The Knock At The Door

I used to tell people all the time that if you have a chance to listen to Greg Cochran speak, you should take it, as he is probably the smartest person you will ever hear. Cochran has excelled in two fields, physics and anthropology. The former requires a very big brain in order to gain entry. In the case of anthropology, many of the people in the field are crazy or sociopaths. To be an exception and contribute to the stock of human knowledge, requires a rare combination of curiosity and blinkered indifference to social pressure.

Cochran has contributed three very important ideas that may not be correct, but they open up new avenues to understanding human evolution and biological diversity. In the book The 10,000 Year Explosion, he and his partner, the late Henry Harpending, explained how agriculture and human settlement accelerated human evolution. This explains local differences in skin color, eye color, hair texture disease resistance and other genetic differences in human populations. It also explains personality and cognitive differences.

Another idea, one that has received less positive press, is Cochran’s theory that homosexuality must be caused by something outside of evolution. For example, a pathogen that sets off a chain of events in the womb resulting in the child being a homosexual. Cochran points out that the observed level of exclusive homosexuality means genes cannot be the cause of homosexuality.The fitness cost of genes ‘for’ homosexuality being too great. Natural selection would have eliminated the gene.

His “gay germ” idea is controversial and it could be completely wrong, at least in the case of homosexuality. It’s utility is really in how it changes thinking about human disease and the treatment of those diseases. Take something like Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers have spent decades laboring under the assumption it is genetic, but have had little success in finding any proof. Well, what if the cause is something like a pathogen that sets of the process in the brain? What if cardiovascular disease is caused by pathogens?

That’s a huge and controversial idea, but it probably is not the one that most scandalizes the moral authorities. Cochran is most infamous for his work on Ashkenazi IQ. A dozen years ago, he and his partner Henry Harpending published The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence. In it they argue that Ashkenazi ████inherit higher verbal and mathematical intelligence than other ethnic groups, on the basis of inherited diseases and the peculiar economic situation of Ashkenazi ████in the Middle Ages.

The paper is controversial for three reasons. One is the heretical idea that IQ is a real thing that can be measured. Worse yet, they claim intelligence is heritable, which means it is largely immutable. Smart parents have smart kids. Both ideas are against everything we believe and probably a direct threat to our democracy. It’s not who we are. Only very bad people think that human diversity is the result of biology. Everyone knows that racism is the cause of all the bad differences, while diversity is the cause of the good differences.

That’s bad enough, but the most outrageous aspect of the paper is that it focuses on the special people and that’s not allowed. Even mentioning them in a direct way is justifiably forbidden now. After all, the Nazis started noticing these people, talking about their “group differences” and before long the Holocaust! The fact that racists and white supremacists often reference this paper is proof enough that it should be banned, the authors forced to confess and then they should be hurled into the void as a lesson to others.

If further proof is needed, this post on Greg Cochran’s blog should be enough. The post itself is just one sentence long, but in the nearly 200 comments, Cochran counter signals Holocaust skeptics so hard he probably sprained something while banging away at the keyboard. Clearly, it is the sign of a guilty conscience. At the minimum, it suggests he is worried that the morality police will be coming for him soon. He hopes that his outburst can be presented at his trial and he will be given a reprieve. Good luck with that pal.

All joking aside, the post and the comments are a hilarious bit of Boomer posting. Ron Unz is an eccentric guy and he is prone to conspiracy theories. It’s hard to know how much he believes them. He could just find them intellectually titillating, like reading a very clever crime novel.  I get the sense that he is fascinated by the fact there is an official narrative and it is ruthlessly enforced. Almost all Americans struggle with the bit of reality. Either way, the worst you should say about Ron Unz is that he is a harmless weirdo.

Casual indifference is never allowed in a theocracy, at least with regards to the moral codes. You are either enthusiastically on the right side of the question or you are an enemy of the faith. There can be no middle ground. Maybe Cochran is worried that the authorities will be coming for him soon, so he is hoping to inoculate himself against charge of insufficient signalling against antisemitism. Like a lot of Boomers, he still thinks we live in a rule based society and that you can appeal to reason when defending yourself.

He would deny this and probably threaten to punch me in the nose for suggesting it, but false consciousness is common with many old white men. Just look at the comment thread in that post. Why are people in 2018 so worked up about something that happened 80 years ago in a foreign country? The cultural and ideological processes of the neo-liberal age blind people to their own motivations. You can be sure that the people commenting on that post felt great about it, but they never bothered to wonder why.

All that aside, they will be coming for Greg Cochran soon enough. If he is lucky, the non-binary, gender non-specific persons of uterus from the campus committee on inclusion will only require him to wear a dunce cap on campus. Maybe they will make him recant what he said about Cordelia Fine, peace be upon her. It’s only a matter of time and appeals to reason will have no impact, because we live in an unreasonable age, ruled by ridiculous people. One day, there will be a knock on the door and they will have come for Cochran.

