Why a Sorority Sister Got Arrested at a Riot

In the BLM riot over a man shot by police in Lancaster, PA, after he charged them with a knife, a certain

Kathryn Patterson, 20... was “charged with felony arson, felony vandalism, felony riot, failure to disperse and other protest-related charges.” It turns out that Patterson is a junior at Franklin and Marshall College, a private liberal arts college in Lancaster where the annual cost of attendance is $75,801, including room and board. She’s also a Kappa Delta sorority member and an “ally” (whatever that means) of the college Black Student Union[.]

Readers of this blog will know that "ally" refers to the current notion of society as "oppressed peoples" and "allies" fighting against "white oppressors." Obviously, as a white sorority sister, Kathryn cannot be an "oppressed people." But she can be an "ally."

Why in the world would a sorority sister at a swank private college be into rioting? Because it's fashionable. And fashion is where it's at. Curtis Yarvin is the guy that 'splains it all. 

You see, we are ruled today not by politicians, but by "the System," and the System is directed by the "Cathedral." 

Its inner circle, the Brain and the Voice, includes all professors, journalists, serious artists, published authors, etc. Its outer ring, the Conversation, is the whole upper social class.

Stop right there and read it again. The Cathedral is professors and journalists and artists and authors. And they tell us what to think. Just as fashion magazines tell sorority sisters what to wear.

As I wrote yesterday:

"The central fact of the Cathedral, the center of power in our System, is its "monopoly on legitimacy." It works like this:

Prestigious information passes from Brain to Voice, and Voice to Conversation. This process is subtle enough, and its product is of high enough quality, for the Conversation to believe it is actually making up its own mind—from filtered inputs. The Conversation—all of legitimate public opinion—always admires the System. It thinks of this as a completely voluntary and spontaneous critical assessment."

And the Conversation is all about fashion.

And the Conversation, which is the discourse of the upper social class, is always the discourse of fashion. For the nobility (rich or broke), fashionable ideas are de rigueur.

In other words, when you walk around your nice gentrified neighborhood, and see all those fashionable #BackLivesMatter and #WeBelieve yard-signs, you are seeing people wearing the current fashion in political ideas in the "upper social class."

For some reason, I have rebelled against this. And I don't know why. Maybe I have the fashionable notion that it is fashionable to be a rebel.

So of course sorority sisters are out there protesting. That's what a fashionable young woman does these days. Better still, protest at Trader Joe's; then you can do some shopping after you are done protesting.

I first cottoned onto this Activism Culture years ago when a woman friend allowed as how she had always wanted to "get into activism." That is what you do if you want your life to have meaning and purpose if you are a member of the "upper social class" these days. As Yarvin writes:

A noble's [or sorority sister's] life purpose is the highest stage on the pyramid of needs: self-actualization. The most obvious way to be self-actualized is to be important, so nobles crave power and importance. 

Back in his Three Layer days, Yarvin wrote about the Gentry and its need for "ambition, "vanity" and "honor." Of course! How else would the educated Gentry sorority sister get to "self-actualization?"

Or you can explain it with my reductive Three Peoples theory, in that the People of the Creative Self have an existential need to be "creative" and what that generally means is doing the current fashionable thing decreed for creative people by the Cathedral.

The point is that all this fashionable "upper social class" activity is all about them. It is not really about "oppressed peoples." It is not really about the dreadful bitter clingers and deplorables and Trump supporters and "white oppressors." All the Gentry are merely players, strutting and fretting their hour upon the stage, signifying nothing. And the bitter clingers are just the usual opera chorus of peasants.

By the way, who would the "white oppressors" be but the "upper social class" that imagines itself to be "allies" of the "oppressed peoples?" It can't be the bitter clingers and deplorables because they are all far too busy attending Trump Car Parades, Trump Boat Parades, and Trump Rallies. And they have no power.

