I Wonder What Women "Expect" on Currrent Mostly Peaceful Protest

It is a basic point of my philosophy that to ask, as Oscar Wilde did (or was it Sigmund Freud), "What Do Women Want," misses the point.

It is not What Women Want, but What Women Expect. If you don't instinctively know that you don't know nuttin'.

And what women expect, in particular, is they expect to be protected. If the men don't protect them then they will find other protectors. This is evoked most clearly in the book A Woman in Berlin by Anonymous. This Anonymous was actually a 30-year-old woman journalist, and she was writing about being a woman in Berlin in the two months from May to July 1945.

You may recall, or you may have read, that the Women in Berlin had a bit of a problem in May 1945. Their men were all imprisoned in POW cages all over Germany and they were left alone to face the occupying Russians.

So what did they do? They sought out the highest rank of Red Army officer suitable to their age and beauty to be their lover and protector. Of course they did.

One good thing they did. They put the teenaged girls in the attic during the two months that Berlin was under the martial law of the Red Army.

So I wonder what the women of Seattle and indeed all progressive cities all across America right now "expect" in regards to their protection.

See, I think that it is one thing to put out a Black Lives Matter yard sign outside your North Seattle house. It is another thing for Karen to realize that the police may not come to protect her if she is attacked by AntiFa thugs and she calls 911. Or if the local gang enforcer turns up at the door demanding money for the protection of home and hearth. That's what's been going down in the CHAZ/CHOP zone down in Capitol Hill in Seattle.

So I am keeping my ear to the ground, listening to the women as they complain to each other in the manifestation of the Women's Culture of Complaint. Are they saying to each other "I can't believe they let those protesters get away with trashing the whole neighborhood." Or, "I can't believe the way they let the homeless camp all over the city." Or what?

My point is that the Women's Gossip Network does not operate according to the progressive culture of mostly peaceful protest and intimidation. It operates in the one-on-one conversations of women in neighborhoods.

And all of a sudden, if you are a politician, you wake up in the morning to find that the universe changed. Because the organic consensus of the women's gossip network has changed social reality.

I wonder if this will play out in the election in November. I wonder if women will be saying one thing to their liberal friends, but another thing in the ballot box. I wonder if it is one thing to repeat after me Black Lives Matter but another thing to feel unprotected from rioters and looters.

Honestly, I don't know how this will turn out. 

I do believe this, that the Nancy Pelosis and Chuck Schumers are in a half panic because they need to stay one step ahead of the mob which really wants to kick them out and make the Democratic Party into a truly woke and truly progressive party at last. And the more that they veer left the more it means that the Republican Party will be the only party for ordinary Commoners that just want to follow the rules, go to work, and obey the law.

Toppling Statues: The Problem with Iconoclasm

Back in the day, "iconoclasm" -- the destruction of icons -- was considered a Bad Thing. But now that the progressive mob is pulling down statues of everyone from confederate generals to Saint Junípero Serra, it's all in a good cause.

Of course, I am completely opposed to the destruction of monuments. Hey, I was to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi in Greece last year. And do you know why it survived? Because they had an earthquake in 373 BC that buried the temple. Then the Roman Emperor Theodosius I had the temple destroyed in 390 AD in the name of Christianity. And so the temple lay buried under a village until the German and French archaeologists came along in the 19th century with the idea to dig it up.

The reason I don't like destroying monuments is because I am really interested in how ancient and not so ancient peoples thought and acted. Of course, they were dreadfully ignorant, darling, but what can you say?

Actually, they were all people of their time. And when we think about anyone in high politics -- and you'd have to be a Somebody to have a monument built to commemorate you -- he or she is probably pretty thoroughly flawed. I'm all in favor of Winston Churchill being commemorated, and I filed past his bier in Westminster Hall in 1965. But the guy was a piece of work, and I put him in the basket with all the dumb politicians of the 1930s from Chamberlain to Hitler to FDR. Hey, maybe it took two dreadful world wars to convince the Great and the Good that maybe world wars were not such a good thing.

But you know what? I want statues of everyone from Churchill to Hitler and Goebbels. So that little kiddies can go see them and be carefully taught what idiots people were back in the day.

See I don't think it helps to say that all the Confederates were evil. Yep, they were wedded to plantation slavery, as invented by the Venetians on Cyprus. And we now, from our great moral height, condemn slavery as the worst thing ever.

