Is the Left to Blame for All the "Hate"?

We had a couple of shooter attacks against religious groups over the weekend: one in New York City against orthodox Jews and one against megachurch Christians in Texas.

I don't want to get into the gun control argument, because I think it is a politics-downstream-from-culture issue.

No. I blame the larger leftist project, which, in my view, is going backwards, by elevating politics to a sacramental level when we should all be "moving on" and relegating politics to the basement.

Politics/government is what we humans have developed to help us all come together to face an existential peril that threatens to destroy our community.

So, in my view, politics should be locked away in a glass cabinet with the notice "In Emergency, Break Glass."

You can see the point of politics with our relatives the chimpanzees. The males patrol the borders of the troop's territory and attack and kill any male trespassers, and for good reason. The food that grows within the troop's territory is what sustains the females that bear and raise the young. The more territory, and more important, the more food, the better for the troop. That's how Nicholas Wade describes it in Before the Dawn.

And thus it ever was until the day before yesterday, when trade took over the world: I mean, in particular, with wage labor in which everyone enters the cash economy, exchanging labor for money rather than growing food for the immediate family as subsistence farmers outside the market economy.

The market economy means that we should interact faithfully with anyone that behaves in a trustworthy fashion. This is a radical transformation from the old days when anyone outside your territory was an enemy just waiting for a chance to catch you unawares.

Obviously, this gigantic cultural transformation is not going to be completed by next week.

But still, the job of the educated and evolved, the people that have already absorbed the cultural memes of the post-agricultural culture, is to help people adapt to the new reality.

Only they don't. And that is why I write about a Great Reaction. It is an amazing thing, that the most educated and evolved are people that have developed a religious faith in politics in the Old Ways -- and have organized groups into ideological combat, from race to gender and everything in between, on issues large and small.

See, what the left did, starting in the mid 19th century, was to encourage newly arrived groups in the city to trust only their own, to condone urban gangs that recreated the old days of border warriors defending their turf from the neighboring tribe, and to teach workers that their interests and needs were diametrically opposed to the employers that hired and trained and paid them.

You can see how this works a treat for the power project of the educated and evolved. If you believe in the saving grace of politics then it makes complete sense to divide off lower-class groups from the national community and use them as shock troops for the wars of your religion of politics.

And then your educated and evolved gentry decide that the members of their client groups can't really be held responsible for their "rage," arising out of generations of oppression and marginalization, rather than from their inherited culture of defending the borders.

So, if you are a member of a scheduled victim group, you might get the idea that it's OK to act out your rage on other people. For instance the latest Crime Victimization Survey  says that whites are 62.3% of the population but are 50.2% of the violent offenders in violent incidents, while blacks are 12.0% of the population but 21.7% of the offenders in violent incidents.

In other words, whites are slightly underrepresented in the national violent offender community, while blacks are grossly overrepresented in the violent offender community. Talk about a crisis of diversity!

And what is the reaction of our liberal friends? To make victims out of blacks that attack "white Hispanics" and white policemen.

I think it is dirty trick for our liberal Educated Gentry to make excuses for blacks. It's hard enough as it is to make the transition from rural tribal culture to city market culture. But to represent the problems that blacks experience in adapting to the city culture as the fault of the majority culture is worse than an error. It is a profound injustice, and not particularly to whites but to blacks who are not getting acculturated to the trust culture of the city and its commerce.

I don't know where the left's culture of victimhood and activism, the raising of political activism to the level of holy pilgrimage and sacrament, will end up.

All I know is that at the very least, the activism culture has delayed the adaption of many millions of people to the culture of the market and its trust of anyone that demonstrates trustworthiness. At worst it has provoked millions of innocents into a cruel culture war where nobody will be the winner.

See, I think that our Educated Gentry has got everything wrong.. It has rewarded people that behaved like victims; it has sneered at responsibility, and it has ludicrously valued creativity as a human right.

