Race Card Poker

Did you notice that President Trump tweeted the other day that the Four Squaddies were "a very Racist group of troublemakers?"

How dare, how dare he do something like that?

Why everybody knows that it is impossible for Women of Color to be racist. Or sexist. Or anything else. And the very idea of accusing a Democratic Congresswoman of Color of being a racist.

I Can't Believe He Said That!

Here's what I want to know. How did the young Drumpf skip the mandatory All Whites are Racist 101 class? Did Daddy get him an opt-out card from the local KKK Kleagle?

Mind you, I do think it was naughty of the President to be tweeting about how, back in the day, Al Sharpton wanted him to attend his racist soirées or whatever he called them. Hey Big Al. What's yer problem? Trump helped you back in the day; so how come you ain't covering for him now?

When you think about it, it is monstrous that the white people of the US are being forced to cower under their beds in case someone should up and call them a racist.

Which is, need I remind you, about the worst thing you can be. So you would think that any good kindly American would think once, twice, thrice, before accusing a fellow citizen of being a racist.

But you would be wrong, because there are a lot of Americans that just love the upset-the-table power that comes with the unanswerable racist accusation.

I have lately been thinking that we should adopt the notion of President Coolidge, who said, on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence:

If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.

Hey, Cal. I like it.

So I say that if, according to the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, government may not discriminate on the basis of race or sex, that is final.

So why are we all getting our knickers in a twist playing kiddie playground games about "you're daddy's a dirty raacist!"

Well I will tell you. Something weird happened with the Civil Rights Acts. Before the acts, government was not supposed to discriminate. But it did. People could discriminate, but often they didn't.

Then we have the Civil Rights Acts that declared that neither government nor people could discriminate on the basis of race or sex.

Racist sexist homophobe Barry GOldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because, he said, only government should be forbidden to discriminate. A free person should be allowed to discriminate.

Yet what do we have today? Government discriminates on the basis of race and sex every day, because diversity and inclusion. Big corporate institution discriminate of the basis of race and sex and sexual orientation every day. Because good little girls in HR. Social media discriminates on the basis of race and sex and viewpoint every day, because "hate."

But if one little mom-and-pop Christian baker declines to cater a gay wedding, saying like Bartleby the scrivener, "I would prefer not to," all hell breaks loose, courtesy of the lefties at the local Human Rights Commission.

We know how we all got here. We got here because majority white Americans got taught to be guilty about race. The slaves, dontcha know, although the vast majority of white Americans come from serf or peasant stock in Europe. And the liberals in charge of the culture enjoyed the power they got from victimizing ordinary nobody whites.

And Republican politicians learned that it was impossible to win a race-card street fight, because the media would always come down on the side of the poor helpless victimized woman or minority or the vile minority racist politician like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

Well, it looks like Trump thinks he knows how to play race-card poker, and he is standing up to the usual racists and sexists on the left that the liberal media has been protecting for half a century.

Of course, he may go down in flames. But on the other hand this may be an Emperor's New Clothes moment. At this point, nobody knows.

It's a topsy-turvy world. Here we have the left that says, on the one hand, that race and gender are artificial cultural artifacts. Yet on the other hand it insists that human identity is inseparable from race and gender identity. Rep. Pressley (D-MA):

[W]e don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don't want to be a black voice. We don't need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don't want to be a queer voice. 

They say that the way to center yourself on hate speech like that is to substitute the word "white" for "black" and imagine a Republican politician saying it. 

We don’t need white faces that don't want to be a white voice. We don't need Christians that don’t want to be a Christian voice. We don’t need men that don't want to be a male voice. 

Nuff said. But then arises the question.

As the mice asked, back in the good old days of The Tailor of Gloucester, courtesy of Beatrix Potter, "Who is going to bell the cat?" Actually the notion goes back to Aesop's Fables.

The answer is simple. Someone with the courage that is willing to lose everything on the next hand of race-card poker.

Our Ruling Class's Unjust Sense of Entitlement

In a recent piece, Matthew Continetti has demonstrated the fundamental truth about our political situation in these United States:

[T]he impeachment debate is not about what Trump has done, is doing, or might do. It is about whether he and the social forces he represents are entitled to rule.

He points out that 40 percent of Americans believe that President Trump should be impeached. And that means 70 percent of Democrats. In other words, 40 percent of Americans don't think that President Trump is entitled to rule.