The Black Death

Way back when I still had a cable sub and still watched television, I was watching an episode of Red Eye, the late night Fox News show, and the topic was crime. One of the guests was a black libertarian, who said something along the lines of, “In order to have a sensible discussion about crime, the first thing we have to do is put aside the issue of race.” All of the nice white people on the panel fell all over themselves agreeing with the black, of course, mostly because they were grateful that he let them off the hook.

My recollection of my own reaction was to wonder why they would bother talking about crime at all, if they are not going to consider the primary element. After all, net out black crime from the statistics and crime is not an issue we bother discussing. Sure, Hispanic crime rates are significantly higher than white crime rates, but they pale in comparison to black crime figures. The only people worried about white crime are white liberals, who like to tell each other scary stories around the fire pit about their trip to Walmart.

People on our side of the great divide tend to think the people in charge deliberately obfuscate on the race issue, because of nefarious motives. It’s tempting and there is no doubt that we are ruled by sociopaths, who enjoy lying to us about everything, not just crime. Still, a lot of people have simply lost the ability to talk about race. They have become so fearful of the issue that it has taken on magical qualities. Just as Jews are prohibited from speaking the name of God, most white people fear saying “black.”

This weird New York Times op-ed reminds me of that.

When they staged a “die-in” at Stroger Hospital in Chicago earlier this year, Delmonte Johnson and his friends — who together formed GoodKids MadCity, a group dedicated to ending violence in urban communities — had a straightforward request. They wanted what their wealthier, whiter, more suburban peers already seemed to have: freedom from the oppressive fear of being gunned down in their own neighborhoods.

Mr. Johnson, a 19-year-old who loved to sing and dance, who was an athlete and a budding social activist, will not get to see that vision realized. He was shot and killed Wednesday after playing basketball near his home.Mr. Johnson’s death was tragic and unnecessary and enraging. It was also the sort of death that’s become far too common in America, and in particular in Mr. Johnson’s hometown, where more than 2,000 people have been shot so far this year, nearly 400 of them fatally. While mass shootings involving high-powered guns and high death tolls have claimed an outsize portion of the nation’s collective grief — and its headlines — street shootings like the one that killed Delmonte Johnson are far more common.Mr. Johnson, who lost several of his own friends to gun violence, knew that fact all too well. His own advocacy emerged in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., in February with the hope that some of the attention captured by that massacre might be cast toward communities like his — communities that are underserved, overlooked and routinely plagued by gun violence. “We have been screaming for gun control for the longest time,” says Carlil Pittman, a friend of Mr. Johnson’s who co-founded GoodKids MadCity. “But it’s not until it hits other communities that people pay attention. And then they respond with harsher laws that criminalize black and brown kids.”

As everyone knows, guns stalk the streets of our city. For some reason, the government just let guns walk in over the border, unmolested. In fact, they have programs to help guns come in to the country and gain residency. It’s as if the government wants guns to come here and kill people of color. If you did not know better, you would think that the people in charge of government care more about guns than American citizens. When will people wake up and realize that we need a big wall on the border to keep guns out of the country?

All kidding aside, you have to wonder how it is even possible to write about “gun violence” with a straight face. To a sober minded person, it seems impossible for anyone to believe such nonsense. That’s why so many in 2A community think it is deliberate and well considered lie. A multi-generational conspiracy sounds more plausible than people thinking guns magically cause black people to shoot one another. Sadly, that is what the people who write this stuff think. They think blacks are compelled to violence by guns.

The murder problem in Chicago is a problem easily understood with a bit of math and a little bit of race realism. Put a lot of black people in an area and they will start shooting at each other. Chicago has a lot of black people, so it has a lot of murders. The city is roughly 32% black, 32% white and the rest Hispanic, Asian and a mystery. Of the 405 homicides this year, as of this writing, 330 of the victims have been black. Just 26 have been white. Just 48 have been Hispanic, who are over 25% of the population.

Now, it is possible that there are gangs of white supremacists roaming the streets killing black people in all black neighborhoods. It’s possible that these white supremacists are so skilled that no one has ever seen them. It’s also possible that a gang of leprechauns are terrorizing the black neighborhoods. All things are possible if you wish hard enough, but the most probable answer here is that the victim rates reflect the crime rate. That is, 75% of the crime is being committed by 30% of the population, the black population.

Again, sober minded people understand this. The trouble is, we are not ruled by sober minded people, at least with regards to race. They really do believe that race is a social construct and that astronomical black crimes rates are a symptom of social inequality, racism and poverty. Rather than Old Scratch tempting the villagers into sin, there is now this mystery force called “whiteness” that is like swamp gas, rising from the America’s long racist past. In other words, black crime is a spiritual problem, not a practical one.

Racket Street

Arguably, the greatest newspaper columnist of the modern media era, or at least the newspaper era, was H.L. Mencken. He’s ignored these days because he was a realist about the great questions of his day. He opposed entry into both wars and he was a race realist. Back then, the ruling class still debated this stuff and the commentariat welcomed all views. America was still a country that trusted itself. Today, deviationists are hurled into the void because the people in charge are petrified of anything resembling dissent.