In fact, the opposite is true. Victimhood is a miserable hell, and everyone should be encouraged not to think of themselves as victims; responsibility is the basic skill needed to navigate the market economy; and creativity is a very dangerous business that should only be attempted only by people prepared to make the Hero's Journey into the unconscious and battle with dragons.

The lesson of life in the world is that a single mistake is very often fatal. But when almost everything you believe is wrong, you have to wonder what the upshot will be.

So, to blame the left for all the "hate" it has created is to miss the point. The point is: what we can do to help the victims of the left's power project and help them graduate from subordination in the victim culture to responsibility as ordinary Commoners?

Nietzsche on Knowledge and Reality

For some time I have been reading people that tell me to forget the conceit of logic and reason. Everything in the world is "affect," or feelings.

Except that when I have a "feeling" it is the rising to consciousness of an event that took place in my pre-frontal cortex up to seven seconds ago. And the fact that I have a feeling is because, after the chaos of sense impressions bombarding my body, something unusual has tripped an alarm that has brought this something to my consciousness.  What is going on here?

What is going on is that the Freuds and Jungs -- and latterly Jordan Petersons -- peddling this stuff all go back to Nietzsche.

In The Will to Power: Book Three: Principles of a New Evaluation Nietzsche blows everything apart.

For instance, "everything of which we become conscious is a terminal phenomenon, an end", in other words the opposite of our common belief in understanding the world through "thinking, feeling, willing!"

Or this: "'inner experience' enters our consciousness only after it has found a language the individual understands". Thus, "'to understand' means merely: to be able to express something new in the language of something old and familiar."

Or this:

There exists neither "spirit," nor reason, nor thinking, nor consciousness, nor soul, nor will, nor truth: all are fictions that are of no use. There is no question of "subject and object," but a particular species of animal that can prosper only through a certain relative rightness; above all, regularity of its perceptions (so that it can accumulate experience)--

Knowledge works as a tool of power. Hence it is plain that it increases with every increase of power-- 

In order for a particular species to maintain itself and increase its power, its conception of reality must comprehend enough of the calculable and constant for it to base a scheme of behavior on it.

See what he is up to? That everything that we "think" and "feel" and "know" about the world is an epiphenomenon that wells up out of our body and its six senses and its sensors and its ganglia of nerves and brain cells and who-knows-what as part of its project of staying alive. And we really do not have a clue what is going on!

Whatabout the "ego" and the "subject" and "facts?"

There are only facts -- I would say: No, facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations... 

[Even the] "subject" is not something given, it is something added and invented and projected behind what there is.

"It is our needs that interpret the world." And we better hope that our interpretation is correct. This time.

Here's a concept that I find useful:

Everything that enters consciousness as "unity" is already tremendously complex: we always have only  a semblance of unity.

What is going on here? I think that it reflects our modern knowledge -- call it the paradox of our modern knowledge -- that things are a lot more complicated and a lot weirder than we ever imagined, and that we ever could imagine.

One of the things that helps deal with this unsettling thought is this piece from Nature in 2008: "Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it, according to researchers."

Because if that is true, that stuff is going on in what we call the "unconscious" that the "ego" knows nothing about, then what other stuff is going on that we know nothing about?

Here is Nietzsche on "words:"

We set up a word at the point at which our ignorance begins, at which we can see no further, e.g., the word "I," the world "do," the word "suffer":-- these are perhaps the horizon of our knowledge, but not "truths."

I guess Lewis Carroll knew all about this when he had Humpty Dumpty opine on "words."

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

But Lewis Carroll -- real name Charles Dodgson, academic and mathematician -- was not a student of Nietzsche; he wrote Through the Looking Glass in 1872, and Nietzsche was writing his late stuff in the 1880s. But the question is: were Charles Dodgson and Friedrich Nietzsche swimming in the same intellectual pond?

Because, when Humpty Dumpty talks about "which is to be master" is he not talking the same language as Nietzsche's Will to Power?

Suppose the Dem "Resistance" is Not Just Wrong, but Stupid?

