The Problem with Anti-Whiteness

All the usual idiots are coming up with comical indictments of "whiteness." There are several charts about "whiteness" in Edward Ring's American Greatness piece on "The Origin and True Agenda of Anti-Racist Politics." I wrote about it last week. They really are sophomoric.

The problem with "whiteness" as the foundation of all evil in the world is, of course, that those bloody whites are the ones that invented the modern world -- the good, the bad, and the ugly. And everybody else is playing catch-up.

So why did Western Europeans pwn the world from about 1500 to 2000? How did they do it? What was the secret to their success, their Baldrick's Cunning Plan?

It wasn't just one thing; it was everything. Europeans had developed ships that could sail around the world. They had developed financial systems to finance long trading voyages. They had guns. And they had young men that were prepared to go to the ends of the Earth to earn a living.

Now I've been doing a bit of reading about pre-1500 Europe. If you read "The Saxon Chronicles" of Bernard Cornwell you read about a world where the bloody Danes had developed amazing longships which were dandy for raids on the bloody Saxons in England. But the Danes couldn't really think beyond capturing slaves and looting silver and seizing good arable land.

Or there is Britain's Edward II that I am reading about through a biography of his Queen Isabella. You see the beginnings of reliance on Italian bankers. But otherwise kingly life was about juggling earldoms and valuable agricultural estates, and tuning up for the Wars of the Roses in the next century.

But read what this Chinese guy, a "Dr. Wu," said about Europeans at the beginning of David Aikman's Jesus in Beijing published in 2003. Dr. Wu and others had been tasked with accounting "for the success, in fact, the preeminence of the West all over the world."

We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism, and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.

Somebody tell President Xi about this.

The error that our lefty friends make about "whiteness" is that they cannot think outside of a political context. They seem to imagine a white conspiracy to conquer the world, and to dominate and subjugate all non-whites.

Not at all. For instance, the conquest of the world began with a bit of a cock-up on the exploration front. Christopher Columbus was not trying to discover America in 1492; not at all. He was trying to find a sea route to India. For trading purposes. Guess why they called the native Americans "Indians?"

When the Portuguese started trading with India around the Cape of Good Hope it was to avoid having to pay the high prices for spices from the Arabs. And it is pretty amazing that you could make money on months-long voyages from Europe to India. The Portuguese weren't trying to conquer India. They wanted to trade with India.

But here's the thing. What do you need to organize a round-the-cape trading system with India? You need ships that can do the trip. You need guns to keep the pirates down to a dull roar. And you need capital, to fund the months-long trip. If you ask me, it ain't as easy as gussying up some Critical Race Theory training course in "white fragility" and forcing all the white kiddies to show up, or else.

One fine day the current religious, cultural, political and economic society variously created by peoples out of Western Europe will be superseded by something else. Not a doubt about it. But the superseders will not be CRT academics or activists. I promise you that, on a stack of Das Kapitals.

Meanwhile, here are a couple of mysteries to ponder over.

Why did the Brits and others create the anti-slavery movement in the 18th century? What did they mean by that?

And why did the US write the Civil Rights Acts to give full civil rights to a small minority population of ex-slaves from Africa? What did they mean by that?

See, it's easy to understand our liberal friends today who want to change the world for climate change and beat up racist whites because systemic racism. That's easy. Every ruling class needs to be heroically battling against some existential peril, or against some frightful and hateful enemy, otherwise who needs the bloody ruling class?

But why bother about slavery? Why bother about civil rights? That is the mystery.

Our Liberal Friends Won't Know What Hit Them

Let us interpret the last five years as a continuous desperate attempt by our liberal friends to Stop The World I Wanna Get Off.

Because Trump should not, could not have happened. Not unless the Ruskies did it. Not unless FoxNews and Newsmax and OAN flooded the highways and byways with conspiracy theories and misinformation. Not unless "hate."

It has been helpful to me that several years ago I abandoned my conventional understanding of the world through logic and reason and reality and facts and accepted the German Turn that we don't know what reality is. In "reality" we humans, like the rest of creation, are stumbling and bumbling along in our lives, doing the same-old same-old until, all of a sudden, we nearly get killed by something.

It could be a truck at an intersection that nearly ran us over. It could be a cold spell in Texas that shut down all the wind turbines. It could be an Orange Man Bad that got elected President of the United States. It could be a theory that space and time aren't absolute, but relative.