Now, of course, the average American and the average Democrat didn't come up with that on their own. As I keep saying, you have to be carefully taught. The impeachment notion arose out of Hillary Clinton's failure to concede on the night -- OK she was drunk -- or the day after the election in 2016. As we know, there was already a movement in the "intelligence community" to try and compromise Candidate Trump. And what with the mental health issues of Democrats relating to Trump Derangement Syndrome -- what is this notion of making reaction to election results into a mental health question? -- and the activist community always needing to get up in the morning with something to protest, pretty soon the vile Trump presumption had to be erased.

And why not? As Continetti writes:

Trump is a one-man rebuke of progressivism, of political correctness, of a humanitarianism that does not recognize citizenship or national borders.

And, of course, we are not just talking about the program of a political party but the moral agenda of a secular religious movement. Our lefty friends believe in their free health care, their entitlements, race and gender politics, their Green New Deal as morally right, indeed morally incontestable. The idea that a politician and a party should be opposed to their moral agenda is an abomination to them. Inconceivable!

And really this is nothing new. Back when I came into the US, in 1968, the election of Richard Nixon was an abomination to the New Left that had arisen in the 1960s. It was inconceivable to them that the American people in their right minds would elect a man such as Nixon to the presidency. As I comment elsewhere, my Jewish boss had a Nixon $3 bill coffee mug, as in "fake as a $3 bill." Hey, Richard Nixon was a Red Baiter, besmirching the reputations of Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas, first of all, and then hunting Commies in the McCarthy years. The impeachment of Richard Nixon was exactly the same as the Mueller special prosecutor: an ageing figurehead sitting on top of a crew of Democrat partisans determined to "get" the president.

Back in the 1970s Republicans were good guys that imagined, or felt they ought to, respond to the impeachment of Nixon in good faith. But it really wasn't good faith, and it took the Clinton impeachment for Republicans to wise up.

In the impeachment of Richard Nixon the two GOP wise men of the Senate, Goldwater and Minority Leader Rhodes, went down Pennsylvania Avenue to tell Nixon that he didn't have the votes to survive in the Senate. After the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the House of Representatives Vice President Gore went down Pennsylvania Avenue to lead a pro-Clinton rally of Democratic faithful at the White House.

If you are a Democrat I don't suppose you understand that and what it means to people like me. But I do. And so now and forever I regard impeachments as pure politics, the attempt to kick over the verdict of the voters with inside Washington baseball.

But I understand the position of the liberal left, I really do.

Their religion, their secular religion that sanctified their big-government politics is a monster, and slowly a counter movement -- among ordinary people -- is forming against it. And the liberal left can't believe it. Like any prophetic movement, their prophecy is failing and they can't believe it. They are desperately trying to believe that the glorious Rapture is coming, just as prophesied!

Or you can use the analysis of Crane Brinton in his Analysis of Revolution in which he proposes that all revolutionary movements that obtain political power get to a point where their prophecy of universal justice is not getting there. So a Reign of Terror and Virtue is needed to go the last mile. That's how to understand the demonizing of opposition to the progressives project as  "hate" and bigotry -- when it's not racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Now my notion is that the project of the left has been a folly from the first. Its fundamental error is to believe that you can bring on the millennium with political power. Actually, I think, the lesson of the last two centuries is that political power is past its sell-by date. It is not necessary to use political power to secure a safe patch of land on which to grow food and protect it from pirates and plunderers. That's because the only real thing of value in the modern world for wiving and thriving is "intangible capital," the stuff between the ears of humans. You can't steal or plunder intangible capital. You have to let it thrive and grow without political interference.

Moreover, I think, the market and its verdict on all economic decisions removes the urgency of a moral framework in day-to-day life. The market rewards people that produce the products that other people want, and that provide the kind of services that other people want. It rewards trust and honesty, and it rewards people that reward trust and honesty. What more do you want?

Well, the great theme of the modern era is the notion of "creativity." The way to understand this is to realize that, in the old days, it was God that was the creative one. He created Heaven and Earth, and our human job was to be worthy of the world he created for us, follow his Rules and respect his Judgement. But with the explosion of human knowledge and technique we are discovering that, apart from the original Creation or Big Bang, there is a lot that humans can do to "create" ideas and stuff in this world. Not to mention the miracle of the creation of children.

I think that this new Creative Age is a revolution in human life without parallel. I think it is bigger than the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture. And, I believe, you ain't seen nothing yet.