What is going on with the impeachment extravaganza? Or, asked another way, is impeachment all about Nancy Pelosi caving to the New Social Democrats, or is it about trying to hide the facts about FBI and intelligence community malfeasance?

A savvy politician, Pelosi is well aware of how the Clinton impeachment boomeranged on Republicans when they were in the majority...

But

The argument that Pelosi could simply no longer resist the agitation of her party’s leftist base makes little sense... If she could resist the leftist loonies determined to run her party over the cliff with impeachment over “Russian collusion,” she could certainly reject their calls for impeachment over the even more transparently ridiculous charge of an “improper” call, particularly when it distracts valuable attention from her party’s looming presidential primaries. 

Therefore we should look to something else.

No, the real explanation for Pelosi’s sudden flip is that those in the know — in the intelligence community, on congressional committees, and even in the Democratic mouthpiece media with their Deep State sources — warned her in early September of the potential political catastrophe that would ensue as a result of the devastating revelations in both the Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s abuse of the FISA process and U.S. Attorney John Durham’s more comprehensive investigation into the origins and perpetuation of the bogus “Russian collusion” narrative.

I suppose. But, really, do they really think it is going to work? That the CNN-MSNBC-Project 1619 effort is really going to crowd out the drip-drip of reports and indictments that will be coming out in the next few months?

Especially when "paid media" starts in the presidential election campaign?

Really? Nancy Pelosi is doing impeachment in order to lay down smoke to hide the horror of using the FBI and the intelligence community to spy on a presidential campaign?

Has Admiral Pelosi forgotten that we now have radar that can see through smoke?

Hey, I know, Nancy! How about you come clean, and declare that we are all Americans and that there are real, substantical questions about the behavior of the FBI over the last few years and that it is time to put partisanship aside and do a bipartisan investigation of just what went on, and find out who used the powers of the government to swing an election, and how, if it all turns out to be true, we must make sure it never happens again.

After all, remember what you Dems have been reciting from your Watergate prayer book for the last 50 years? It's not the crime, it's the coverup! That's what you geniuses have been teaching us since forever.

Well. Whatabout the coverup of the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign? "What did [fill in the blank] know and when did he know it?"

See, I think that the really big downside for the Dems is to allow Trump to make the case that the whole Democratic Party knew what was going on, knew that the whole idea that the Trump campaign colluded with Russkies was a hoax, knew that Steele was an unreliable source, knew that the whole Comey-Mueller-Ukraine thing is balderdash. And that the awful truth is that they flat out used the government's surveillance capacity to swing and election and then try to force a duly elected president out of office. Because they could.

So I think that the sooner that some Democratic genius comes forward and say, look, this was worse that a crime it was a blunder, the sooner that Democrats can get back to normal politics instead of playing with smoke and mirrors and pretending that their raft is not heading straight for the waterfall.

Look. What the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media have been doing for the last three years is one cover-up after another. Just like they sneered at Nixon for doing. And, I suspect, they are getting in deeper and deeper. Hey the latest shoe to drop is that, after the FBI dropped Steele as a reliable source, he started leaking stuff to the now-deceased Sen. John McCain who leaked his stuff to the media. Hey, Mr. Patriot McCain. Thanks, pal!

And I just think, because I was brainwashed by the media back in the day over the Nixon coverup, that the longer this coverup goes on, the worse it will be for the Democratic Party and for Democratic Party officeholders.

And I think that the one person that ought to confront this is Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But because I am a "far right misogynist" I don't think that Our Nance has the cojones to fall on her sword as the Sacrifical Hero. Because women don't do Sacrificial Hero; it's a guy thing.

Just sayin'.

"A Healthy Appetite for Free Stuff"

The woke patrol at Patheos recently noticed me for the hate crime of being a "far right misogynist," God bless @EdBrayton.

But what I am really interested in is the profound differences between men and women, and, as Steve Sailer says, "noticing" them, or rather, "Noticing" anything you are not allowed to notice.