When an animal or a human gets blindsided it responds in one of four different ways.

1. Nothing to see here, move right along.
2. OMG It's the End of the World!
3. It's Evil Spirits (or racist-sexist-homophobes)
4. Wow, maybe I'm doing something wrong.

I did a long post about this when I was reading Jordan B. Peterson's Maps of Meaning. "Maps of Meaning: What Failure to Respond to Chaos Looks Like." As I interpret Peterson:

You put a rat into a new cage, or introduce a cat into its life and it freezes up in terror. For a while. But then it starts to explore and figure out what the new situation means and where the dangers are, and it starts to relax.

See the difference between a rat and a human? A human has the ability to ignore the new situation and just carry on in the old way. Or, of course, it can imagine that it can destroy the threat. Part of the reason for that is our conscious mind. We humans can construct a theory of the world consciously while your average rat cannot.

Now, I believe that our lefty friends have built up a whole world view on the idea that we can and should live in the good old way of pre-market culture. They have an imagined Garden of Eden in which everyone lives in equality and community, and everything is shared and equal, and everyone is benevolently advised by evolved, educated liberals. They experience living in the market system as living under the tyranny of the market. 

Thus Ellen Meiksins Wood in The Origin of Capitalism argues that in the pre-capitalist world many rural humans lived in a world of "customary use rights... or the right to subsistence." But then along came capitalism and "market as an imperative:" Everyone had to surrender to the dictatorship of the market. Yes, but. In the pre-capitalist world everyone lived under the dictatorship of a feudal lord. If people were enjoying "customary use rights" it was because the feudal lord was too busy playing politics with the other feudal lords to exploit his lands -- and his peasants -- to the full.

Actually, I get it. Wouldn't it be loverly if we could escape the treadmill of the market and live in a simpler,  more companionable way? Yeah! Imagine there's no market, as the Beatles might have said. Thus the whole nostalgic culture of the left's Great Reaction, its yearning for a lost world of perfect community.

(Notice how Jordan B. Peterson deals with this fantasy with his "lobster" narrative. Animals don't live in equality; they live in hierarchies, and the reason for hierarchies is that they reduce the need for violence.)

All this is fine. Our liberal friends managed to make the Trump Effect go away by... Well, we are not allowed to say this, but mainly by skewing the system, by censorship in the media, by mail-in voting and I know not what.

But I think that the worst is yet to come. Sorry liberals.

Whatabout the anger of the small businessmen and women screwed by the COVID lockdowns? Whatabout the folk that have given up and gone homeless? Whatabout the folk that have stopped paying rent, and now have to face making up the arrears (estimated at $70 billion nationwide) or eviction? Whatabout the people on the receiving end of the current anti-white witch-hunt in our schools and corporations? Whatabout the rage of people confronting $4 a gallon gasoline? Whatabout the rage of people in blue states that find out that they have been screwed, and that the red states that reopened early made the right decision.

Let's set up the bleachers, because it's going to be quite a show.

Moths Attracted to the Flame of Power

In American Greatness Edward Ring is spinning a tale of conspiracy, of the globalist billionaires willing the hell of Critical Race Theory upon us, with "The Origin and True Agenda of 'Anti-Racist' Politics."

Well, first of all, I don't think that really "anyone" is leading the Woke religion. Ring notes that the left's funding is coming from lefty billionaires and corporations.

It is coming from global corporations and leftist billionaires. The intent is to destroy the sense of shared identity that defines America. By doing this they will eliminate unified opposition to their agenda, which is to remake America into a mere economic unit where the vast majority of residents are of limited means and dependent on government entitlements, the middle class is wiped out, and the upper class exists to serve an elite oligarchy.

Well, I don't think the lefty billionaires and global corporations are that smart. I don't think they have a power plan of that depth and sophistication.

For instance, the corporations. They are just playing the angles. They know that their pots of gold are an eternal temptation to all governments and politicians, for politics has forever been a game of loot and plunder. So they are pal-ing up with the activists in the hope that they will be eaten last.

Then the lefty billionaires. I don't think of the @jacks and the Zucks as dark malevolent forces. They are just picking up the Zeitgest and going along for the ride. That's what humans do. There are only a couple of prophets in any era that redefine the meaning of life for everyone. Everyone else goes along to get along.