Worse than Soviet Bolshevism? Are you sure?

See, I don't think we ended slavery for moral reasons. I think we ended slavery because slavery doesn't pay. Not compared with free workers. Hey, even Adam Smith thought that.

See, I think that morality very often follows the market. Just saying. I mean, how difficult is it, when evaluating two things, one that benefits you and one that does not, to decide that the thing that benefits you is a Good Thing and the other thing is a Bad Thing?

But I get what the inconclasts are doing. Thay want to erase history so that the only thing that people are able to believe is their sacred orthodoxy. Because everything else has been canceled.

But that's OK. Because it focuses the minds of the racist sexist homophobes like me that love America as it is, warts and all.

And Wokies, let me tell you that you are the biggest wart on the flesh of America right now. By a mile. 

But that's OK, because you have clarified the issues rather thoughtfully. As Victor Davis Hanson said on FoxNews,

This election no longer is about Donald Trump's tweeting. It's not about Joe Biden's cognitive impairment. It has nothing to do anymore with a lock-down, the virus, the economy, foreign policy. It's an existential question, a Manichean choice, between whether you want civilization and you believe America doesn't have to be perfect to be good and we are not in this third century going to destroy all that people died for, or you feel that was is inherently flawed with a cancer and we have to use radiation and chemotherapy and kill the host to kill the cancer. And that's the choice we are looking at and I'm going to vote for civilization.

Know what I think? I think that President Trump should make short videos about the eminent Americans whose monuments were pulled down. And he should prepare a few words about each of the canceled monuments. Like General Grant. He could say:

Grant was a heavy drinker. He married a women in a family that had slaves. But then he took his slave down to the courthouse and freed him. And went on to lead the Union armies to win the war against slavery. Ulysses S Grant was a great American and a flawed American. But flawed Americans are all we have, and all we will ever have, to Make America Great Again.

When I walk around my neighborhood and look at the social-moralizing yard-signs, that started with #WeBelieve and then "Hate has no Home Here" and "Be the One" and now feature "Black Lives Matter" I think about the people that have put those signs up.

And what they are is educated Gentry, People of the Creative Self, that think themselves -- know themselves -- a cut above ordinary Commoners and People of the Responsible Self. And certainly higher and better than white nationalist deplorables. Because, you see, they advocate for the victims of oppression and and fight against systemic racism.

And yet they know literally nothing.

As I have been reading and writing for these many years, I have developed the conceit that I can figure out where the pre-digested political rhetoric I am hearing from other people comes from. Because, of course, most people don't read, don't think; they just pick up memes that they hear in the agora. Thus it ever was and thus it ever will be.

And what we should all hope for and work for is for the day when it is our ideas and rhetoric that ordinary people and journalists unthinkingly repeat.

Remember, the "Activists" Aren't Revolutionaries

Now that Seattle's CHAZ/CHOP is winding down, according to Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, in a "phased" way, we can now say what it was not.

It was not revolution. What is was, instead, was regime supporters getting to let off a bit of steam after the glorious emotional experience of the George Floyd riots.

And it was, as all left-wing activity is, a reactionary moment, a nostalgic recreation of the good old days of organic, pre-city, community.

In a way, you can say it was a scientific experiment. Let's see what happens if you set out as a new Adam, as "he drives his spade into, and sets up his stockade around, the most fertile patch of land he can find?" That's Bernard Shaw, writing the first pages of Fabian Essays in Socialism.

Well, thanks to intrepid reporter Andy Ngô, we know that it means going through a couple thousand years of history in ten days. First of all, establish the borders. Then the men start to fight over who will be boss. Then you have to figure out the laws. Then you have to keep the peace. Then you identify that people that dress like you are the good guys and you start to hate the people beyond the border.

I suppose that one of the things that drives the Great Reaction, the movement of the left to recreate the primitive community, is the annoying realization that all the cool stuff has already been done. No Fair!

So you decide to do a redo, to re-enact the scenes from the past. Setting up a new community. Enforcing the peace. Competing to see who will be leader. Hating the monsters on the other side of the border.

What you are not, are revolutionaries. You are regime-sponsored "activists" doing what you have been carefully taught: You cannot be a revolutionary when the local mayor pats you patronizingly on the head and talks about a "summer of love." When activism is taught in government schools to children. When degrees are awarded in government universities in grievance studies. When the media reports on "mostly peaceful protest" in a burning city.