The opinion writers in the modern mass media are all pens for hire. Their job is to sell the glories of their masters. For example, all of the NeverTrump loons that turned up in so-called conservative publications were being payed by a couple of billionaires. They never bothered to admit it, but it is the thing everyone knows. The left-wing Progressives are similarly funded by billionaires, with the most obvious examples being the New York Times and the Washington Post. The news business is just a PR department now.

Like so much of modern America, the business of selling the public on the glories of the plutocrats has become a racket. A good recent example is something called the R Street Institute, started and run by someone calling himself  Eli Lehrer, who is something of a universal man. He has published in far Left publications like the Huffington Post and on so-called conservative sites like National Review. Even in our corrupt age, it seems like a stretch for someone to have an audience in both publications, but there we are.

R Street pitches itself as a free market think tank, hoping people will mistake them for libertarian or conservative. An amusing bit of their pitch is this line on their site. “To maintain its independence, R Street accepts no government funding.” This is part of the grift being run on the public these days. If the entity depriving you of your rights or robbing you of your income is a private entity, then it is all good. After all, only communists oppose private enterprise! As long as you are not murdered by the state, it’s all good.

Of course, The R Street Institute is just another racket. That may be why they picked the name, as a nod to the fact they are running a grift. When you start to dig around into the background of the place, it is not long before you stumble upon neocon grifters like David Frum and Marni Soupcoff. These people are like a drug resistant virus. No matter how many times they are chased off the stage, they keep coming back. It seems America will have to be tented and fumigated before these pests are finally eradicated.

That’s really the way to look at them. Over the last year or so, mainstream publications have been posting stuff from writers with the R Street label. This one on the American Greatness site is a good example. That site is famous for having hosted Michael Anton, the guy who wrote the Flight 93 column. The subtext of this article is that the sorts of people attracted to nationalism and populism are very bad people, but they’re losers and going the way of the dodo so stop fighting the poz.

The writer is a hired pen for a globalist front group called the Institute for Liberty, which was one of the establishment operations that crushed the Tea Party movement. Once it became clear that the natives were restless and ready to try something new, all of the establishment rackets swung into action to “help” the grassroots organize. To the surprise of no one, but the sincere people forming Tea Party groups, these establishment groups co-opted the whole thing and made sure they were never a threat to the orthodoxy.

You see the same sort of shenanigans with the R Street racket, except it is a neocon front group, rather than a Republican racket. Since neocons are toxic everywhere but Washington, they are now trying to fade into the background of left-libertarianism, where they can try to subvert nationalism and populism, without being obvious. Still, it is a stable of pens for hire who will provide content for cable shows and websites, all with the subtext that serves the interests of their paymasters. It’s a racket for the opinion rackets.

To circle back to where we started, a century ago America could have a raucous and combative press corp, along with razor-tongued columnists like Mencken, because the people in charge were confident. Today’s ruling class is so culturally disconnected from the North American economic zone that they live in fear of what is brewing below the cloud line. They hire armies of propagandists and censors to police the Dirt People for deviationism. The result is a commentariat that speaks to no one for no one.

It’s easy to get down over the endless censorship and obnoxious proselytizing we see in ads and entertainment. It’s important to keep in mind that they are not doing this because they are confident. They are doing it because they are afraid. If their product could sell itself, it would not need enforcers and pitchmen. The Cloud People in their castles are living in fear that the natives may becoming aware. Otherwise, they would have no reason to be pushy dragoons to attack anyone who dares question the orthodoxy.

Lost Boys

A thing you get used to on this side of the great divide is seeing people go through the transformation. It’s like seeing a blind man suddenly given the gift of sight. At secret handshake events, a topic of conversation is “how you got here.” By that it means the book, event or person that finally opened your eyes to the reality of the world. For a lot of people, the absurdity of libertarianism was the gateway. Others found an old book by a banished writer, who used to be in the mainstream of conservative thought.

Not everyone makes the trip. Some people are so immersed in the prevailing morality that they will probably never find their way out. It’s not a matter of intelligence. We have plenty of mediocre minds on this side of the divide. It is the inability to step out of the old morality, the prevailing set of rules about what defines the moral person and what describes the immoral person. It’s not fear either, although that is often a big part of it. There are just some people who see Ben Shapiro as the great barrier after which is nothingness.

This article at PJ Media is a good example. The writer is unknown to me and probably unknown to everyone. The first thing to notice about the article is the caption on the picture is a lie. It is a deliberate lie, as well. That was not “white supremacists” surrounding counter protesters.” Nothing of the sort happened. That was a flash mob the night before Charlottesville. The lie, however, says something. It shows that the people at PJ Media are deep in the weeds of the Progressive moral framework. They accept all of it.

The setup of the post strikes me as contrived, but putting that aside, his response about tribalism is the standard CivNat spasm we see in response to biological reality. He writes, “An America where every group is primarily loyal to its own country of origin or race is an America without a bright future.” No quarrel there, which is exactly why all the sub-groups of the Dissident Right exist. They have come to understand that America is being balkanized by mass immigration, the racial awareness of non-whites and identity politics.