My question is: can't we start a new fashion that the fashionable sorority sisters can get down with? And all the gentry liberals in their gentrified neighborhoods? One that gives the liberals their ambition, their vanity, their honor, but doesn't beat up the poor bloody commoners and doesn't entangle the "oppressed peoples" in the dysfunctional hell of the welfare state and its programs?

Ch3: America's Real Constitution: The "System"

Curtis Yarvin's Gray Mirror is a modest project to imagine a politics for the 21st century. In his previously published chapters he proposed the emptiness of political action, for if your political action supports the regime it is merely serves to prop up the regime and if your political action opposes the regime its certain failure props up the regime.

And I have been analyzing it, step by step, mostly so I could understand what Yarvin is writing.

Now, in Chapter 3, the Descriptive Constitution of the Modern Regime, Yarvin sets out to show the difference between our formal constitution and the real, unwritten constitution, the "System" we live under. 

The form of government that the Constitution’s text prescribes, that its initial leaders created, and that its citizens emotionally believe in today, is an elected monarchy. The Republic in one sentence: the voters elect the chief executive of the government, who holds power for four years.

In fact we are not ruled by our elected monarch, nor by the electors, the demos. We are ruled by the System, as follows:

We divide the System into four great organs: in ascending order of power, the Castle, the Factory, the Bureau and the Cathedral. (Later, we will add a fifth: the Show.)

Castle is the military and the police. Factory is "production of goods and services: all companies, trade and finance, mining and agriculture." Bureau is "administration, the professional civil service." Cathedral is "information: truth, philosophy, ethics, narrative, art and intelligence."

Now, if we are are not a monarchy, for the elected president does not have much power, and if we are not a democracy, for the people cannot rule, we must have oligarchy.

There are four forms of oligarchy: hereditary oligarchy (rule of nobles), military oligarchy (rule of soldiers), commercial oligarchy (rule of the wealthy), and clerical oligarchy (rule of thinkers). The System is a clerical oligarchy.

 But, but, but. Surely we are supposed to have a separation of church and state? Well, not if you understand religion in a broader sense than understood by your average bear. For me, religion is all human energy devoted to the question of "the meaning of life, the universe, and everything." Here is the composition of our clerical oligarchy.

Its inner circle, the Brain and the Voice, includes all professors, journalists, serious artists, published authors, etc. Its outer ring, the Conversation, is the whole upper social class. Its funding division, the Foundation, is the whole upper economic class. Its teaching division, the School, gets to indoctrinate almost everyone for over a decade. And its doctrine, the Dream, defines good and evil for all decent people.

And, you might add, its Inquisition is the corps of eager beavers that runs the "cancel culture" on social media.

The central fact of the Cathedral, the center of power in our System, is its "monopoly on legitimacy." It works like this:

Prestigious information passes from Brain to Voice, and Voice to Conversation. This process is subtle enough, and its product is of high enough quality, for the Conversation to believe it is actually making up its own mind—from filtered inputs. The Conversation—all of legitimate public opinion—always admires the System. It thinks of this as a completely voluntary and spontaneous critical assessment.

In other words, all the folks with their Black Lives Matter and #WeBelieve signs think that they are spontaneously critiquing the bad people. But in fact they are just repeating-after-me the "prestigious information," the articulation of the Dream, that has proceeded from Brain to Voice to Conversation. 

And the Conversation, which is the discourse of the upper social class, is always the discourse of fashion. For the nobility (rich or broke), fashionable ideas are de rigueur.

Yeah, fashionable ideas. Boy, do we have fashionable ideas in our modern world. And don't you dare criticize fashionable ideas, pal.

Notice that Yarvin's idea that the Cathedral is in charge is completely vindicated in the current cancel culture. Where is the bureaucracy, the Bureau? It is busily conducting critical race seminars. Where is business, the Factory? It is busily getting down with Black Lives Matter. Where is the military, the Castle? The generals are down with the movement with women fighter pilots. The police? Oh yeah. There is a bit of a problem, because the police are still beating up on the helpless spawn of the welfare state, the wild young men that never had a father.