What you are doing, you activists, is doing the dirty work for the ruling class, frightening the Commoners, canceling the stepmother of an accused policeman. Roughing up conservative websites for their comment section.

If your protests were real revolution then the functionaries of the Inner Party -- the Nancy Pelosis, the Chuck Schumers, the tame journalists that parrot their sound bites -- would be coming down like a ton of bricks on the protesters, invoking the End of Days, the brutal behavior, the pile of skulls, the racism-sexism-homophobia of the terrorists, the wild violence of the protesters, er, riotous mob.

When you walk around my neighborhood full of nice white liberal ladies and see Black Lives Matter yard-signs and protest signs you are not seeing revolution. Nice liberal ladies do not do revolution; they instinctively seek out the approved line on everything and chant the responses with the rest of the faithful.

Here's a lovely tweet out today about the Beckys supporting revolution (Or are they Karens?):

Woke White Women continue to take over these protests. https://t.co/ZvlVLPuzkT

— Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) June 23, 2020

As Instapundit puts it: "White Women's Self-Esteem Matters." And Woke White Women don't do revolution, baby. They do and say what they have been carefully taught. By Mommy, by Daddy, by teachers, by professors, by other Woke Women. Women Don't Do Revolution.

And this reminds me to make the obvious point.

The reason we have cities and states and police and the market culture is because it is staggeringly beneficial to humans that get with the program. That's what the Great Enrichment of the last 200 years is about.

When you stop fighting over affronts to your sacred honor, and stop the vengeance culture and trust anyone that acts trustworthy to you, then a thousand flowers bloom. Not to mention a million IRAs.

But there is a problem. A part of the human instinct is the instinct to protect your little patch of land from looters and plunderers, to only trust your kind of people, and to be ready to drop like a ton of bricks on anyone that "disses" you and yours. A part of the human instinct loves to dump on the neighbors, whether in the women's gossip network of "I can't believe she did that" or in the man's honor culture of "you wanna back that one up, pal?"

What we need is a way to sublimate the women's gossip network into something that isn't mean-spirited naming and shaming and shunning, and a way to sublimate the men's insult culture into something that doesn't end in a fist-fight or worse.

And I don't know how we do that. Not when the ruling class prefers to keep the Commoners frightened and demoralized.

The Sublimation of Primitive Instincts

Back in the day the only thing that men did, more or less, was defend the border. That is what we men are programmed to do. So men are creators, warriors, destroyers.

Back in the day women did everything else, in a close-knit village community of women that bore and raised the children. So women are learners, carers, teachers.

So now what?

Well, we know what. We decided, or God decided, to sublimate our primitive instincts into less violent channels.

For men we have invented exploration, sports, video games, winning market share, tech startups. But clearly young men still need the opportunity to create a bit of mayhem, as in the recent riots and CHAZ/CHOP insurrections. I wonder if we can do a better job of providing scope for mayhem without the unfortunate admixture of lefty lunacy.

But whatabout for women? I think that is the Big Problem today, because the feminists and all the Goodwhites have assumed that What Women Want is to get into the public square and have careers and STEM and become fighter jocks and all.

I think the disproof of that was the incident where a US Navy ship collided with a container ship. And why? Because two women officers "weren't talking to each other."

Yes, how do we sublimate the women's culture of gossip and complaint and social moralizing from the old village community to the modern world? I have to admit that I don't have a clue.

Well, I do have a few ideas. Women should run the education of children, but not as gubmint employees. Rather they should organize their own neighborhood schools for their children and the neighbors' children.

Women should run the social welfare system. But not as gubmint employees. Rather they should act as a voluntary neighborhood or citywide committee to help the helpless. And do the necessary social moralizing to shame the shameless into social behavior.

And women prefer person-to-person jobs and careers. So let's stop worrying about whether women should be in STEM or corporate execs. The truth is that women are instinctively drawn towards activity that involves person-to-person contact and maintains the status quo. So they probably will not like being stuck in front of a computer or directing risky financial and business ventures.

Above all, women should not think that they want to do all the things men do. That is going down a rabbit hole. Men do the things they do because they have had to figure something else to do, something less lethal, now that they don't spend their days sharpening their weapons and keeping an eye on the border.

Women? Well they are not as far down the road as men, because women have been completely engaged in bearing and keeping kids alive until the day before yesterday.