Then there is this. “Are most people inherently tribal? Absolutely. Our natural tendency as humans is to split ourselves off in different ways.” This is true, but there are no multi-racial tribes. In fact, we don’t have multi-ethnic tribes. The various tribes in Italy were bound together by blood, just as the Irish clans were bound together by blood. That’s a perfect example of the obtuseness of people unable to shake themselves free of the prevailing moral order. They will use the most ridiculous reasons to avoid facing basic reality.

Towards the end, we see this obtuseness again when he writes, “I think “civilizational ability” is something that should be chalked up to culture, not race. The most successful nations have been those that have adopted the tenets of Western civilization.” This is right out of the CivNat playbook. It is the most absurd form of circular reasoning, but it allows the timid to avoid noticing. It’s also a basic premise of Progressivism. The West is what it is by sheer dumb luck and that’s the root of white supremacy and all the evils tied to it.

No, the reason Europe began to race ahead of the world five centuries ago is the human capital of Europe was simply better than what populated the rest of the world. Sure, geography, history and chance came together to make the humans of Europe, but that’s true everywhere. That’s called evolution. It is a basic bit of reality that human evolution is copious, recent and local. Europeans can no more be blamed for being white than Africans can be blamed for being African. It’s just a fact of the human condition.

Now to be fair, the writer avoided most of the clownish virtue signalling that defines the people calling themselves conservative these days. The emptiness of conservatism, as well as it is ineffectiveness, leaves little for the conservative writer to do other than virtue signal. This guy at least acknowledged that the swelling ranks to his right are not simply evil, but motivated by facts and reason. He disagrees with those facts, but he has no choice, as to do otherwise means packing up and making the trip to our side.

The point of this is that you can’t save everyone. In fact, if someone from our side were to sit down with John Hawkins and explain the facts of life, he would probably nod along, but then go right back to chanting the old slogans again. Those old slogans and beliefs are comforting and require no risk. Thoreau was wrong. The mass of men do not lead lives of quiet desperation. The mass of men live in mortal fear that they will one day find themselves alone, separated from the pack, facing the dangers of the world alone.

That’s frustrating for many on this side, They wonder how it is that otherwise smart people like a John Hawkins can remain trapped on the other side. The fact is, you can’t save everyone and we don’t have to save everyone. The way these things work is you change the minds that can be changed and eventually, you have enough numbers to offer comfort to those who fear separation from the herd. You offer them a new and better herd in which they can find fellowship and comfort. That’s a how a counter-cultural movement works.

Public-Private Tyranny

In the 1980’s, the term public-private partnership started to gain currency, as reformers tried to remedy the twin problems of spiraling public debt and dwindling public investment in infrastructure. Governments were too strapped to do things like build roads and schools, so they would alter the tax and regulatory system to encourage private enterprise to provide the necessary financing and expertise. A simple example is a city condemning a slum and then giving it over to a private developer, who would build new housing.

There is a formal definition of the concept. “A public-private partnership involves a private entity financing, constructing, or managing a project in return for a stream of payments directly from government or indirectly from users over the life of the project or some other specified period of time.” The laying down of cable and then fiber to provide broadband access is a great example of such an arrangement. The cable company or TelCo was granted a monopoly and they built out the infrastructure and charged subscriptions.

In theory, it sounds like a winning formula. Government has no incentive to be efficient, as government has no competition. Inevitably, this means government projects become slush funds for the connected and dumping grounds for the otherwise unemployable. The contractors bidding on government work or providing a service on behalf of government have an incentive to keep costs low. Given that future contracts will depend on performance of current contracts, they have an incentive to hit the performance goals.

It’s not without its obvious problems. Efforts to reform public education through public-private partnerships are the obvious example. The primary reason schools fail is they have poor students. The second most common reason is they have poor teachers. No amount of private provision can address the former and public sector unions will never permit reforming the latter. It’s why people move to good neighborhoods and send their kids to private schools. It’s a private solution to a private problem.

Of course, public-private partnerships are an effort to address a symptom of a problem, but not the source of the problem. Democratic government has no incentive to increase the capital of society, because office holders are just hired hands. For office holders, government is like a rental car. The renter does not wash the rental car and get the oil changed before returning it. Similarly, the office holder would have no reason to improve his office or the part of government he controls, before handing it over to the next guy.

The key to personal success in public life is quickly turning public goods into money and benefits that can be used to buy votes. It’s why state and municipal politicians are fond of increasing public sector benefits. They get the votes and support for their campaigns, while some unknown person downstream get the cost. In a democracy, government becomes a liquor warehouse during an urban riot. Everyone, even the naturally honest, has an incentive to rush in and carry off as much as they can as quickly as they can.

This is fairly obvious, but there are other problems. For example, getting and keeping office is difficult. Humans in all endeavors seek to prevent competition either through cooperation or domination. Constitutions and courts are intended to keep the competition for public offices open and reasonably fair. To the office holder, this is naturally viewed as a defect that needs to be remedied. That’s where the public-private partnership comes into the mix. Private firms can do things office holders are prevented from doing.

This is what we see with the efforts by the Democrats to rig the last presidential election and then set Trump up for removal. Team Obama could not simply have the FBI arrest him and Team Clinton could not provide electronic surveillance. They formed a public-private partnership, along with Glenn Simpson to get around both problems. The private entities would manufacture evidence that the public entity would use to get warrants, which would result in information they would give to Clinton and later the FISA court.