So the Cathedral runs the whole System; everyone who is anyone takes his cue from the Conversation on the street decreed by the Brain of the Cathedral. It is infallible, because there is no appeal. But what if the Cathedral is wrong?

[T]he Cathedral is either marching faster toward utopia or sliding deeper into mania. Wherever it goes, the System follows; wherever the System follows, the country follows. To answer this question is to read the future.

And what the Cathedral promulgates is the Dream.

The Dream is the ideal future of the noblest, most fashionable people in the world. It really is a nice Dream. The problem with the Dream is not that it is evil, but that it is impossible. From that error (also a sin: the sin of vanity), all the evil it does proceeds.

For, when the Cathedral needs an Inquisition to enforce its Dream, then you know that something is going wrong.

Yes, but couldn't we elect a president who would sidestep the Cathedral and actually reform something? Not really, because the President is not really chief executive, but "chief oracle." Most of his job is not directing traffic but making decisions on issues that bubble up from the Bureau, the bureaucracy, where he gets to choose between three options. So when we elect a president nothing changes.

Yes, but couldn't we elect a new Congress that would actually reform something for a change? Not really. First, people do not care about congressional elections the way they care about presidential elections. Second, there are no real local notables and celebrities to act as symbolic representatives of the people. Third, we elect congress-critters, in effect, for life. Some do get defeated, occasionally. But not often. Fourth, a newly elected congress-critter is a nobody, with no power to change anything. (Except AOC, but she is the mouthpiece of the Cathedral, so that's different.) In fact, Congress is driven by the lobbyists and the activists. Period.

The point is that to change anything, through a presidential election or a congressional election, would require a level of energy orders of magnitude greater than the current levels of political energy we experience from day to day.

Yes, Americans can still elect a new regime—but they have to really, really want one, and they all have to want the same one, and it has to be one that can actually work. The distance from here to any such regime change can hardly be exaggerated. 

And let's face, it. Today, very few people "really, really want" a new regime. The only people pretending are the BLM/Antifa folks, and they are merely the stooges of the System, play-acting revolution.

The problem with the System is that its director, the Cathedral, is corrupted. In a perfect world, its Brain, the thinkers, would be like mathematicians working away like squirrels on their equations, and only equations that worked would become agreed-upon mathematics. But, for the Brainiacs, there is the problem of power. And "power corrupts ideas."

A marketplace of ideas, like any Darwinian system, evolves for whatever it selects for. If it is selecting for power—for “impact,” for “changing the world"—it will evolve powerful doctrines: ethical justifications for wielding power.

Which is exactly what we have today. And if you want to escape the poisonous killing fields of power you are going to have to be doing Brainiac things where your ideas are not going to make you famous or powerful or encourage you to believe you are "changing the world."

But what would that look like? Ah yes...

Be sure to watch next week's exciting episode. 

Suppose the Wildfires in California Are Not Due To Climate Change

Up here in Seattle we have smoky haze this morning, resulting from the California wildfires. According to the science, the wildfires are a consequence of global warming. Says former President Obama.

The fires across the West Coast are just the latest examples of the very real ways our changing climate is changing our communities. Protecting our planet is on the ballot. Vote like your life depends on it—because it does. pic.twitter.com/gKGegXWxQu

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 10, 2020

Yes. And here is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

“Mother Earth is angry,” the San Francisco Democrat said during an appearance Thursday on MSNBC. “She’s telling us -- whether she’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is … that the climate crisis is real and has an impact.”

Notice how the Catholic Pelosi uses religious language -- actually pre-Christian religious language -- to make her point.

Of course, climate deniers like this nobody say that the California wildfires are due to the environmentalists. 

I live here. Have a seat and learn something, sir. In the state of California the environmentalist lobby sets policy. Controlled burns? Bad for air. Logging to reduce forest density? Bad for the owls. Focus on replacing ancient transmission lines? Nah, we're building wind farms.

So who are you going to believe? The former President of the United States backed by the scientists or a nobody?