But, the problem is that our educated class has got a hold of the wrong end of the stick. They think that the Creative Age is all about them and their creative ideas for politics and justice and sexual experimentation and saving the planet from climate change.

I think that the creative class is wrong, and will have to go through the Valley of the Shadow of Death and unspeakable trials before it gets the point that its ideology is a Great Reaction and its cultural and political achievements thus far amount to the Crime of the Millennium.

But hey, the Hero's Journey is a journey into the underworld of the unconscious, and only after surviving severe trials does the hero return to the ordinary world. So the educated class needs its journey into the underworld.

My indictment of the Great Reaction is that socialism is neo-slavery; the welfare state is neo-feudalism, identity politics is neo-tribalism; reparations is neo-vengeance; activism is neo-knight-errantry; social justice is neo-plunder.

My indictment of the Crime of the Millennium is that the educated class has driven the working class and minorities off the Road to the Middle Class. This is why the white working class is dying of despair, and 70 percent of black babies in the United States are born to a single mother. And the educated class has led western women into a wilderness of sorrows, denying their basic female nature and teaching them to imagine they can live just like men. And then the left, needing something to save the world -- as in Christianity -- has come up with climate change as a doctrine to "save the planet." But actually it is no different than the Crusades to save the Holy Land or the fight against Fascism or the fight against Communism. It is all about the political class's need for a war or the moral equivalent of war.

Our educated ruling class has this crazy notion -- common to ruling classes down the ages -- that God (or history) has ordained it to be the beneficent Oz for our age. And so the ruling class is entitled to take out any commoner that dares to challenge its God-given -- or arc of history driven -- right to rule.

We commoners have a job to do. To gently, but firmly, prise the fingers of the educated ruling class off the levers of political and cultural power.

As for what will come after that? I have no idea.

In the Aftermath of the Mueller Debacle, Who Will Bell the Cat?

The thing that bothers me about the whole Mueller affair, that ended with the exhibition on Wednesday of Robert Mueller as an old man past his prime, is what it tells us about the ideology, the culture, the religion -- call it what you will -- of our liberal friends.

Our liberal friends now think it is OK to use the full might of government to demolish the opposition. Because it is evil.

This is particularly stark for me because of my current reading of The British Conquest and Domination of India by Sir Penderel Moon, all 1245 pages of it. The genius of the book is that it tells the story of the British conventional wisdom on India beginning back in the 18th century.

So, after the Indian Mutiny of Sepoy regiments in 1857 what did the Brits do? Well, they were a bit ashamed that some of their officers that had wreaked revenge on the Indians that had massacred a few handfuls of British women and children. And they realized that the idea of keeping India in subjection forever was a pipe-dream. Sooner or later, they realized, they had to hand India over to the Indians. Because democracy. Meanwhile they should be building roads, railways, canals, and building an Indian national education system, as any modern responsible government should do, according to the conventional wisdom of the time.

This is rather different from the ideology of Gen. Siad Barre, dictator of Somalia in the time when Rep. Ilhan Omar's (D-MN) grandfather was head of Somalian lighthouses. Barre combined Marxism and Islam in his regime ideology. That gave him license to do pretty well whatever was needed. Steve Sailer:

 [T]he Somali Government was vexed to find conservative religious leaders preaching against equality of the sexes and supporting their arguments with readings from the Koran.
It decided to stop the dissent. 

Eleven of the religious leaders were rounded up, and early one morning they were executed by firing squad. 

Notice that Barre did not think, well, I know that progress according to the truth of Marxism and Islam is inevitable and that, in the long run, all the old ideologies will fall by the wayside. Because progress. No. His ideology permitted, even encouraged him to get rid of the inconvenient "conservative religious leaders" right now.

It is clear to me that the current ideology of our ruling class, the religion of intersectionality, of race cards, and the apocalyptic doctrine of the End of the World, because climate, is a millennarian doctrine, a secular religion, a follow-on from Marxism, which does not, as the Brit ideology of the 19th century did, advise the ruling class to cool it and permit government for the Natives, by the Natives -- however backward and primitive compared to Us they may be, darling.

So our liberal friends do not think that, well, those deplorables and bitter clingers may be a bunch of superstitious idiots living in the past, but, they have as much right to live their bigoted, and superstitious lives, cramped by horrific racism, sexism, and homophobia, as we have to live our glorious creative, compassionate and enlightened lives. They think that extreme measures are needed to keep bigoted hands away from the levers of political power.