One of the worst kept secrets in Washington right now is that elements inside the Obama administration conspired with the Clinton campaign to rig the last election. It’s becoming increasingly clear they also conspired with foreign agents.The Mueller probe is just an elaborate ruse to shield this truth from the public, in an effort to preserve the reputation of the institutions and keep people out of prison. It is the thing everyone knows, because it is manifestly obvious. What no one knows is what to do about it.

Then we have the ongoing efforts to shut down political dissent. The law prohibits politicians from having critics arrested or from shuttering their publications. The law does not prevent private platforms from controlling content, thus we get the match made in heaven, from the perspective of the internet giants and the ruling class. The private firms get their monopolies protected by the state, while the office holders get their critics silenced by the internet giants. Outsourcing the public space gets around the law.

It’s not just the first amendment. Gun grabbers have failed for years to rally public support for gun grabbing. In fact, their efforts to push through gun bans and confiscation have resulted in booming gun sales and support for gun liberalization. To address this defect in government, public officials are now reaching out their their partners in the private sector to bankrupt the gun industry and the NRA. It will not be long before owning a firearm could result in you losing your insurance or being denied a bank account.

The defect of public ownership of government, what we call democracy, is that there are no incentives for office holders to invest in society. They are short term office holders, looking to get what they can while they can. This is the advantage of the monarchical system, where the aristocratic class has an incentive to build up the value of the society over which it rules. The down side is the risk of tyranny or gross ineptitude. This king may be just and wise, but his son could be an idiot or a fanatical lunatic.

The funny thing that is happening to our constitutional order is that the political class seems to understand the defects inherent in the system, but is choosing to make it worse by enlisting private interests to magnify the defects. They are accelerationists. America is just one giant bust out, where global companies, with the help of our government, are systematically looting the country, while undermining the legitimacy of our system of governance. The public-private partnership has quickly become a public-private tyranny.

Modest Proposals

The great paleo-conservative thinker, Sam Francis, introduced the term “anarcho-tyranny” into the dissident vocabulary. He defined it as “we refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).” For example, the streets are littered with speed cameras, red-light cameras and other surveillance equipment to tax motorists. On the other hand, if your car is stolen, the cops cannot be bothered to look for it and you have to hope the insurance company is generous.

Francis focused on crime, but we see this all over our society. Because it has crept up slowly on us, the chaos of our age just feels normal, but so does the shrinking freedom of the surveillance state. A way to see this is to think about the small, relatively easy to impose rules our government could do now, that would make life better. Yet, these modest proposals are never mentioned, much less debated. In fact, the very idea of the state imposing quality of life measures is so far outside of normal, they now seem bizarre.

For example, the scourge of mobile phones is obvious to everyone. We have people walking into traffic while texting. Every summer, we are treated to stories of people coming to harm as they try to take a selfie. Even if those are rare exceptions, driving has become a stressful adventure, because of drivers talking and texting. Spend time around the Imperial Capital and you come to hate the cell phone. This is an easily remedied problem that the government could address tomorrow, but they have no interests.

For example, the Feds could tell mobile phone makers that their devices must shut off when they detect movement. Cars with media centers have this feature, so drivers are not fiddling with the thing while driving. If mobile phones were so equipped, the number of drivers smashing into one another over texting would drop to zero on a few years. Idiots and teenagers would hate this, but so what? There’s never a need for a human to talk and text while driving. If you need to talk, pull over and have your conversation.

Now, the massive assault on privacy by tech companies could be also addressed quite simply. Your picture, your name, your financial information, all the stuff that defines you is yours. It should be treated like any other property. Google is not allowed to build a surveillance point on your front lawn. Why are they allowed to spy on you and sell your information to the highest bidder? A law that requires written permission to possess and distribute private information would put an end to the abuse of privacy.

In case you think this is impossible, keep in mind it used to exist. Credit bureaus used to need permission to release your credit history. One of the things you signed in the loan process was a form giving the lender the right to pull your credit report and call on your references. The same is true of employers. The application process included you giving them permission to call former employers. Simply restoring a basic of civil society – property rights – would put an end to most of the privacy abuse we see with technology.

To get a sense of just how far we have gone down the road to serfdom, ask a normie friend about such a proposal. Ask them if the government should require FaceBook to get your written permission to use your data. The right leaning normie will recoil in horror at the state doing anything. The left leaning normie will most likely give you a blank look, as they are unable to process the concept of privacy. The very idea of you owning you, owning your name, you image and your habits, is now alien to most Americans.

On the other hand, the idea of transparency among the ruling class has become an artifact of a bygone age. Around the Imperial Capital are thousands of not-for-profit operations that are financed by rich people. You can look up some basic information about them, but you can rarely find out who pays the bills. Take, for example, The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. This group harasses white people and is run by a white-hating woman named Kristen Clarke. Who pays for this? It is a mystery, but it does not have to be.