And, if you are a climate denier, that still doesn't believe, no matter what a former President of the United States says, what do you do about it? Particularly when all the best scientists agree with the former President of the United States.

I guess there are two available strategies.

The first strategy is to appeal to peoples' selfish interests. If you are campaigning in Pennsylvania, which has benefited enormously from the fracking revolution, you say that the Green New Deal will cost Pennsylvania jobs.

This is, after all, the strategy of the anti-capitalists for the last 150 years. Doesn't matter that the economics says that capitalism is great, that real per-capita income is up by 30 times in 200 years. When a factory closes down or a CEO makes a fortune, a Robert Reich will show up to blame "robber barons." And it works.

But pro-Green New Deal Joe Biden goes to Pennsylvania and declares that he won't ban fracking. Yep, and I gotta bridge to sell you.

The second strategy is to capitalize on failures of prophecy. Science is science: it is merely a technique for trying to understand how the world works. It has achieved amazing results, particularly in the last 500 years, particularly in the last century. But whenever science makes predictions about the future, it is still prophecy, just as in the old days. That is because science is not the final word on how the universe works; it is just the latest human attempt to figure out what is going on. Thus Kant: we cannot know things-in-themselves, but only appearances. 

Only, modern science is a lot better at predictions than the old methods of divination and examination of intestines. Still, weather forecasting, despite the biggest computers in the business, is still a pretty chancy affair. So is hurricane prediction. So is stock-market prediction. So is climate modeling.

Ultimately a failure of prophecy is what will kill off the climate change religion. But not yet. For the climate-change enthusiasts have cunningly arranged that just about everything is a confirmation of climate change.

And it doesn't matter that Karl Popper declared that science isn't science unless it opens itself to "falsification." He meant that if everything is interpreted as confirmation of your theory you do not have science, you have prophecy.

The way real science works is the confirmation of general relativity in 1919 by Sir Arthur Eddington. Einstein's relativity predicted that light passing close to a heavy body like the sun would be slightly bent. Because space is curved by gravitation. And it was.

So, using the bones and the entrails of general relativity math, Einstein prophesied that light from a star would be bent as it grazed the surface of our Sun. And he was right.

The best way to understand prophecy is the helpful book When Prophecy Fails by Festinger et al. It's about a UFO cult in the late 1940s predicting that a UFO would come and rescue them before the Earth was destroyed. It didn't, and the Earth was not destroyed. Oops.

But a cult doesn't collapse the day after the predicted end-of-the-world. It takes a while. So even if the global temperatures stop increasing -- say, due to a new grand solar minimum -- it won't change minds, not right away. But a while after the failure of prophecy, the cult starts to break up, to make room for the next great prophetic cult.

Meanwhile, you can blame electrical blackouts on climate crazies. You can blame soaring electrical rates on climate activists. You can resist restrictions on automobile use. You can let billion-dollar light-rail projects wither on the vine. And you can vote against politicians that want to raise your taxes and kill your job.

What you cannot expect to do is discredit the ruling-class narrative. Not yet.

Suppose "Politics is Division" is a Good Thing

At American Greatness Curtis Ellis is observing that the Davos set, the corporate globalists, are shedding their camoflage.

The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions,” the oligarchs of the World Economic Forum helpfully advise. “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.” (Emphasis added.)

Or the Zman is saying that, "maybe it is simply the end of Left and Right. The Left won." But I say that when the Left has vanquished all its foes, then what?

And Willis Eschenbach is wallowing in Scott Adams' Win Bigly: Persuasion in a world where facts don't matter, in which Scott talks about the idea that mass delusions are not infrequent, but normal. As in, you would expect the world's scientists to all buy into the climate change delusion since their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor depend on it being true. Scott says this a bit differently:

[S]cientists who oppose the climate change consensus have a high degree of career and reputation risk[.]

So why bother, pal? Just go with the flow.