And this is at no time more obvious to me than at Christmas, our midwinter festival of feasting and gift-giving.

• That women have been shopping for gifts for family and women friends for over a month, while men run out and get gifts at the last moment as they realize they have to reciprocate, at least a little, the tidal wave of gifts being heaped up by the women.
• The internal decoration of houses, and perhaps an uncurtained window to let passers-by get a glimpse of the perfect jewel of a home within.
• The gathering of the family, from all across the city, or the nation, or the world.
• The feast, to celebrate the comfort of abundance.
• Santa Claus, the gift-giver.

I don't know about you, but every year I stand back and marvel at the remarkable energy of the world's women.

And then My Man Kevin Williamson writes about the mess of Obamacare, and the "healthy appetite for free stuff" both from Republican and Democratic voters that prevents either proper repeal or proper paying for the benefits.

Can we stop ourselves and our fellow Americans from gorging on free stuff before it takes the very food out of our mouths, like our friends in Venezuela?

I think that the appetite for free stuff and for loot and plunder comes from this, that I read in Arabian Sands by Wilfred Thesiger. In the deserts of Arabia humans lived by grazing sheep. The problem is to find grazable land, and that is not easy, because in the desert rain will fall, and stimulate plant growth, in a particular area perhaps once in two years.

You can see that finding grazing for your animals is not just a matter of skill and experience, but outright luck. And sometimes you run out of luck. Then what?

Then, what you do in the Arabian desert is you raid a neighboring band that has had better luck than you, and you steal their livestock. But, interestingly, the rules are that you don't touch the women. You just rob the other guys of a grub-stake, to get your band restarted.

So loot and plunder does have a sensible survival value. In pre-agricultural human bands. Of course, sometimes it can get out of hand. See Mongols, invasions and conquests of.

And you can see that this applies to the agricultural era. If our food-growing lands are afflicted with drought and our people are dying of hunger then it only makes sense to make a last go-for-broke effort and plunder the neighbors for food.

However, in my reading of The British Conquest and Domination of India by Sir Penderel Moon, we begin to see the modern experience of drought and famine is different. As the 19th century advanced the Brits -- eevil colonial rulers in India -- started to experience famine as a failure of government, a scandal. And you can see why. With steam transportation, rail and water, the means are at hand to relieve famine.

Let us understand the earth-shattering importance of this. It means that for a people to wive and thrive and survive it does not have to occupy food growing land. Not any more, because food can be obtained from across the world for mere money.

But it takes a while for humans to adapt their instinctive culture to the new reality. Evidence: Adolf Hitler, leader of the most advanced country in Europe that invented everything from modern philosophy to modern relativity and quantum mechanics. He felt that, of course, the Germans needed Lebensraum in eastern Europe. No, Adolf, they didn't! All they needed to do was to be able to trade for food and let the Mittelstand do its thing.

Here's another thing. Back in the 19th century the big surges of labor-union membership were in the Great Depression that went on from 1873 to the 1890s. Do you know what that was all about? Mostly, the aftermath of the US government getting back on the Gold Standard after the inflation of the Civil War, which threw debtors and workers for a loop. So the debtors and workers attempted to seize the means for survival.

Then there was the Great Depression of 1929-39, caused by the Allied nations getting back on the Gold Standard after WWI and then the new Federal Reserve totally effing up the Crash of 1929. More growth of unions and also of left-wing politics until national hero FDR led us into the War of the Ages and needed manfacturies to churn out tanks and planes and Jeeps for his glorious war.

But guess what. In the aftermath of the 2008 crash we did not have a surge in unions or in left-wing politics, even though the crash was another classic bungle by the ruling class. And even though Little Ben Bernanke broke the first rule of central banking, to be the lender of last resort to the banks, like, you know, Lehman Brothers, whatever. Oh Ben. And we now know, Little Ben, that if you had bailed out Lehman instead of whining that you didn't have the legal authority, the Deep State would have rallied round and made sure you didn't go to jail. Hey, they might have given you a medal. Silly Ben. Cowardly Ben.