Politics is now a clash between these types of groups financed by shadowy characters that none of us see. Instead we see trained actors as spokesman for these front groups that essentially operate as money laundering operations. Because the billionaire class is unable to hire politicians directly, they funnel their bribes through non-profits. Cliff Asness gets to pay Jonah Goldberg to be his mouthpiece and he gets a tax break. He’s not just a member of the over-class, he’s a philanthropist!

Cliff Asness may be a civic minded patriot, but the only reason we can know his name is he chooses to let us know it. He could just as easily have made the gift anonymously or under some other name. Unless you are into dissident politics, you would never know that every utterance of Jonah Goldberg is paid for by some billionaire with interests that may or may not be your interests. Every nickle that comes into a not-for-profit should be public information, so we can actually know who is paying the paid actors.

The point is, there are probably a hundred small things that could be done today to significantly improve life in America, for the citizens of America. The increasing shrillness of public debate is closely linked to the lawlessness of modern life. There’s a reason the state is incapable of even small reform. It goes back to what Sam Francis observed with crime. The class-consciousness of the managerial class is the same phenomenon that we see with public bureaucracy. The result is a cycle of anarchy and tyranny.

The Great Awakening

Ron Unz has gotten back to writing and he has put out a handful of long columns under the American Pravda category. These are posts where he digs into the official narrative on some subject and his experience with discovering the truth. They are packed with lots of well researched information about the topic, often from obscure sources that have been erased from the official narrative. To his credit, he digs into the credibility of his source material, as to why they have been deliberately forgotten. That’s always useful.

I find them a bit too long, but that may be a matter of taste. There is something about reading from a screen that makes long articles less pleasant for me. People have looked into this and found that shorter is better than longer on-line. It’s one reason the long form essay is going away. Most people consume their content on-line, so they prefer short pithy articles. There’s also the fact that most of this stuff is read at work, where you steal a few minutes to read something before lunch or on a break. But, that’s a small quibble.

Anyway, this entry on post-war Europe was really interesting. The post-liberation reprisals in France and Belgium get some mention in the official narrative, but almost exclusively with regards to women who slept with German soldiers. The gang-like warfare between communists and their enemies is never mentioned. Of course, there is never any mention of what happened to many German soldiers in prisoner of war camps. War is an ugly business and ideological war is the ugliest. so the post-war was no picnic.

In regards to the ideological aspects of it, the blind hatred of the Germans by the American elite is never discussed. That’s why no one learns about the Morgenthau Plan in their history classes. It is another example of how ideological enemies cannot see the humanity in one another. The rage-fueled Progressives of America were no different than their moral predecessors, the abolitionists. They came to see the other side as the pure expression of evil and wanted them exterminated. The Morgenthau Plan was about genocide.

The most interesting part of theses posts is that they fit into the “red pill” experience you hear from many who journey to this side of the divide. Not everyone makes the journey, as they were always here, but did not know there was a “here.” Many do have a moment when the light went on and they either began to question their view of the world or simply changed their mind about some important item. Often, it is a book or article that is the triggering event. In that regard, these posts are a good addition to the catalog.

Of course, none of his posts would be possible without modern technology. When the only store of knowledge was controlled by the people running the official narrative, there was no way to “red pill” anyone or be red-pilled yourself. Unless you found a stash of old books that had been proscribed, you had to accept the official narrative at face value. Whatever happens in these troubled times, the fact that the society that produced the technological revolution could be consumed by it suggests nature in the long run, is self-correcting.

Reading the article on post-war Europe, I was reminded of something that often gets forgotten. That is, it is not enough to undermine the moral legitimacy of the prevailing orthodoxy. That phony narrative sold to us is not just propaganda in support of the current order, it gives Americans a reason to feel patriotic. It makes us proud of who we are as currently defined by the people in charge. Learning that it is a lie is like like learning that you were adopted. It leaves a hole and something must fill it. Something will fill it.

While undermining the moral authority of the people in charge is a big part of our project, we also have to work on a replacement. It’s not enough to get people wise to the hypocrisy of the New York Times, for example, with regards to race. They Sarah Jeong fiasco does red-pill  a lot of people, but that only matters if they have something else to embrace. In the movie from which the term “red-pill” originates, the characters had an alternative vision of their future. Without that, they would have had no reason to take the red pill.

This is the lesson of the Great War. The collapse of the monarchical system left a giant void in Europe. That system had been discredited, but there was not a replacement for the people to embrace. Liberal democracy had yet to evolve the secular morality to justify it, so into the void flowed Marxism and Fascism. The twentieth century was the fight between liberal democracy, fascism and communism, with the result being the neo-liberal order we have today. The lesson is that what comes next is not better by default.

The posts on antisemitism will be of some interest, especially to the JQ’ers. Ron is Jewish, so he comes to the subject from a different angle than the anti-Semites, but he is refreshingly frank about the material. It’s  good reminder that Jews are not the monolith JQ people need to believe. There are a lot of alt-Jews out there. It’s not a majority or even close to one, but it is a substantial minority. Their fight within the Jewish community over Jewish identity is a mirror of what is happening within the Occident.