One of the tricky things, in my opinion, is the intersection of this sublimation trend and government. For instance, I see government as a way of reducing male-on-male conflict. But whatabout the moral world? One of the problems I see with modern government is the irruption of the moral. Instead of people conducting their own moral communities separate from government we now have everyone trying to impose their moral principles using the power and the force of government. I don't think this ends well. It certainly didn't in Soviet Russia and Communist China.

And this is a problem where women are concerned, because women control their community of women through their culture of naming and shaming and shunning. Fine, if this social control is the community of women. But if women are using government to impose their moral structure, not so good.

Government and its law and police are designed to deal with serious violations of the peace for which forcible encouragement is needed. Morals and values are for the lesser anti-social behaviors where frowns and less extreme correctional measures are appropriate.

See what I mean? Government is a guy thing, because force. Morals is a girl thing, because "I can't believe you did that" and social moralizing.

Still, it's all a work in progress. Because we are still primitives deep down, and those primitive instincts want to emerge from under the modern repressions. The primitive instincts got their rights, after all!

The Different Kinds of Hero

Last night I had another of my 3:00 am Aha! moments. I realized that the Sacrificial Hero is the hero that inaugurates a new religion. But whatabout people inaugurating a new culture? Or a new politics? Whatabout them?

Let's get back to fundamentals.

Politics is downstream from culture. Said Andrew Breitbart.

Culture is downstream from religion. Says John C. Wright.

Religion is downstream from the question "what is the meaning of 'life, the universe, and everything?'" Says Christopher Chantrill.

And I say, in my "Vision of the Good Life," which is supposed to replace the left's reactionary vision, that the new answer to the question of the meaning of "life, the universe, and everything," is the Sacrificial Hero. Like Moses, bringing his tablets of a new religion down from the mountain, but never getting to the Promised Land. Like Jesus Christ, dying for the idea that you don't need blood sacrifice to atone for your sins.

But whatabout the guy that creates a new culture out of the new religion providing a new answer to the question of the meaning of "life, the universe, and everything?"

That was the point of my Aha! moment. Because I thought to myself: probably the chap that develops a new culture is not a Sacrificial Hero. But what is he? Is he a Hero? Is he a Philosopher? An Artist? A Writer?

See, the point is that the cultural innovator is not really, as Jungian analysis proposes for the heavy lifting, a Hero teetering on the border between Order and Chaos. Because the heavy lifting has already been done. By the time the cultural innovator comes along the area of Chaos is no longer complete Chaos. The outlines have been mapped out.

So let's do the decent thing and say about the cultural innovator: I don't know.

Same thing for the political innovator that creates a new politics. This chap is not really tilling virgin ground that has never felt the blade of the plow. He is taking a culture and working out the implications of the culture when it comes to politics.

And that means we have to do the decent thing and say about the political innovator: I don't know.

But already my mind is seething with ideas. What do you call chaps like Calvin and Luther? What do you call Montesquieu, the chap that invented the political framework that our Founders hammered into the good old US and A? What do you call Kant? My pal Nietzsche? Whatabout the Rousseaus and Marxes and Marcuses? Whatabout Saul Alinsky, of Rules for Radicals? Whatabout Martin Luther King, Jr.?

And what you you call the actual high-profile politicians, the Lincolns, Bismarcks, Roosevelts, Reagans, Obamas?

What indeed do you call President Trump, the most unlikely of political innovators?

I don't know. Because I just don't want to jump to conclusions. Not just yet.

But I will be back!

Gorsuch Decision Means Back to the Drawing Board

With Justice Gorsuch legislating gay rights into the Civil Rights Act of 1965, another fantasy of conservatism bites the dust.

We are never going to win the culture war with conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Why?

Because the judicial branch is the aristocratic branch; it reflects the culture of the educated Gentry. And always will. Actually, that was the intention of the Founders.

Right now, the educated Gentry thinks that LGBT rights is a Good Thing that all Goodwhites agree on.

Let us be clear about what this means. It means that if you want to change the laws of the country you have to do more than win elections.

Because, as Andrew Breitbart said, politics is downstream from culture. Don't expect to win political battles unless you occupy the high ground of the culture.

But that is not enough for, as John C. Wright writes, culture is downstream from religion. 

Don't doubt me on this. And if you did, you might change your mind and get to see why Wright is right on this, in a moment when the devotees of the religion of Wokeness dominate the culture with their religious devotions and flagellations "mostly peaceful protesting" for Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police.