My analysis of the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2006-08 is that the social safety net actually worked. The people thrown out of work got tided over by the welfare state with its unemployment benefits and its food stamps. So no mobs in the street. No surge in union membership. And no left-wing revival.

Therefore no need any more for desperation efforts to stay alive by plundering the neighbors.

But it will take centuries for humans to adapt our culture to the new reality.

Meanwhile we free spirits can start thinking about how to imagine the new human world in which dawn raids and loot and plunder and "a healthy appetite for free stuff" are no longer needed.

That is what my Great Reaction notion is about. It proposes to understand the present as an attempt bythe educated gentry to recover the past -- the good old days for political elites when rulers really ruled -- with socialism as neo-slavery, the welfare state as neo-feudalism, identity politics as neo-tribalism, etc. When what we need to do is to get away from those cultural echoes from the past.

My reductive Three Peoples theory and Little Darlings notion are all about taking the next step in understanding, to try and understand why the educated gentry is doing this to us. I am attempting to think about how we can first understand and then find a way of neutralizing the edcuated gentry's exploitation of the proles to advance their reactionary power project.

Part of that process is understanding what drives the left's Activism Culture and enumerating the Left's Errors,

Also, we can explore how The Road to the Middle Class is paved with the cultural moving sidewalks of monotheistic religion, education, law, and mutual aid, which teach the workers and peasants just off the farm and the feudal estates how to wive and thrive in the city.

And we can construct An American Manifesto to imagine life after liberalism where the coercive dominations and oppressions of educated gentry rule are replaced by a new culture of responsibility and voluntary exchange, and yes, exciting cultural adventures for the children of the educated gentry: something for everyone.

But perhaps the most important thing of all is the greatest challenge and adventure for creative spirits ever conceived by the mind of man. To create great seminaries all across the world to induct the young sprouts of the educated elite into a great spiritual movement to teach their fellow humans how to rise above "a healthy appetite for free stuff."

Wow! Someone ought to write a book about that!

If Discrimination is Outlawed, Then Discrimination is a Police Problem, Not a Moral Problem

One of the marvelous things about our era is that, fifty years after we made discrimination on the basis of race and sex illegal for governments and for institutions, we are more worked up about racism and sexism than ever.

This is something I marvel at all the time, and was brought to my attention in a video about Christianity and Critical Theory featuring mixed-race Neil Shenvi.

Now, I agree with Neil that racism is a moral horror. But as a legal question, it ought to be done with, finished. Because 50 years ago the government declared that racial discrimination is illegal.

(OK, I know. Ever since, the government has been discriminating on race and sex, just like in the old days of Jim Crow. Only now the government and big corporations are discriminating in favor of historically marginalized races and sexes. What a world! But let that pass!)

The point is that first, everyone is a racist. We are human; we prefer our own kind, and we are rather appalled at people not like us. For instance, I read recently that liberals are much more offended by people that vote differently from them than conservatives are. In other words, liberals are more groupish than conservatives; they cannot abide being around people that don't think like them. No surprise really. Liberals think that voting is a moral act; conservatives rather believe it is a civic duty.

Now, I am perfectly happy with religions railing against the moral horror of racism. Very good idea. Let's "nudge" everyone towards a more inclusive moral framework.

But, of course, nobody is content with mere moralizing. We all want to make a difference! If we are women we want to name and shame and shun the immoralists. If we are men we want to teach 'em a lesson: right in the solar plexus.

But I say, look. We are all nasty pieces of work. We all do nasty things, not just to strangers of another race, but to our own kith and kin. It is notorious, for instance, that at holiday gatherings we Americans tend to get into political arguments with each other instead of just celebrating the season.

But the main thing is to keep government out of the discrimination game. Because that, I suggest, is 97.2 percent of the problem. If government can't discriminate and can't, like in the Jim Crow era, force private institutions to discriminate as well, then we are half way home.