It’s a good reminder that even if you embrace the fact that human diversity requires separation, it does not mean hostility. In fact, diversity requires cooperation in order for peaceful separation to work. Even though one group may have different interests and a radically different sense of identity than another, they can still cooperate with one another where their interests align. For the JQ people who think they have taken the ultimate red-pill, this understanding about cooperation and diversity is the ultimate red-pill.

I’m fond of pointing out that much of what defines the modern age is that everyone forgot the timeless lessons of the human condition and now we have to rediscover them. This great awakening we see on our side of the great divide is, in many respects, a rediscovery of the past. So much has been hidden from view in order to prop up the current regime, it’s shocking to most people. Like that kid who learns his parents had lied to him and he was adopted, what matters next is what we do with this new knowledge.

Waiting For The Spark

I was at lunch last week when I overheard a couple of young women talking about the coming revolution. I thought it was a joke, at first, so I eavesdropped for a little while and sure enough, they were talking about revolution. The bossy looking one was going on about something Trump did, I missed that part, and how it was going to be the thing that “woke people up about what’s happening.” My guess is the part I missed had something to do with Russians or maybe the Manafort Trial. The Left is obsessed with that now.

Since the election, the Left has been dreaming up scenarios in which the results of the election are overturned. For a long time they were sure Trump would be impeached, but that seems to have faded. Last year my left-wing office manager was deep into the impeachment scenarios. Now the talk is of revolution, which probably fits better with their conception of themselves as the heroic resistance. They imagine Trump as a strong man, against whom they must resist until the system cracks, and then the revolution begins.

Most of us think of revolution in the sense of people flooding into the streets to protest the government. Either the government makes an error, causing the mob to turn violent or radicals use unrest to foment a full-on revolt. The two models in the Western mind are the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution. Given the make up of the anti-Trump forces, it’s hard to imagine either scenario. The “resistance” is mostly girls and non-whites prone to committing violence against one another. It’s hard to see them leading a revolt.

There is a another model of revolution, that may be what our current rulers have in mind for us. That is the Cultural Revolution unleashed by Mao Zedong fifty years ago. This was a revolution from above, where the revolutionary elite enlisted the masses at the bottom to purge the middle of bourgeois traitors to the proletariat. Mao purged the party of rivals and then used subsequent protests to advance a lurch into radicalism. The complaints about party leaders and administrators were an excuse to start a cultural revolution.

The most famous aspect of it was the Red Guards. This was a student movement aimed at unleashing “a great revolution that touches people to their very souls and constitutes a deeper and more extensive stage in the development of the socialist revolution in our country.” Sinophiles hate the comparison, but this sounds a lot like our billionaire class financing the various radical groups and social justice warriors we see rampaging through the culture today. We are not being sent to the rice paddies yet, but there is still time.

Another point of comparison is the war on the “Four Olds” which were old customs, culture, habits, and ideas. This was both a war on the past, as well as a war on the culture itself. For example, the Red Guards pulled the remains of a Ming dynasty emperor out of his tomb, denounced him and then burned the remains. They went around renaming streets and toppling statues. This should strike a familiar cord. Today’s radicals do the same thing and preach against racism, sexism, homophobia and antisemitism.

No historical comparison is perfect. Again, Sinophiles really hate the comparison, but people are conservative about what they think they know best. There’s also the fact that Chinese culture is remarkably strong and it was largely able to resist the ten year campaign to obliterate it. American culture appears to be brittle and falling apart under the weight of a fifty year planned invasion of aliens hostile to the founding stock. The Chinese did not fill up their lands with hostile foreigners, armed with a ballot by the ruling class.

On the other hand, there are limits to everything. As the outrages from the Left stack up, the average white person in American grows more angry. Talk to anyone sympathetic to this line of thinking and they will tell you they have grown far less tolerant of their remaining liberal friends. I know I’ve lost touch with quite a few former friends, because I will not tolerate their nonsense. I have friends who just a few years ago thought Ben Shapiro was edgy and now think the alt-right is too soft. There is a reaction brewing in the country.

The question is what would it take to move people from yelling at their televisions over the latest liberal outrage to marching in the streets. This is never easy to know. Sometimes, the smallest spark sets of the biggest fire. The reaction to Alex Jones getting purged from the internet has been surprising, given that he is not a serious person. I got questions from people, who never heard of him until yesterday, angry over his banishment. My guess is the percentage of people thinking fondly of Pinochet is at an all-time high right now.

As far as the spark, a move against Trump is good bet. The glue that keeps things from flying apart right now is middle-class white people, who still have faith in the political system. These are the middle American radicals Sam Francis wrote about 30 years ago during the Reagan moment. They will tolerate just about anything, as long as they think they can fight the other side within the system. An effort to remove Trump or even silence his advocates, could be a spark that gets these people into the streets.

Extra-political efforts to ban guns are another possible spark. The coordinated efforts to cut off gun makers from the financial system is not unnoticed by the 2A people. They follow this stuff and there are a lot of them. The pink pussy hat people think they have numbers because billionaires will bus fifty thousand of them into DC. The NRA could get a million people in the streets if there is ever a real threat to gun rights. A big part of gun culture is the idea of the patriot bravely taking up arms to resist tyranny.