When George W. Bush won the normal change election of 2000 our liberal friends were beside themselves. The psychiatrists even invented a mental illness for them, post-election stress disorder. Really? You chaps can't handle the disappointment of losing an election?

Same thing when Donald Trump won the normal change election of 2016. There was wailing and gnashing of teeth. And a deep state movement to reverse the election and get rid of Trump.

Sorry liberals. If you think like that you have a dangerous and antisocial ideology. Because the first principle of democratic elections is that there are two kinds of elections: Four More Years, and Throw the Rascals Out. In more polite circles this is called "alternation in office."

The point of "alternation in office" is that both political parties can confidently say, after an election that goes against them, that we will "wait until next time." But if there are no normal change elections every eight years, then there is no "wait until next time." If you want to get out from under the knout of the present unjust rulers you have to form a head of rebellion and literally throw the rascals out in an armed revolution.

Many people think that living for a few years under, e.g., the awful Trump, is much better than going through the horrors of revolution, of young men drafted off the street into someone's army, and summary executions.

I don't know what is behind the Democratic habit of not conceding elections, but I am inclined to think that it is telling us something. It is telling us that a lot of Democrats are thinking that something has gone wrong with the march of history. The glorious bend of the arc of history towards justice does not seem to be happening. So democracy isn't working, and this must be the work of the racist, sexist, homophobic Devil. Thus, in order to bring justice to this racist, sexist, homophobic society we have to resort to force. The other options aren't working anymore.

So the chaps that think that the thing about democracy is that it is the worst form of government, except for all the others, we have to get together to form a political movement that will form a political coalition to teach the liberal totalitarians a lesson.

I don't know which of the 47 types of nationalism that are contesting for the right to define the future is the right one for the present emergency. But we need to come up with something.

It is not going to be enough to sit around, like the mice of Gloucester, and argue about Who Will Bell the Cat.

My feeling is -- from my maxim that "there is no such thing as justice, only injustice" -- that the way to deal with our liberal friends is to put together a political movement solely based on the monstrous injustice of the current ruling class and its monstrous self-dealing, and its use of the justice system and the intelligence community both to punish its enemies that merely follow the law and exempt its friends from living in accordance with the law, and its monstrous importation of immigrants against the interests of native Americans.

Used to be that our ruling class taught the white working class that they were horribly exploited and oppressed by the bosses. Vote for us, and we will smash the bosses. Then the ruling class abandoned the white working class to unemployment and opioids.

Used to be that our ruling class taught blacks that all the whites were horrible racists and were just waiting, in the words of Joe Biden, to "put y'all back in chains." Vote for us and we will give you Freedom. Then the ruling class started importing refugees and migrants to take the jobs of blacks and abandon them to the killing fields of inner-city gang warfare.

See what I mean? Whatever the political line is, however it seems that the electorate is divided up by race or class or whatever, the fact is that the dividing lines are sitting there waiting for some damn politician to redraw them. If he has the chops.

That's what I mean by "whoever shows up" nationalism. It's all down to what some damn politician can say to persuade the voters that he cares about people like them. Race, class, gender, national origin: these are all fake tribalisms waiting for some low-rent genius to stir the pot and reorder the fake tribes of politics to give him 51 percent of the vote and/or a majority in the Electoral College.

Then we can get down to worrying about the Deficit.

Responding to the Call for Civility

Back in the day, Republicans and conservatives believed in "civility." Not any more. Now the conventional wisdom is that you throw the hate of the left right back in their faces. But what?

In the last week there have been two helpful pieces listing a bunch of hate quotes from Democrats. Nothing extraordinary. Just routine stuff accusing Republicans of being fascists or racists. From Steven Hayward at Powerline blog and from Larry Elder. These two gentlemen have provided actual quotes. But I have boiled them down into counterpunches.

Oh yeah? Whatabout FDR in 1945 saying that a victory for Republicans would be a victory for fascism?

Whatabout President Truman in 1948 saying that a victory for Dewey would be a "Fascistic threat to American freedom."

Whatabout in 1964 when "San Francisco Mayor John Shelley said Republicans 'had Mein Kampf as their political bible.'"

Whatabout in 1964 when Gov. Pat Brown said "The stench of fascism is in the air" at the Goldwater convention.

Whatabout Coretta Scott King in 1980, complaining that Ronald Reagan was back to the "Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party."

Whatabout a Dem. Rep. in 1983 saying that Ronald Reagan was "trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from 'Mein Kampf.'"