Now I believe that the religion -- Wokism if you like -- is a foolish and false religion. But it answers the call of Mircea Eliade in The Myth of the Eternal Return.

The primitive... cannot conceive of an unprovoked suffering; it arises from a personal fault... or from his neighbor's malevolence... but there is always a fault at the bottom of it[.]

Doesn't that describe our lefty friends to a "T"? There cannot just be different groups with different genetic and cultural inheritances optimized for life in different parts of the world. There must be a fault, the fault of racism.

And really, we are not just talking about primitive religion. All religion is trying to deal with the problem of suffering, and all religion tends towards the notion that someone is at fault. In religion this fault is assigned to evil spirits or to Satan. In Communism the fault is assigned to the bourgeoisie. In New Deal politics the fault is assigned to the "big corporations." In politics, of course, the fault is assigned to the out group, the hated enemy. So, of course, the practitioners of "anti-racism" have as a hated enemy the "white oppressor."

As I say in my maxims: "politics is division."

Then there is the other thing, issuing out of my maxim: "the only warrant for government power is existential peril."

If you are a ruling class courtier or a billionaire, you can probably find your "meaning of life" by battling some existential peril, because battling an existential peril requires more power to government and the ruling class. The current peril du jour is climate change. It really is  magnificent. It is something you can't really measure, except through ruling-class-financed computer models. And it requires immense new powers for the ruling class and for their bribed apologists in the corporations. And unless we act now...

But I think that the salient question of our age is that the old instincts of defending the patch of land from marauders -- or alternatively attacking the neighbors and looting them -- doesn't work any more.

And that is due to a simple reason. In the old days the best patch of land for growing food equaled wealth and life. Everyone had an interest in stealing the best patch of land from its current owner. If you succeeded, you were rich and he was poor: Yay! If you failed, well, better luck next time.

But that is not how things work any more. The best thing now is for everyone to stay on their patch of land and make stuff and trade it. If you loot some guy's property you don't really make yourself richer; instead you have removed his contribution to the common wealth and made everyone poorer.

But, we are still programmed the other way, that loot and plunder benefits me if I loot my neighbor before he loots me. And we are still programmed to believe that if anything bad happens it has to be the result of malevolence.

Hey liberals, I think the next outbreak of malevolence will be the ordinary middle-class folks devastated by the Year of Lockdown. Old folks like me are looking at the booming stock market; gentry liberals are enjoying issuing rules and regulations. The poor are enjoying being able to stop paying rent.

But when it is all over, the people in the middle, that took in in the solar plexus, will be looking for someone to blame, and I don't think that the MSM and social media will succeed in pinning the whole thing on Trump and on "white oppressors."

Just sayin'.

Yes, What Should We Do About Public Education?

The problem with government, all government, is that it comes down to loot and plunder. What supporters of government want is free stuff, whether they are Viking raiders or today's "oppressed peoples and allies." The oppressed peoples just want handouts, the allies want government grants to support their activism -- to help the oppressed peoples, dontcha know.

And the same goes for public education. What may have seemed like a good idea 150 years ago, Horace Mann, is now just another special interest group. And since gubmint employees are allowed to form labor unions, politicians are scared stiff of the women teachers.

Notice, that when Florida Gov. DeSantis called for schools to reopen he didn't criticize "teachers" or "teachers unions," but "education unions and special interests." I wonder what he meant by that?

But the question is: do we need gubmint schools at all? Read this, from the MIT Technology Review by Nicholos Negroponte about an experiment in Ethiopia with computer tablets in villages where the children "had never previously seen printed materials, road signs, or even packaging that had words on them[.]"

OLPC [One Laptop Per Child] workers dropped off closed boxes containing the tablets, taped shut, with no instruction. “I thought the kids would play with the boxes. Within four minutes, one kid not only opened the box, found the on-off switch … powered it up. Within five days, they were using 47 apps per child, per day. Within two weeks, they were singing ABC songs in the village, and within five months, they had hacked Android,” Negroponte said. “Some idiot in our organization or in the Media Lab had disabled the camera, and they figured out the camera, and had hacked Android.”

Do you see the point here? If you can hack Android to re-enable the camera, you are literate. And you did it, all on your own, with the other kids in the village.