And let us note the mechanism that gets around discrimination. If, say, good conforming employers won't employ members of a certain race, because racism, then there is money to be made from hiring those folks!

And here's a thought. Suppose some woman in a think tank commits the moral horror of saying that women are women, thank you very much. Now really, think tank, is it really the best solution to fire her? Is it really a good idea to get a judge to rule that the two-sex view is "is not worthy of respect in a democratic society"? Is it a good idea to let her make herself into a martyr and get the whole thing publicized by Harry Potter's mom, J.K. Rowling? Or would it be better to take her in hand and have everyone else in the think tank explain to her at coffee breaks and at the water cooler how morally reprehensible she is? Normally, that is all it takes to sort a woman in the traditional community of women.

Because I thought that witch hunts and expulsions from the community was the sort of thing that they did in the bad old days of Puritan New England, and the McCarthy era right at the beginning of the Cold War. Why, they even got Arthur Miller all riled up enough about witch hunts to lift his head from bonking Marilyn Monroe and sneering at salesmen to write a play, The Crucible, about the horrors of witch-hunting back in the day in Salem, Massachusetts!

Once upon a time there was a wise old bird that said that there should be a separation between church and state, between the world of morality and the world of force. There was another wise old bird that expanded this notion into the idea of a Greater Separation of Powers, to keep the three sectors of force, of work, and of moral/culture from ganging up on each other, two against one.

You can see why those wise old birds might have had a point. Because people, all people, just cannot resist the temptation of legislating morality, their morality, and forcing their moral beliefs on other people. And the beginning of wisdom might be to make it difficult for people to do that.

On the other hand, let us marvel that, in the descent of man, there have actually been geniuses to suggest to us that our normal way of making morality and conformity to social norms all into one coercive culture is defective and oppressive, even dominatory. It is really astonishing that anyone should ever have proposed to tease apart moral disapprobation and criminal wrongdoing and suggest they we humans should insist that the priests should stick to morality and the jailers should stick to incarceration: in other words to differentiate between the raised eyebrow and the raised execution axe.

But while you and I inhabit the ethereal realms of glorious tolerance and merely shake our wise old heads about the follies of the fools and knaves among the lower orders, the fact is that we live in a fallen world, and there are people out there convinced that the only way forward is to fall on moral lepers like a ton of bricks.

And teach 'em a lesson they will never forget!

My Three Peoples vs. Yarvin's Three Layers

It was pretty exciting to read part one of Curtis Yarvin's "Clear Pill" a month ago. He has a three peoples theory just like I do. Here is how he describes it.

As Orwell wrote, all societies have three human layers. We may call ours gentry, commoners, and clients. The gentry are urbanites, cultivated and ambitious; the commoners are suburbanites, educated and independent; the clients are Marx’s proletariat and lumpenproletariat, uneducated and/or dependent.

He inspired me to catalogue all the three layer systems that I knew about, thus:

Author	Top	Middle	Bottom	Relig/Culture/ Political
George Orwell	Inner Party	Outer Party	Proles	Political
Karl Marx	Bourgeoisie	Communists	Proletarians	Political
Auguste Comte	Positive	Metaphysical	Theological	Cultural
New Left	Racists, etc.	Activists	Victims	Political
Woke Left	White oppressors	Allies	Members of oppressed groups	Political
Charles Murray	Belmont	Everybody Else	Fishtown	Cultural
Curtis Yarvin	Gentry	Commoners	Clients	Political
J.R.R. Tolkien	Elves	Hobbits	Dwarves	Cultural
Joel Kotkin	Clerisy	Yeomanry	Serfs	Political
Z-Man, Z-man	Cloud People	Dirt People	[lower classes]	Political
Dennis Price	Cloud People	Dirt People	[dependents]	Political
David Goodhart	Anywheres	Somewheres	[Inbetweeners]	Political
John Derbyshire	Ice People	??	Sun People	Political
Vikings	Earls	Peasants	Thralls (slaves)	Political
Hammurabi	Superiors/ Propertied	Commoners/ freed men	Slaves	Political
Christopher Chantrill	Creatives	Responsibles	Subordinates	Cultural
Christopher Chantrill	Ruling Class	Middle Class	Little Darlings	Political
Christopher Chantrill	Hero (sacrificial or ego)	One God	Many Gods	Religious