Whatabout Maxine Waters in 1992 calling President Bush a racist "for many, many reasons."

Whatabout in 1994 after the GOP midterm landslide when a Dem. Rep. said “It’s a glorious day if you’re a fascist.”

Whatabout in 1995 Dem. Rep. John Dingell saying the GOP House is like "the Duma and the Reichstag,"

Whatabout in 1995 Dem. Rep. John Lewis saying the GOP is "coming for our children."

Whatabout Dem. reaction to Gingrich era budget cuts? "Worse than Hitler."

Whatabout in 1999 Donna Brazile accusing the GOP of "having a white-boy attitude."

Whatabout in 2000 Donna Brazile saying the GOP would "rather take pictures with black children than feed them."

Whatabout in 2005 Dem. Rep. Charles Rangel saying that "George Bush is our Bull Connor."

Whatabout in 2005 Al Gore accusing President Bush of unleashing "squadrons of digital brownshirts" to harass the media.

Whatabout in 2005 Howard Dean saying that Dem. vs. GOP is "good versus evil."

Whatabout in 2006 when Claire McCaskill said George W. Bush "let people die on rooftops" in New Orleans.

Whatabout in 2006 when Hillary Clinton said the GOP House had "been run like a plantation."

Whatabout in 2011 when Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the GOP wanted to drag the nation back to "Jim Crow laws."

Whatabout in 2012 when Joe Biden told a black audience that Mitt Romney was going to "put y'all back in chains."

Whatabout in 2014 when Dem. Rep. Charles Rangel said that "some [Republicans] believe that slavery isn't over, and they think they won the Civil War."

Like I say. If you accuse someone of being a racist then you are a hater. If you accuse someone of hate then you are a racist/sexist, Whatever.

Humans Usually Want Seat-warmers to Rule Them

Usually, rulers are dull idiots, seat-warmers. We humans like it that way.

But when the chips are down, that is when we choose a high-risk leader.

Think back in our recent US past.

Eisenhower? Safe pair of hands.

Kennedy? Lightweight promoted as a lightbringer.

Nixon? Safe pair of hands.

Carter? Pompous idiot.

Reagan? Unguided missile.

Bushes? Safe pair of hands.

Clinton? Safe pair of hands playing a rascal.

Obama? Pompous idiot.

Trump? Unguided missile.

And I think the same is true of our Brit friends. The unguided missiles are Churchill, Thatcher, and now maybe Boris Johnson. The rest were the usual idiots.

Why? Because in normal times you don't want the unguided missiles in charge of the government. There's no telling what they may do.

There's a remarkable piece by Toby Young about Boris Johnson out there that shows that, in normal times, you don't want him near the Prime Minister's mansion. But in the chaotic Brexit era, where the Brexit Party is threatening to tear the Conservative Party in two?

Well, when the chips are down, you gotta be willing to take a risk.

Young remembers Boris Johnson's first speech at the Oxford Union. He acted like a buffoon, forgetting his lines, which normally would be the kiss of death. Instead, his speech was a triumph.

This was no ordinary undergraduate proposing a motion, but a Music Hall veteran performing a well-rehearsed comic routine.

There was the time he beat the professors at Scrabble.

There was the occasion when he was holidaying with his family in Greece, aged 10, and asked a group of Classics professors if he could join their game of Scrabble. They indulged the precocious, blond-haired moppet, only to be beaten by him. Thinking it was a one-off, they asked him to play another round and, again, he won. 

 To Toby Young, Boris Johnson was without doubt the "big man" on campus, whatever the campus.

He was without doubt the biggest man on campus—the person most likely to succeed. He made no secret of his desire to be Prime Minister one day, and not just a run-of-the-mill, common-or-garden PM, but up there with Gladstone and Disraeli.

But the Tories in Britain would never have elected Johnson to be their leader unless they felt it was Boris or Bust. Unless they had Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party breathing down their necks.

Just as the US would never had elected Trump as president without the ordinary middle class and the white working class feeling that it was now or never. The same is true of ordinary Brits in Britain.

But there is also a serious side to Boris. From his speech after winning the Conservative Party election.

And time and again, it is to us [the Conservatives] that the people of this country have turned to get that balance right between the instincts to own your own house, your own home, to earn and spend your own money, to look after your own family. 

Good instincts, proper instincts, noble instincts. And the equally noble instinct to share and to give everyone a fair chance in life. And to look after the poorest and the neediest. And to build a great society.