Ed McNierney, OLPC’s chief technology officer, said that the kids had gotten around OLPC’s effort to freeze desktop settings. “The kids had completely customized the desktop—so every kids’ tablet looked different.  We had installed software to prevent them from doing that,” McNierney said. “And the fact they worked around it was clearly the kind of creativity, the kind of inquiry, the kind of discovery that we think is essential to learning.”

Remember, these are kids that were completely illiterate. Although, I suppose, if they opened the boxes, powered up the tablets, they musta heard some weird rumors about tablets and computers and stuff.

So, just what exactly is it that "our teachers" are doing for us these days?

Now I'll bet that there are some drawbacks to the tablet thingy. I'll bet that the village bullies and the kids of the village Big Man get first dibs at the tablets, and the poor kids in the village get to suck. Oh yeah. All kinds of possibilities. But the point is that it didn't take teachers, didn't take gubmint, didn't take experts. The kids took those tablets and made themselves literate.

So what do we do about education?

First of all three doses of reality:

1. All kids want to do social media, texting. You need basic literacy for that, even if you are a gangbanger. So every kid is going to get literate enough for that.
2. Most kids learn by doing.
3. Most kids want to get out in the world.

But the education system is designed by the educated Gentry for the kind of education that the educated Gentry wants for itself. And that is directed towards the credentialed, literate, top-down world that the educated Gentry lives.

Most people learn by doing. They get a job and figure: hey, if I learned this skill I could get a better job. Do they really benefit from an academic education? Remember colleges were originally designed to train state-church priests and future rulers. Today they have been adapted to train deep-state functionaries and ruling-class activists.

Certainly, gubmint schools permit parents to drop kids off at school while they do other stuff during the day. But, for that we spend a trillion dollars a year in the US?

I gotta say, I really don't know what happens next in education. I just know that the current system is rotten to the core.

Rush Limbaugh: The "Jaunty Optimism" of a Commoner

I just checked my blog, and I mentioned the dearly departed Rush in 109 blog posts. The first one was on June 2, 2005, when John Kerry was complaining about the right wing noise machine that was drowning out the liberal message.

I know! If only!

But I think that the thing that defined Rush Limbaugh was his "jaunty optimism." I picked that line up from some liberal sneering at Rush, but now I can't find out who it was. Because when you search for Rush Limbaugh "jaunty optimism" the first thing that comes up is yours truly: "Glenn Beck's Girl Conservatism." In that piece I say:

I once read a critic of Rush Limbaugh who lightly sneered at his "jaunty optimism." That's it, I thought! That's exactly the secret of Rush Limbaugh: his day in, day out, irrepressible jaunty optimism. It's a profoundly male thing, of course. When men are under stress, whether they are an army platoon in a tough spot or working in a business that is teetering on the edge of failure, the response is to maintain a front of jaunty optimism, to say to your brothers that things are looking up, we'll get through to the end of this, and then we'll lift our arms with a brewski.

Also, I notice, that Ronald Reagan was noted for his "jaunty optimism."

But the other thing about Rush was that he was a Commoner. Actually, he was the son of a lawyer and his brother, David Limbaugh is also a lawyer. So, in a way, Rush was born Gentry and reinvented himself as a Commoner. Because what is more Commoner than starting out as a radio-station helper disk-jockey?

Anyway, that was how he presented himself on "The Rush Limbaugh Show." Nobody here but us regular guys and our common sense. And, from what I understand, Rush never put on airs. Rush told the story of the first time he got invited to see William F. Buckley Jr. at National Review headquarters in Manhattan. Kathryn Jean Lopez:

The first time he was to meet Bill, for an NR editorial dinner, he had his driver drive around the block a few times, because he was so nervous.

Common sense is the philosophy of the Commoner. The Commoner does not try to "make a difference," as the Gentry does. The Commoner lives within the received world of the culture and the world he was born into. And Commoner men make fun of things, because otherwise life would be too discouraging. Here's an example of who Rush was. His "Environmental Wacko Pick." 

In the early days of the program, I picked football games on Fridays, and a lot of people listening didn’t care. They didn’t like football, some women and some guys. “Come on, stick to the issues!” So I devised a way to combine politics with the football picks and came up with the environmentalist wacko method. What it does, basically, is take each contest, take the teams involved, and determine who should win.