Let's go back to Scott Adams and his 3-D world view:

This worldview says humans are irrational 90 percent of the time. The only exceptions are when decisions have no emotional content. 

This is actually what the science of the German Turn says. Our conscious -- and supposedly rational -- mind is only 10 percent of the whole. The rest is the unconscious mind, and who knows what it is thinking? We know, at least, that it is operating instinctively and emotionally.

If you are not going to have mass delusions going on all the time and leading us over the cliff, then you have to have a counter mass delusion to even things out.

As in, two party politics, where the mass delusionists of each side can hurl their vitriol at each other.

As in, a world open to all religions, so that the moralists of every description can damn the other guys to hell and back again without the benefit of canceling their opponents in the public square and lighting up a nice cozy auto-da-fé.

As in, a free economy where there is not just one monopoly corporation in bed with the political elite, but different corporations each with a different strategy for market domination.

But boy, do we all hate it when the other side dares to question our mass delusion!

As in, the Davos globalists hating on Trump for questioning their august authority and right to direct traffic from the Magic Mountain.

As in, the deep state in the US that has run the US for decades with a nod-nod-wink-wink consensus throughout the corridors of power. Until Trump came along and upset their apple cart.

It's curious, isn't it, that everyone is insulted by the idea that there are people over there that don't agree with Our Saving Truth.

Here's something to think about. If the educated Gentry managed to completely vanquish the bitter-clinger Deplorables, what would they do then, poor things?

Because I would say that the only reason that the Davos special people are united is that they have the awful populist nationalists to kick around. I think that if the nationalists ever succumbed, then the globalist elite would divide into factions and start to fight each other.

And if the critical race theory postmodernists ever succeeded in purging the last racist-sexist-homophobe from America then they would split into two and start beating up on each other.

And so, really, the health of the state, or of the culture, or of science, is when everyone is beating up on the other guy -- verbally, of course.

Those Davos Pooh Bahs are fools if they think that the right thing is for them to step up and tell the rest of us what to do.

Those deep-state anonymous sources are crazy to think that they should not be roughly sorted out every decade or so.

Those critical race theorists would be out of luck if they ever won and condemned the hated racist-sexist-homophobes to the University of Outer Slobbovia.

I realize what I am saying. I am saying that the chaos agent Donald Trump is probably the best thing that has happened to the US since sliced bread.

OK. So the worst that can be said about that is that it is a mass delusion of the Deplorables driving around aimlessly in their Trump Car Parades.

And that my maxim that "politics is division" points to the good thing about politics. That a true mano-a-mano politics -- Marquess of Queensbury rules, old chap -- is the best thing going.

All the World's a Social Construct

The arts and the sciences have been on the outs with each other for a while, if not for ever. Certainly long before C.P. Snow spoke about the "Two Cultures."

I suppose the big reason for this is that scientists think of themselves as objective investigators dealing with facts and reason, while artists and writers think of themselves dealing in intuition and metaphor.

I suppose we might say that science thinks of itself as Apollonian, and the arts thinks of itself as Dionysian.

And in the middle are the postmodernists that say, correctly, that race is a social construct. No doubt, but the fact is that all of science is a social construct, in the sense that science is a basket of theories that we use to explain how the world works.

And even though race is a social construct it is still an attempt to understand why different people are different and different peoples are different.

All of human science is an attempt to understand the world.

But so is a work of art. A work of art is nothing unless it explains how the world works.

Now you may say that science shows us how the world works with logic and reason, and the arts show us how the world works by triggering the unconscious and its emotions, its instincts, and its archetypes.

However, what with pyschology and all, we now have the beginnings of a science of the emotions, and Jungian pyschology is trying to provide the beginnings of a scientific explanation of the unconscious.

Now the postmodernists propose that science as a social construction is a scandal, a cunning power trick of the ruling class.

I would agree, up to a point. Our present ruling class uses its "Jobs for Gentry" program to keep science as a kept woman of the ruling class, and a particular kept woman of the ruling class is the whole postmodern community. Scientists know that grant money comes only to scientists that provide the right answers to the ruling class, particularly on climate change, race, and gender. There is no objective knowledge. It is all social construction and "narrative."