But wait! I thought that Boris Johnson was supposed to be a bumbling oaf? How come he can in a short paragraph lay claim to both the themes of modern society, the individualism of the market and the need to help those less fortunate?

Everybody Said, back in 2016, that Trump would be a disaster. Maybe they are right, but it hasn't happened yet.

Everyone is Saying, right now, that Brexit will wreck Britain and Boris is a buffoon. Who knows?

If You Call Someone a Racist You are a Hater

America's Big Problem is what to do about people that play the race card, as in accusing anyone that dares to disagree with them of being a racist.

Let's face it; ordinary white Americans have been in a funk since the day after the Civil Rights Act was signed on July 2, 1964.

You would think that after this landmark declaration of equal rights that the race question would have been solved and everyone would have lived happily ever after.

You would be wrong because, according to my Maxims, "politics is division." There is absolutely no point for anyone in politics to let anyone live happily ever after, because then they won't listen to politicians and vote for the guy that promises to protect "us" from "them" and hand out loot after the victory.

So, anyone that disagreed with the liberal or lefty or Democratic talking point of the day was branded a racist. Right up to the present moment.

In this we can see the power of the modern educated ruling class. After all, there is not physical reason why people should be ashamed of being racist, i.e., preferring their own kind over all others. Moreover, the left teaches its Little Darlings to be outrageously proud of their race, their gender, and whatever defines them as different. Hey, pal. I call that racism.

In fact, people can be carefully taught to be ashamed of themselves. Like the poor bloody Germans after World War II who were taught by the Western Allies and the Soviets to be ashamed of themselves. So when David Cole would talk to Germans: 

The overwhelming majority of Germans I met dealt with the humiliation by apologizing, bowing, and prostrating themselves...  [T]hey’d literally start crying like children. “We’re a bad people! We did bad things! We deserve the scorn, we deserve the punishment. We owe the world an eternity of apologies.”

 Yes, well. These are the Germans that invented modern philosophy, modern physics, modern chemistry, the that jumped over the chasm of the impossibility of relativity and quantum mechanics. Then they lost a stupid war because they were governed by stupid idiots. Then they voted for a leader that promised to lead them to glory...

Hey, I've just been reading about the Brits during the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58. They got pretty rough with the riff-raff that murdered their women and children in places like Lucknow and Cawnpore. Maybe we should be teaching the Brits a lesson. How dare they avenge themselves on the prostrate Indian people!

Well, of course, we are, because our lefty friends have spent the last 100 years, after Lenin, telling us that western imperialism was the worst thing ever.

Actually, western imperialism was the long withdrawing roar of imperialism, because, in my opinion, after about 1750 with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Empire Did Not Pay. You see that with the Brits in India. On the one hand they acted like regular rulers always getting their knickers in a twist about the threat of the ruler next door. On the other hand they started worrying about building roads and railways and canals and education in India.

Well, western colonialism was not the worst thing ever. I'd say that the worst thing ever was probably something like Genghis Khan's thoughtful massacres of cities like Baghdad, Kiev, Samarkand, with everyone, male and female, killed and heaps of skulls, etc. Or Stalin's slave state. Or Mao's slave state.

But our lefty friends have been making hay out of western colonialism, and African slavery, and the subjection of women, and gays, and all the rest of the LGBT zoo.

And they won't stop until we tell them to put it where the sun don't shine, and back it up with a punch to the solar plexus.

My idea is that when anyone makes an accusation of racism the immediate call-back is:

Really. I guess you must be a hater.

And if someone accuses anyone of being a hater, the answer is:

Really. I guess you must be a racist.

Of course, "racist" should be changed out for "sexist" "heterophobe" or whatever, depending on the context.

The point is that you need to have this ready for immediate action, because most of us are nice polite people that don't have convenient insults ready to hand like our lefty pals.

But look. If we are going to push back against these chaps, who do, after all, condone the great crimes of the millennium, then we have to go out armed and dangerous.

And one thing our lefty friends don't expect is for us to have a verbal punch to the solar-plexus all ready to go.

Really, this is not that hard. The ordinary people of America and the world are good people that go about their business and when there is an emergency they all rush forward to help.

But we need to defend ourselves. And I think the accusation of "hate" just fits the bill.

Because accusing someone of being a racist in this post civil-rights act world is the nastiest, meanest, most hateful thing you can do.

Anyone that makes an accusation of racism/sexist/etc. is a hater.