So he would go down the NFL matchups for the weekend and predict the result using the environmentalist moral narrative. Dallas Cowboys vs. Cleveland Indians? Hoo boy. It would be only right for the poor Indians to win that one. But what about the Seattle Seahawks against the Philadelphia Eagles? Hmm, that would be a puzzler to Rush, and he would wrestle with the environmentalist wacko pick where both the animals were notorious predators.

The Environmentalist Wacko Pick was pure Rush. Making a political and cultural point while skewering the opposition with a satirical take on their moral narrative. Really, nobody could beat him at that game.

They never let Rush into the Holy of Holies, never gave him a show on network TV, never celebrated him in the corridors of power. Of course not. Rush was a Commoner, not quite out of the top drawer, old chap.

No doubt that's why Chief Nancy of the Kapitol Keystone Kops tore up the speech of President Trump when he awarded Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

"Mrs. Pelosi, Tear Down This Wall."

And liberals were trying to cancel Rush Limbaugh before there was a "cancel culture." They intimidated big corporate advertisers off his show. And they canceled his foray into NFL color commentary 20 years ago. You can see why. Rush said, of black quarterback Donovan McNabb:

I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.

Sorry Rush. You are not allowed to say stuff like that. Not nohow.

What Rush Limbaugh did, with his Sacramento show and then his national show from New York City, starting in 1988, was to save the AM radio station business from oblivion. He and his backers figured that there was an opportunity in the middle of the day, after the end of the morning drive time shows, for a political show. And there was. And how.

That is the fundamental way that the market economy works. You notice something that nobody else has seen. And you decide to take a flyer.

But here's the thing. The Rush Limbaugh Show was Rush and his monologue, Rush and the call-ins. No guests, no interviews. Just Rush. And Rush made it look simple.

Yeah. If you want to know how hard it is to be an opera singer, don't listen to Luciano Pavarotti. Listen to someone just starting out, and feel how hard they are trying. The genius of genius is to make it look simple.

The same applies to former President Trump. He made it look simple. He made everyone think he was an amateur, a fool that caught a lucky break.

Sorry chum. A guy that takes out the entire field of GOP presidential hopefuls and then beats the candidate that was supposed to be the First Woman President is not a fool.

And the guy that reinvented political commentary and created a whole new industry was not the hateful bigot that liberals wanted him to be.

Rush Limbaugh had a lot of zingers, designed to get under the skin of Gentry liberals. One of them was his self-description: "talent on loan from God." You can take it any way you want. I take it to mean that Rush Limbaugh understood that his particular talent was God-given. But it was up to him to make it work.

Rest in Peace, Rush Limbaugh.

Another Four Law. But What to Call It?

I've been pondering adding another law to my Four Laws. Did I mention what they are?

Socialism cannot work because it cannot compute prices (Mises). 

The administrative state cannot work because the Man in Washington does not have the bandwidth to run the economy (Hayek). 

Regulation does not work because “regulatory capture” (Stigler). 

Government programs cannot work because you can never reform them (Chantrill).

My fifth law has to do with our current Big Problem, that the lower part of the Ruling Class -- not the actual ruling clique but the whole educated Gentry -- overloads the political system with 1,001 different wizard wheezes for government programs. And the legal system. What we call "lawfare," where 1,001 activist groups are manipulating the legal system with attempts to mandate this or that use of government power to bend the arc of history towards justice.

One example of this problem is, of course, climate change. The whole educated class is down for the cause, and is pushing it in a hundred different programs and a thousand different legal cases. Meanwhile the media and activists and leading government scientists all turn the question into a moral crusade and stigmatize any opponent as a "climate denier."

The point is, once the educated gentry has got the bit in its teeth like this, what can the average person -- or the aggregate of average persons -- do against the flood tide of educated and expert opinion, except brace for the inevitable crash landing.

And, in the broader context, where is the justice in a system where the ruling class can bully the rest of the country into submitting to and paying for its 1,001 wizard wheezes, which are not really about making things better but flattering the activists in question into thinking that they are "making a difference?"

Because it is really hard to come up with a political program that really does make things better, rather than merely feed the conceit of the activist in question. Here's a potential maxim:

All activism comes from a place of privilege.