So is it all over? Do we all just take a knee, the baptismal rite of Wokeianity? Not at all.

Because there is something upstream from religion. And that is the classic line from Douglas Adams, that he repeats again and again in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It is the eternal human search for the meaning of "life, the universe, and everything."

Let it be said that we are no closer to succeeding in this search than the first humans that developed the conceit of self-consciousness. And we never will. The closer we get, as we increase our knowledge and wealth and power and wokeness, the further the answer recedes into the depths of the universe.

For instance, just this week the "Physicists Union" -- that demands, if you remember, "rigorously defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" -- announced that the Hubble Constant isn't quite as constant as we thought, and this "bolster[s the current] challenge to the basic model of the universe."

Whatever it is that the universe is. If, indeed it is something rather than nothing.

So, what we need to do is to come up with a meaning of life, the universe and everything that will condense into a new religion for the educated Gentry that will change the culture that will change the politics and that will make it unthinkable for the aristocrats on the Supreme Court to continue with the current faith in finding new "rights" to enshrine in law and new "victims" to be inducted into the sacred hall of victims.

Should be a snap, right?

I mean, it shouldn't be that hard to find some sort of meaning of life that is higher and better than Wokeness, the religion of Activism that there are billions of helpless victims out there wallowing in helplessness unless straggly-haired Chés and Good Little Girls in face masks all get together and hand-letter signs and mostly peacefully protest and demand that we bend the arc of history towards justice for the helpless victims?

I mean, surely smarter minds that you and I should have figured this all out by now, and forged a new and better meaning of "life, the universe, and everything." Right?

Of course they have. And I have made it my life's work to sniff out these noble heroes. And now I have published my findings, "A Vision of the Good Life Better than the Left's," that begins here.

I warn you, it is an extremely sophisticated analysis that is way beyond the ken of the average Ché or Good Little Girl in a good little face mask.

Now I have come up with the Ideal of this new meaning of "life, the universe and everything." It is the Sacrificial Hero who dies upon the border between Order and Chaos.

This Hero is not the Warrior Hero of old, the Prince Harry or the Harry Percy of Shakespeare. He is not the Revolutionary Hero of leftist revolutionary fantasy literature. He is not the Activist Hero of the current Activism Culture.

But what is he, then?

I will tell you. He is rather like Jordan B. Peterson, author of Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life. 

Why would I pick him, when tough guy Vox Day makes fun of him in Jordanetics: A Journey into the Mind of Humanity's Greatest Thinker? Two reasons:

1. Peterson came out against Canada's C-16 law that basically legislated the LGBT agenda. If you watch his testimony before the Canadian Senate you can see that he is basically offering himself up as a sacrifice.
2. His latest blog post, taking aim at the entire current culture in the university, "Missives of Appalling Idiocy and Envy Embarrassing to Behold," in which an eminent Canadian chemistry prof has been thrown to the woke mob.

When you do this you are offering yourself up to Pontius Pilate as a sacrifice to the search for the meaning of life. It means you are willing to sacrifice reputation, career, respectability, honor, everything.

But actually, of course, you are transcending the woke mob and its Cancel Culture, because in offering yourself as a sacrifice you are in fact daring the wokies to make you into a martyr. And that is something that they don't want.

But who really has the courage to stand up to the mob? Not me. But maybe you are. Anyway, Jordan B. Peterson is, in my opinion, an example of what it takes to be a Sacrificial Hero. Needless to say, his Maps of Meaning goes into great depth about the Sacrificial Hero and the whole question of the Hostile Brothers. 

I investigate Maps of Meaning here.

So, All we need to do is make the philosophy of the Sacrificial Hero a conventional wisdom among the educated Gentry. Then the whole religion and culture and politics of Wokeranity will vanish in a puff of smoke.

And we can start to deal with the next problem.

What is the Current Moral Revolution All About?

Let us start with the Zman who argues that our liberal democracy, unlike the classical forms of monarchy, republicanism and tyranny, has no overall architecture.

There is no sacred text or body of philosophical work to provide authority. Like a school of fish, morality shifts on a dime and that new direction is assumed to be the general will and therefore the proper course. Morality in a liberal democracy is a riot with no real purpose, other than to feed the need of the people to feel they are the virtuous actor in the great drama of life.