Period. Full stop. 

Women and Politics

There is no doubt to me that men and women are different, although I realize that our liberal friends beg to differ.

In fact, you are not allowed to say that men and women are different. But that is nothing new. Usually, there are all kinds of things you are not allowed to say.

But I think that men and women are profoundly different. Apart from any genetic reasons arising out of the Y chromosome, there is this.

Down the ages men have been the chaps defending the hunter band, or defending the border. And women have been the ones "keeping the kids alive."

My point is that men and women have a different approach to conflict. With men, shall we say, it involves fisticuffs, or at least the threat thereof. With men, the concept of honor is all bound up with the reputation for courage.

With women onflict involves the community of women and Mean Girl culture. In other words, conflicts are resolved by naming and shaming, and getting the rest of women in the community to say, of a certain woman, "I can't believe she said/did that." With women, the concept of honor is all bound up with the reputation for chastity: for being what I call a Good Little Girl.

Now it is my belief that politics is a development, a de-escalation, of the natural and physical culture of males, which is to resolve conflicts with a fight. Same with law. Back in the day, conflicts were resolved by the lex talionis, otherwise known as "an eye for an eye." If you damage the property or the livestock of your neighbor you must make restitution, or your kin must make restitution, or face a fight from him and his kin. You killed a guy? Then his kin have the right to kill you.

So the point of government with the monopoly on force is to end the old system of private vengeance. What a concept! Then there is law, which provides a forum in which the normal disagreements of life and commerce can be worked out by an impartial judge. In the old days, the courts were mostly for merchants to resolve their differences. It worked so well that the kings wanted in on the reputation for impartiality that the merchants´ courts had obtained.

But women are different. The point is that women are typically stuck where they are and do not have the option that men have had, when they get in a row with the other men, to head out for the territory. They have to stick it out. And so they resolve their differences with the conversations -- or gossip -- of the community of women. Of course, nothing is equal, and so some women are skivvies; some women are whores; some women are Mean Girls, and some women are Queen Bees. The power of the community of women is the power of naming and shaming, and of course in the extreme case to ostracize. For the vast majority of women this power is enough to keep them socialized to the values of the community. Hey, they have nowhere else to go!

I recently read an interesting interview in NRO about abortion, and interview between Kathryn Jean Lopez and Frederica Matthewes-Green. Says Green:

So often, the pregnancy that seems terrifying, cataclysmic, evolves and comes to be manageable; then, when the baby is placed in her mother’s arms, a bond is forged that may well be called primeval. It is one of those moments when we realize we are enacting some eternal drama, more profound than we can grasp. Somehow we have gotten caught up in the wheels of the universe. The bond between mother and newborn is the foundation of all human love. To treat it as irrelevant or negligible is to threaten something close to the heart of the human story.

 In other words, it's all about the emotions. And, she adds, what women in difficult pregnancies need is moral support. "I needed just one person to stand by me."

Now I think that abortion should not be determined by the law. I think it should be determined by the community of women. It is up to the community of women to to determine what to think and feel and say about another woman's difficult pregnancy. And I tell you, the woman in question will accept the verdict of the Mean Girls. Because that is who women are. Now she will complain about the decision of the women for the rest of her life: "I can't believe they said that!" That is how women deal with most of the events of life; they complain about them.

And I am not being judgmental about this. Not at all! I am just saying that life for women is inseparable from the community and they will accept the decision of the community.

But in our modern age we have encouraged women to enter into the public square of politics and business, an area of human life for which they are not programmed by their genes and by the thousands of generations of women's life. So what they do is treat politics as just an extension of the community of women and its way of social control by naming and shaming. Hello corporate HR departments!

I suspect that this development is disastrous.

I believe that politics should cover the areas that used to be subject to the men's culture of force and insult. I believe that women should continue to have domination of the areas of human life that fall short of violence and force.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of human conflicts can be resolved short of force and violence. In other words, short of government and its policemen.

But in our age we have made everything subject to law and the government's monopoly on force.

I think this is a disaster, and I think that we need a return to the days when the women resolved most interpersonal conflicts with their culture of naming and shaming, and, in the extreme, ostracism.

And I think that men should keep out of the emotional world of the community of women and let the women get on which their ancient method of social control. And I include in this the whole question of welfare and education, in which women have a particular interest.

But where violence rears its ugly head: that is where we need guys, and that is where we need to crack a few heads, pour encourager les autres.