But that doesn't quite get where I want to go. I am thinking about the right of the average Commoner to live his life in peace without being jostled around by privileged Gentry on some conceited mission to save the world.

What I am really asking for is a political threshold that must be exceeded before an eager activist can lasso the whole of society into his moral crusade.

It goes back to the other Four Laws. Don't muck about with the economy and its prices, because 1000 to 1 you will only make things worse, Mr. Socialist. Don't think you can run the Districts from some bureaucracy in the Capitol, Mr. Credentialed Bureaucrat. Because you don't have the bandwidth to do so. Don't think you can regulate the malefactors of great wealth, Mr. Regulator, because all you'll do is get captured by the regulated. Don't start any new program, Mr. Activist, because you will cast some social/economic activity in stone and prevent its improvement.

I guess this goes back to my notion that "the Age of Politics is over." What I mean by that is that politics, the practice of civil war by other means, really should not go much beyond resolving and compromising conflicts that might lead to civil war. Anything else should be done outside of politics.

On the other hand, by meddling around in politics, our liberal friends are actually creating new instances of conflict where the people adversely affected by their noble activism may be prompted to form a head of rebellion to obtain redress against new injustices. I guess that is what I mean by suggesting that our lefty friends represent a Great Reaction. They are returning us to an age where people feel the only way to get their voices heard is by force.

RIP Rush Limbaugh.

How Not To Resist the Regime

Instead of getting on with his Gray Mirror book project Curtis Yarvin has been taking after Scott Alexander -- of Slate Star Codex and now Substack and others of the Silicon Valley "rationalist" school. Whatever that is. Scott Alexander has recently been drive-byed by The New York Times for something or other.

But Yarvin has a word for you would-be opponents of the regime. They are the Three Don'ts.

Don't Collaborate. You'll humiliate yourself. And that's the whole point of getting confessions from the dissidents.

Since the entire principle of dissidence is denial of the regime’s mandate of heaven, any voluntary collaboration with power, for any reason, humiliates the dissident.

Don't forget, Yarvin says, "As a dissident, you are nothing, you mean nothing and you are worth nothing." Yes, but what does that mean? How to do this? Yarvin says that "you can never again trust anyone who has cooperated with power"; they are rats.

The way to deal with rats around the house is the same: don’t have nothing they can eat, and you won’t have no rats.

Easy for you to say, Mencius!

Don't Repeat Big Brother's Lies. You'll humiliate yourself. And don't believe in the lies either. For instance you don't ever want to say that women are "less intelligent or any worse at math than men." But what do you say? Hey, women just aren't that interested in math? What is the truth? I don't know, but there are a lot more male nerds that female nerds. I wonder why? And women seem to be a lot more interested in relationships than men. I wonder why?

To refuse the frame is to never mouth power’s lies. Never accept its assumptions; never respect its authority; and above all, never speak in its accursed soixante-huitard jargon.

Hmm. I tend to do that all the time, to satirize ruling-class lies. 

Don't Confront the Ruling Class. You'll humiliate yourself. Why would you want to confront people that are more powerful than you are? In fact, you are doing them a favor, as the viking chief did in Congress on January 6.

Why does confrontation not work? Because you are confronting enemies who are far stronger than you...  

Confrontation feeds their energy because it convinces them of their favorite fantasy: that, on behalf of the weak and helpless, they are fighting an uphill battle against the evil and strong.

 Yes, well, but where does that leave us? Merely here:

You actually cannot replace a regime. You can only convince it to replace itself.

Like the Soviet Union in 1989. Yes, why did the Soviet Union decide to cancel itself? I can't remember, but cancel itself it surely did. Now, mind you, today's Russia is still ruled by the KGB; Putin was once an officer in the KGB or whatever it last called itself.

But you can at least say that the Reign of Terror aspect of the ruling class in Russia is over. Because Reigns of Terror and witch hunts and purges and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolutions just don't last. 

Obviously the Cancel Culture of the present era is not over. And I suppose that what Yarvin is saying is that you still want to be around after the end of today's ruling class hysteria.

So don't collaborate with the regime; don't believe or repeat its lies, and don't confront it.

Hmm. I just called Seattle City Councilman Dan Strauss about a truck-jacking right here in River City, in Seattle's Greenwood neighborhood. Should I have done that? Or will Dan make a special point of making my life a hell when he gets the chance.