I wonder why the current ruling class encourages and promotes postmodernists. What's going on here? Because the postmodernist helpfully beat up on the middle-class Commoners? I wonder.

The best social-construct narrative I know is that of lefty linguist George Lakoff. He is famous for describing conservatives as inspired by a "strict father" model for the state, while liberals are moved by a "nurturant parent" model. I guess that in 2020 we would update his theory to say that Commoners are inspired by a Trump Boat Parade model of society while lefties are inspired by an AntiFa mostly peaceful protest model of society.

But Lakoff proposes a social construct of language that for me is dispositive. He proposes that humans start to understand the world using "basic-level categorization." By the age of three, children are able to understand a world of "socks and shoe, dog and cow." And table and chair, house and bike.

Get it? "Dog" is a social construct.

In fact, as the child soon learns, the world is a lot more complicated than that. There are, for instance, different kinds of dogs. And then dogs are a kind of animal. So right off the bat the kid learns about three levels of categorization:

Superordinate	Animal	Furniture
Basic-level	Dog	Chair
Subordinate	Retriever	Rocker

Now, the point is that there is no limit to the number of levels. Beyond Animals? Living things. And beyond that? 

That is why the ancients decided that the world is sitting on a turtle. But what is the turtle sitting on? Fuggetaboutit. It's turtles all the way down. We have a similar problem. The Earth is set in a Solar System, and the Solar System is set in the arm of a galaxy, and galaxies are scattered in space. And beyond? Is there Something? Nothing? A multiverse of Universes? We Don't Know.

Scientists have determined that we humans block out nearly all the information that is pouring into our five senses. We only pay attention to the stuff that our brain -- or whatever -- determines is significant. So, you might say, the basic-level objects are the most significant objects in our world: parents, siblings, dogs, food, angry neighbors.

But once we master the world of basic-level objects we start to explore the rest of the world.

Things we understand are in the world of Order. Things we do not understand are in the world of Chaos. But how do we get to understand the world of Chaos? That is what science and the arts and religion and culture are for. They are different ways of trying to get a grip on the Unknown world of Chaos.

There are, of course, different ways of understanding the world of Order. And that is what the successive revolutions in science and religion and the arts are all about.

Our postmodern friends of the last century think that the white supremacist bourgeois way of understanding the world of Order is a false narrative. And it is true, the white bourgeois world-view overdetermines the idea that we are logical and rational, and that the middle-class bourgeois way in the highest and best way to live, to organize society, and to establish the inevitable hierarchy. The fact is that the bourgeois culture is a social construct imagined and built by good solid bourgeois thinkers and what they thought not surprisingly seemed to be good to the good solid bourgeoisie.

Hey, how about this?

Lefty activist: Race doesn't exist; it is a social construct.

Trump Car Parade Attendee: So white supremacy doesn't exist; it is a social construct.

Exactly. Our postmodern friends have erected their own social construct, for instance, that the whole of western civilization is a white male patriarchal social construction designed to oppress and marginalize every one else.

Only I would interpret the postmodern world view as a social construct imagined by educated Gentry that proposes to oppress and marginalize the white-male bourgeoisie under the hegemony of postmodern thinkers and activists.

See, I think that my social construct sails into the stratosphere far above the put-putting ideologies of the postmodernists. And it does it because it comprehends the whole of the German Turn from Kant to Hegel to Schopenhauer to Nietzsche to Jung and beyond with Wittgenstein and Habermas, whereas our postmodern friends get tangled up in the bushes with Marx and Freud. Silly geese.

See, I think that if you have grasped the German Turn you understand that everything is a social construct, a step-by-step analysis from the First Social Construct of the "basic-level" notion onwards and upwards and that each step always partakes of both the Apollonian consciousness and the Dionysian unconsciousness. And each step is complicated by false starts and errors. 