Well, I think he is missing the point. Our liberal democracy used to be about fluffing the nest of the workers, and then the minorities. But if an evil policeman can snuff out the life of a poor helpless black, then what is the point of it? That is what I understand about the current moment. So everyone is all in a flutter.

John Gray, in Unherd, compares the current moment to late medieval flagellants. The Wokies know society is immoral, just like the flagellants. But they don't have a clue what to do about it, except to cancel anyone that disagrees with them. Then Gray goes off into the weeds talking about America's founding on the crimes of black slavery and the seizure of indigenous lands.

Let's go back to the Zman. Whaddya mean "there is no sacred text?" We have a century of lefty thought, from Marx to Marcuse, which is nothing if it is not a Bible of sacred texts. Only this Bible is staggeringly, mind-blowingly wrong about its analysis and its moral program. It accuses the capitalists and bourgeoisie of a program of oppression and hegemony that is flat wrong. The capitalists and the bourgeoisie are not that interested in political power. If you come to them complaining of some injustice they will likely listen to you and try to do something about it.

And the lefty solution to all problems is flat-out wrong. It always proposes some kind of top-down supervisory system to right all wrongs, run by people like them. When it could have suggested minor tweaks to encourage pro-social behavior.

For instance, instead of government education it could have proposed employer-supported schooling for the children of employees. Instead of government-run health care it could have beefed up the 19th century universe of mutual-aid societies.

Then, instead of forming its own churches to create communities of lefty belief it has infiltrated all the institutions of society, from government to corporations, and essentially forced its wokey secular religion on the whole of society.

I would say that all this has been a complete failure and thus the lefty adepts and advocates are beside themselves with rage, because the whole world was supposed to be perfect by now. And there are plenty of young kids perfectly happy to burn the place down if the police will only stand back and let them have at it.

Look at the last ten years.

How could our betters have screwed up the credit system and allowed a generational credit panic like 2008? I thought they were experts.

How could President Obama have screwed up the recovery with old and failed policies like free money for teachers, and cartelizing the health care system when what was needed was jobs, jobs, jobs.

How could the health care experts mis-predict the effect of the Wu Flu epidemic by an order of magnitude? What is the point of experts if they can't predict the future within an order of magnitude?

How could black men still be out-murdering white and brown young men by a factor of 8 times? What are experts and policy professionals for if not to solve social problems like over-representation in crime statistics?

The answer is obvious. Our betters are complete idiots whose world view has failed and who don't know what to do other than keep on keeping on, and making sure that they and theirs get all the top jobs, as of old.

So, the world is totally screwed up, and naturally the young'uns do what they have been carefully taught. They go out into the streets and make hand-lettered signs and peacefully protest as though they were helpless peasants from 1819 instead of educated scions of the middle class in 2020.

So, liberals, what exactly was the point of that "march through the institutions" and purging of everyone that disagreed with you? Because if you haven't created a perfect world by now I'd say that your world view and your shock troops occupying all the commanding heights of the institutions amounts to a big fat zero.

And there is nobody left in the "institutions" except mindless idiots like you. So who is going to repair them and reform them?

The "Nazis' favorite intellectual" Fritzi Nietzsche predicted it all. When God is Dead -- i.e., the progressive agenda has utterly failed -- then you get decadance, a dying of the old order. Hmm. Aren't we seeing that, with populist Trumps and Borises popping up all over as people lose faith in the old ways? And then we get to nihilism, with nobody believing in anything. Hmm. Wouldn't that exactly describe our AntiFa friends who certainly know how to bomb and burn, but don't have a constructive idea in their heads?

Let me be clear. The problem is not with the helpless victims, who are just responding to the perverse incentives set up by the clueless ruling class. The problem is not the Commoners, who just want to wive and thrive, obey the laws, go to work, and follow the rules.

The problem is our educated Gentry that just know that they are ordained to bend the arc of history towards justice. And if the last program to bend the arc of history didn't work, well, they have another one that is bound to work this time.

Well, I have an analysis of the present situation, a Vision of the Good Life that transcends the failed vision of the left. And it centers on the basic error of the lefty educated Gentry, that they are warrior heroes hacking their way through the unjust jungle towards a perfect world of equality and justice. Wrong! Real heroes are sacrificial heroes that sacrifice themselves on the border of Order and Chaos.

But I don't expect lefty idiots to have a clue what that means. Maybe it's time for you chaps to shut up and go read a book.