that our ruling class, the people that have learned their lessons well at the woke university, have been taught a false religion. This religion is one part "activism," the fantasy that "peaceful protest" on behalf of helpless victims is the highest form of life, and one part "paternalism," the conceit that "we" are selfless educated and evolved people that are called to minister to the people and organize and administer the welfare state on their behalf.

I will tell you what is wrong with both these conceits. The add up to the Great Reaction, the retreat from the modern society that has advanced beyond tribalism and subordination to an independence of sorts in the free market society of the nation state. But the religion that Good Little Boys and Good Little Girls are taught in school and in the media is the reactionary neo-tribalism of identity politics, and the neo-feudalism of the welfare state. Thus, Great Reaction.

One Fine Day, the best and the brightest will wake up from this nightmare and take up a religion that rejects neo-tribalism for a much broader pan-human identity, and rejects neo-feudalism for a cooperative and human community rather than an administrative and mechanical community. But that day is not yet.

And that means that we conservatives are reduced to depending on nominating brave Supreme Court justices to hold the line against the follies and the injustices of the left until the dawning of a new age.

Reality Hits the 19th Century White Ethnics

It was Lee Kwan Yew, long time prime minister of Singapore, that said:

In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

Now that Hispanics and Asian-Americans are coming into political contention, people are in a panic because the emerging race-based politics will threaten the white majority.

But actually, isn't this old news? If you read about presidential politics down the years you will discover that in our lifetimes it has been about appealing to the Irish vote, or the Italian vote or the Catholic vote. And, of course there is no group more electorally unified than African Americans who have recently been voting 90 percent Democrat.

So yesterday we had the shattering news that a good old Irish pol, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), had been defeated in a Democratic primary by Puerto-Rican beauty and Bernie Bro-ess, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a district that is 40 percent Hispanic.

The chaps on the alt-right like to say that the US has been ruined ever since the original Anglo-Saxon posterity was irrigated with the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, and the Jews in the 19th century.

But that means that we have been doing Lee's race-religion politics here in the US for over a century. The Irish have been notably Democrat since whenever, because when they first came to the US they automatically voted against the party favored by descendants of England. And, of course, Protestant New England invented public education to cure the Irish of their Catholicism. Yeah, how did that work out, geniuses? The deep state has always been a couple of french fries short of a Happy Meal.

And that works for regions as well. Back in the day New England was Republican and the South was Democratic. Now the opposite is true.

But I'd say there is nothing like a few more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez congresscritters to send the remainder of the 19th century immigration wave into the Republican Party of American nationalists.

Now Jonah Goldberg in his latest piece reminds us that politics can't fill the hole in our souls.

Humans crave what philosopher-anthropologist Ernest Gellner called “re-enchantment creeds.” According to Gellner, modernity — i.e., the trinity of the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, and the market economy — dissolved the old creeds that gave people a sense of meaning and belonging. When traditional religion gets chased out, we adopt other causes, movements, and ideas to fill the holes in our souls. Nationalism, socialism, psychoanalysis, neo-paganism, racism: These are all forms of re-enchantment creeds.

Hmm. I'm going to have to read Gellner. He's also anti-Wittgenstein, which will be interesting after reading a Wittgenstein biography. But.

What you see is that everyone these days, from left and right, says that my side is the rational, give-me-the-facts side, and the other side is all about feelings. And they are all wrong.

Remember Andrew Breitbart's "politics is downstream from culture?" Back in October, 2017, after John C. Wright, I revised and extended it: "Politics is downstream from culture is downstream from religion." Let's rewrite this amazing wisdom.

Facts are downstream from emotions which are downstream from unconscious instincts.

I am getting that from Jordan B. Peterson who got it from Jung who got it from the whole 19th century German intellectual ferment.

And the point that Peterson is making is that we see facts through a filter of values: facts are downstream of values. This means that when it comes to politics peoples' notions will be completely colored and probably determined by their values, and their personal values come from their cultural and religious memberships.

And anyone that says they believe in facts and the other guys believe in emotions is missing the point.

This is not to deny that science and Enlightenment and the market economy are vital. Hello Venezuela.

Now in the United States at this time we are witnessing a culture war between the left's religion and culture of identity politics and the right's culture of nation. There is no mystery about this. If you are a lefty you instinctively know that you must devalue and demoralize the old US culture of America as the land of the Free and the Brave, etc., if you want to bend the arc of history towards justice. Instead you want to put in its place the notion of numerous suffering groups that noble lefties will lead to the Promised Land over the bones of heteropatriarchal white men and the lamentation of their women.

But of course, this new culture and politics is putting the old 19th century ethnics, good old boys like Joe Crowley, on the spot. How much longer can they vote for the race-based identity politics party that is determined to put them on the ash-heap of history?

The whole point of nationalism is to create a fake tribe to compete with the other tribes, of race and religion.That is what President Trump is up to with his Make America Great Again meme. And he is consciously trying to tempt African Americans and Hispanics into his nationalist tribe. The immigration issue is a great way to do this because, studies show, once immigrants get their whole family here in the US then they become anti-immigration.

Put it this way. Under the recent cultural norms, various groups have been encouraged to rub the sores of their group grievances against the United States: racism, sexism, big business, corporate power, whatabout the workers. Politics must be this way, unifying some group against a threat. But two can play at that game. You can also unify people as Americans against the dangerous immigrants that want to feast on our entitlement benefits and take away our jobs.

Looking at things this way, you could ask: how come it took them so long? And how come that the 19th century white ethnics didn't all switch to the Republican Party a generation ago?

The answer is that it is not enough to see the writing on the wall. Most people need to have the writing on the wall flashing like a neon sign, to the accompaniment of a police siren.