So it is rubbish to think of science as Apollonian and the arts as Dionysian. Or to get all hung up on social constructs. Unless you access both and understand that everything is a social construct you will be stuck on a rock. Or in the bushes, like a silly goose.

What Happens After November 3

Everyone seems to think that the losers on November 3 aren't going to accept the results. If you are Hillary Clinton you are Zooming your instructions for your pals not to concede. And if you are "far right" commentators like the Zman you are wondering if the left is going to mount a coup if they lose or just incompetently mostly peacefully protest.

I suspect that the answer depends on how close the result are. If the popular vote is 55-45 then I think it's a done deal.

If not?

Then it all depends on how competent are lefty friends really are. It's one thing to mostly peacefully protest when the liberal mayor looks the other way -- don't try this if you are a "far right" white supremacist -- it's another thing when all the liberal Democrat-run cities go up in flames and the rest of the country climbs into their cars and trucks for a Trump Car Parade.

For instance, will the Deep State rally to the Dems' banner? I wonder. Based on the Russia Collusion game it looks to me as though the Deep State is more attached to its pensions that to follow the leader.

For instance, the only guy they got on the Russia Collusion so far is the low-rank lawyer Kevin Cleinsmith who has pleaded guilty to making a false statement on a FISA application. Hey, all he did is say that Carter Page was not a CIA asset when the CIA said he was! But the other guys, the higher-ups, seem to have been pretty careful not to get their hands dirty.

And hey, why should they bother to risk anything? They will still have jobs in the vast intelligence apparatus. Why Worry?

Now I think that all the BLM/AntiFa street rioters are pretty competent. I am reading commentaries about their organization and command structure and it all seems pretty competent. But the only reason they get to strut their stuff is because the powers that be aren't arresting and jailing them. One fine day the liberal politicians will get the message that the party's over and they will send in the cops and they will not let the perps out on bond. Because re-election.

Another thing. Some time soon the liberal politicians in the liberal cities are going to get the message that people are moving out, big time, taking their tax dollars with them. How can you strut your stuff as a big-cheese progressive politician if there ain't no money? You ain't gonna get re-elected if you don't have loot and plunder to promise to your supporters.

Then there is the problem that the leaders of the Democratic Party are old-stagers that learned their game half a century ago. I think they are being played for a fool by the young lefty radicals. But what do I know?

Thing is, the Nancys and the Chucks learned their game in the aftermath of the Sixties when it had become obvious that to win national elections a Democrat had to campaign as a moderate. That's because the vast majority of voters are middle-class commoners. Middle-class Commoners just don't get the racist-sexist-homophobe stuff and the whole critical race thingy. Except that they understand that if they put a foot wrong they lose their job.

I wonder what middle-class Commoners think about that?

So this morning I saw a video of a black guy in a truck in a Trump Car Parade yelling at some white college girls sporting Black Lives Matter protest signs. What's that all about?

Oh, and has anyone asked Latino voters what they think about all this BLM/AntiFa stuff? Bueller? Anyone?

It all comes down to this: has all the mostly peaceful protesting this summer been a cunningly conceived plan to bend the arc of history towards justice or is it just a bunch of educated Gentry idiots peacefully protesting as they have been carefully taught?

I'm inclined to believe the latter. But then, I want to believe that.

The Three Peoples and Revolution

In this "summer of love" featuring "mostly peaceful protests" in Democratic governed cities across the USA, there is a question. 

What do the Three Peoples in my reductive Three Peoples theory think about it all? Perfectly simple.

The People of the Subordinate Self (and Curtis Yarvin's Clients) follow their leaders. They are subordinate, haven't really cottoned to the middle-class city and its individualism, and they feel left out. So they are often ready to be led to the barricades.