When Yarvin gets into part two of the "Clear Pill," he sets forth what I think is the key to understanding our liberal friends in the educated liberal gentry. Yarvin says that the ruling class obtains the support of the gentry class by playing "thymotic anthems" to the gentry, where "thymos is somewhere between ambition, honor, and vanity."

Update 2/3/20: See also Yarvin's latest on pistos (loyalty) and thymos (ambition) in a later piece.

And it's not just anthems, but cold hard cash delivered to supporters. You are ambitious? Easiest way forward is to help the ruling class with one of its projects. You want honor? Well so do we all, but the short way to get it is to help the ruling class. You are vain? Of course not. But if you were it sure would help if you joined the ruling class and made out that you were helping fundamentally transforming America from its shameful past of racist sexist homophobia and bending the arc of history towards justice.

My maxim that "there is no such thing as justice, only injustice" is supposed to poke a hole in the above conceit. Because the point is that everything any ruling class does is force. Of course it is, because otherwise it would happen on its own. And so everything a ruling class does amounts to injustice. And so all the gentry in the ruling class's officer corps are conceited creeps promoting injustice.

I've been having a lot of fun with Yarvin's three layers in the past couple of weeks, and the only problem is that I'm not happy with "clients." I converted "clients" into "victims" in a piece for The American Thinker over the weekend, but that was really about "fake victims" or gentry people -- such as feminists and gays -- defining themselves as victims in order to beat up on the commoners. But identifying the "clients" as "victims" doesn't quite do it because, after all, most of the lower class are not victims; they are just dependent. So I think the best word for the lower class is "subordinates."

So I'd define Yarvin's three layers as: gentry, commoners, and subordinates.

The gentry are urbanites, cultivated and ambitious, and interested in power; the commoners are suburbanites, moderately skilled and competent; the subordinates are dependent and tribal, candidates for victimhood.

 But how does Yarvin's layers intersect with my Three Peoples theory? When I think about it, I reckon that my three sectors do not exactly match his but rather overlap.

I think that my People of the Creative Self is the top end of Yarvin's gentry layer, who I expect, see themselves as more responsible than creative. There are, for a start, a lot more people that think of themselves as "creative" than are really creative, in the sense of Nietzsche's "free spirits" or Bronze Age Pervert's "pirates." If we think of the educated liberal Subaru-driving gentry, we would expect most of them to experience themselves as responsible citizens, concerned about justice issues, rather than as creative free spirits.

I think that my People of the Responsible Self overlaps the low end of Yarvin's gentry layer and the top half of his commoner layer. We see that in the Trump phenomenon. In my view, the enthusiastic "white working class" are clearly commoners, but barely responsibles. Trump supporters clearly see President Trump as protecting people like them. On the other hand, Trump has clearly driven away educated gentry women from the Republican Party, for he clearly offends their sense of honor and vanity.

I think that my People of the Subordinate Self tracks pretty well what Yarvin calls clients. The point about subordinates, clients, proles, victims, whatever, is that they expect to be protected at a closer level than the nation state. Since they are not really literate, they conduct their lives at the person-to-person level. They really need to have personal contact with some leader or patron to whom they owe fealty. The bureaucratic welfare state is not the ideal way to socialize such people.

One way of understanding the Three Peoples, or three layers, is through belonging. Creatives and gentry clearly feel they belong to something higher and better than nation states. Their world is clearly supranational, although not quite global. Responsibles and definitely commoners are nationalists, they identify with and belong to the nation state. The reason for Trump and Boris and the other national populists is that they have exploited a hole in the world view of the oh-so-sophisticated suprnationalists in the gentry.