The People of the Responsible Self (and Curtis Yarvin's Commoners) expect the police to control the streets so they can live their responsible lives obeying the law, going to work, and following the rules. To the Responsibles all political disagreements should be sorted out in elections. That's what the bourgeois revolutions of the 17th and 18th century were all about: to curb the warlike nobles and gravitate power to the middle class where things would all be sorted out in frank and free discussions according to Robert's Rules of Order. So Responsibles really hate riots, demonstrations, mostly peaceful protests and all the rest. Because to them, what's the point? Everyone has a vote, and the time to change government is at election time. You want to change things? Then persuade a majority at the next election and bring your agenda to the legislature.

The People of the Creative Self (and Curtis Yarvin's Gentry) are special people. They regard themselves as a cut above the rest and are irritated by the comfortable blandness of middle-class morality and politics -- or of Trump Boat Parades. The whole point of being creative is to strut and fret your hour upon the stage, to think up something new, not get on with your work and tend to your family.

Actually, as Jung and Joseph Campbell and Jordan B. Peterson and I write, the real creative hero is the sacrificial hero. I develop this notion in my Good Life series.

But our Creative Class, our educated Gentry, thinks that the good life is bending the arc of history towards justice with politics and peaceful protest. That is where they get meaning in their lives. They live what I call an Activism Culture. It is what you might call a surgical culture where these Creative people are acting rather like surgeons in an operating theater, operating on society to remove its cancerous growths.

And notice how this surgical metaphor tracks pretty closely to the medical profession. Medical professionals are not emotionally engaged in the lives of the people they treat. Their patients are, for them, statistics. Of course, they like to do the right thing, but if someone dies on their watch, well, that's life. They are careful to observe the established protocols, but let's face it: today's patient is today's patient. Tomorrow there will be another one.

Thus, I argue, when you see a mostly peaceful protest on the streets of Portland, Oregon, or an earnest activist demanding we implement the Green New Deal to address climate change, you must understand that this is an ego trip. It is all about the protester, all about the activist: the play's the thing.

In my view the Creative Class and the educated Gentry really have no idea how their protests and activism are received and experienced by the ordinary Responsible Commoner. That's because it is not a dialog; it is a performance.

Back in the last eruption of left-wing culture, the Sixties, it took about 20 years before the Sixties Kidz realized that they had a problem, that the ordinary American commoner hated their protest culture, that if they wanted back into command they had to moderate their message and pretend to be moderates.

But all along they were still dreaming of being Ché Guevara, of setting the world aflame, of bending the arc of history: Revolution Baby!

Only the Age of Revolution is over. Surely anyone with half a brain can see that: all the revolutions since the bourgeois revolutions have been bloody failures that have not brought justice but bloody killing fields. Revolution has been replaced by ordinary corrupt politics, of loot and plunder by tax and spend rather than by conquest and subjugation.

Of course, my line is that the follow-on Age of Politics is over, too. Almost anyone with a brain should be able to see that anything and everything run by the government is incompetent and dysfunctional. We know why this is so: it is dictated by my Four Laws: that socialism cannot work because it cannot compute prices; that administrative government does not work because it does not have the bandwidth; that regulatory government cannot work because of "regulatory capture" of the regulators by the regulated; and that anyway, government programs cannot work because you cannot reform them, except by handing out more loot.

I interpret the current situation as the utter folly of the educated Gentry, thinking that a couple of nice peaceful protests can solve the injustices of the world. That, obviously, is what the Democratic mayors and councils of Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, thought when all this violence started with the death of a drugged up felon who had just passed a fake $20 bill. That's because they believe what they have been carefully taught, that the way to justice is through the annealing flame of protest, acting as "allies" of "oppressed peoples."

Of course, they have no idea about how they have buried the ordinary Commoners in injustice, how they have betrayed the support of the "oppressed peoples" over the last 50 years.

If there is any justice in the world then our Creatives, our educated Gentry, should be up before the Bar next.

But don't forget that they have No Idea that they have done anything wrong. Not yet.

Boy, that would be a Revolution, the day when our conceited Gentry gets a Bill of Indictment from the Responsibles, the Commoners, they have exploited and oppressed for so long.