The thing about the subordinates and clients and proles is that they cannot relate to being nation-state citizens. They need a loyalty closer to home. However, I would say that they are suspended part way between sub-national tribalism and nationalism. For the left found out long ago that their working-class supporters identified themselves as German workers, and British workers, and never identified with "workers of the world unite."

Notice how clients, victims, and my Little Darlings track. In all cases we are talking about how the ruling class or their gentry supporters enlist the subordinates into their political battalions -- in return for free stuff -- where the subordinates in their ranks-and-files are to be the shock troops of the ruling class's power project. And the whole point is to use the clients and victims to keep the commoners from getting any ideas above their station.

Soldiers Sending their Officers "Over the Top"

Remember back in the good old days, when the ruling class sent their sons "over the top" in another Big Push on the Western Front in World War I?

You don't? Well. It's part of the Narrative. That's why all those poets were writing meaningful verses about life in the trenches. And why everyone, after the war was over, agreed "Never Again."

Only the geniuses wrote a peace treaty that humiliated Germany according to the good old rules of loot and plunder, and so when a cheeky chappie called Adolf objected, the German people had to agree with him.

But, on the other hand, would J.R.R. Tolkien have written his Middle Earth fantasies if he hadn't been sent to the trenches?

Still, sending the young men to defend the border is part of the collective unconscious of mankind. Right there in the middle of our archetypes.

But here is an interesting notion.

At the end of National War 2016 when upstart General Trump unexpectedly won the war, the generals of the Democratic Party did not send their troops home.

Field Marshall Hillary Clinton was doubtless drunk on Chardonnay on the night of November 8, 2016. And next day she omitted the traditional concession speech and the usual invocation of "we are all Americans" and the passing shot to "wait until next time."

So, what has happened since is that the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party -- who are not really rank-and-file but educated liberal gentry subalterns -- has been pushing the generals to return to the fight in The Resistance against the winning General Trump, and indeed throw him out of office with an Impeachment in the House of Representatives and Trial in the Senate.

Now, General Nancy Pelosi knows this is a stupid idea, but what can she do? I mean, who else can be Speaker of the House of Representatives than the Woman in White -- only she was in black for the impeachment vote. I mean think about it if you are Our Nance. Who can possibly replace her?

Hey, I will tell you what you could do, Nance. You could act like the Sacrificial Hero of legend and history, and fall on your sword. You could say: "I am not going to dignify this mutiny in the foc'sle with the name of Impeachment. If you mutinous scum don't quit it right now, I will resign my commission and take my captain's gig and leave you to certain death by losing your seats."

Yes. Our Nance could threaten to resign. And then actually do it! It's not as if she will be throwing away a promising career in politics. She has already achieved immortality by becoming the First Woman Speaker. And by throwing away her majority in the House by twisting the arms of moderate Dems out of their sockets to pass Obamacare in 2010. Now she could make a dramatic exit by resigning rather than sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

I thought, as a profound sexist, that women had a natural talent for fake drama! Apparently Our Nance has lost the flair for this. Perhaps because she is 79. Good Lord! Do you mean she is going to be 80 next March 26. I wonder if President Trump will do a tweet!

But of course, women do fake drama, not the real drama of being a Sacrificial Hero according to religion and modern pyschology, where you sacrifice your life that others may live. Nothing personal. It's just the way that the collective unconscious of women works. Men are expendable; women are not.

Really, I should be delighted. Because Our Nance doesn't want to do the Sacrificial Hero bit, and because the educated liberal gentry are idiots that have never read a book, or commanded a stricken field.

So, as they say, they "literally know nothing."

And I suppose we should be grateful,  because the truth is that since our liberal gentry friends pretty well own the culture, they ought to be beating us deplorables five ways from Sunday.

But they aren't. They are getting beaten by men that everyone agrees are complete buffoons, from Trump to Johnson.

There must be a lesson in that.

Hey lefties. It's the job of general offficers to send the rank-and-file to their deaths, not the other way around.