It is tempting to think this will all blow over. I was in the camp until recently. Now, I just don’t see how it will ever be possible to make peace with the Left. They hate us and will use any means necessary.The lack of code is the critical part. How does one make peace with someone that will never abide by the rules? Whether this results in revolution, counter revolution or civil war is hard to know, but the number of people thinking the gap cannot be bridged is growing every day. Now we wait for the Cossak’s wink.

The Ideological State

Civic nationalism is an effort to define a nation ideologically, rather than biologically and geographically. Up until the French Revolution, a nation was primarily a related group of people with a common language, culture and history. The French were not defined by geography or ideology, but by blood. The lands they occupied were French lands, because they were occupied by French people. The people were loyal to themselves and, by extension, a king, whose duty it was to defend the interests of his people.

The French Revolution changed that as a nation came to be defined by geography and ideology. The challenge with replacing private government, where a king defends his lands and the land of his people, is in finding something to replace the basis of loyalty. That’s where the civic religion comes into the mix. Instead of people giving their soul to God and their sword to the king, both are pledged to the new civic religion, where the state is the object of worship and veneration. Citizenship becomes a sacred duty.

The Enlightenment ideas about public government were, of course, a reaction to the defects of the aristocratic regime. A good king makes for the best form of government, but a terrible king, who is greedy or stupid, makes for the worst for of government. The former advances the peace and prosperity of his people, while the latter damages it. Placing the fate of the people on luck, hoping the next king turns out to have the right mix of qualities for the age, seems like a rather silly way to run a society, when you think about it.

Public government addresses that by giving the people an organized way to get rid of bad rulers and change public policy. The trouble with public government is the same trouble we see with public property. When no one owns something, no one has an incentive to sacrifice for it or invest in it. The tragedy of the commons applies to all public goods, including government. The solution is the civic religion, where the identity of the citizen is tied to the success of the state. The state becomes the altar of the people.

This is why, in our current age, the ruling class drones on endlessly about democracy and the alleged threats to democracy. They don’t use the word democracy to mean people voting on public policy. They mean it as a synonym for the neo-liberal order and the cosmopolitan ideology that animates it. It’s why the wrong person winning an election is a threat to democracy, while the right person winning is a celebration of democracy. It’s also why the coup plotters in the FBI still feel smugly justified in their actions.

Ideological nations have two problems. One is they must endlessly whip the citizens into a fervor in order to keep them loyal to the state. Religions have the same challenge, which is why the preacher is always warning about some imminent threat to your soul or reminding everyone about God’s wrath. Piety is a full-time commitment and that applies to civic piety, as well. It’s why communist countries are drenched in patriotic symbols, songs and public performances, designed to keep everyone in a heightened state of ideological frenzy.

The other problem, a consequence of the demands of piety, is they become ruthlessly intolerant of dissent. “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” becomes the mantra of every nation built on ideology. If people are allowed to question the ideology that organizes the state, they are doubting the project itself and this must be viewed as a threat to the state. Therefore, civic religions must always become increasingly intolerant and narrow, in order to defend the state against challenges.

This is why the two great industrial wars of the 20th century were blood baths. When one tribe fights another for access to the river, they just want access to the river. They see each other has competitors for a resource. Compromise and mercy are possible, because their conflict is not personal. They may work up a good hatred for the other people in order to screw up their courage, but that’s a fanaticism of temporary necessity. Once the material dispute is resolved, the people have no reason to hate one another.

When two people make war over religion, because they see one another as an abomination or a direct threat to what defines them as a people, the conflict must be a fight to the death. There can be no mercy toward that which threatens your existence. This also means no limits. The total wars of the 20th made perfect sense to the combatants, because they saw the other side as devoted to evil. Incinerating a city is perfectly reasonable if you think the people in it are evil, because they support an evil ideology.

Again, this is something we see in our own time. Social media is full of post by Progressive fanatics, celebrating violence against people they call Nazis. It’s not that these victims are actual Nazis, of course. It’s just that the word now means “evil people” who the pious see as a threat to their existence. By definition, the pious must never show mercy to evil, as to do so means accepting that there is some virtue in the evil people that is worth preserving. Piety demands no mercy be given to the impious.

Now, the American ruling elite, for the last 75 years or so, has claimed that rather than being a nation defined by blood and soil, America is a nation defined by allegiance to a set of ideals, the American creed. That way, anyone who wanders in can be a citizen, as long as he pledges allegiance to those ideals. This was a post hoc justification for mass immigration in the early 20th century and a way to include the sons of recent immigrants into the national mythology. It sacralized the immigrant as the ultimate American.

In fact, Americans are now more loyal to foreigners than to one another. It seems that a third defect of the ideological state is that the ideology evolves a hatred of itself. Something similar has happened in Europe. The EU is, after all, an effort to apply the lessons of America to the European continent. Instead of defining the people biologically and geographically, a European will be an idea. In Europe and America, the idea of citizenship has curdled into self-loathing. What defines the people is their hatred of themselves.

This is not correctable. People join a cause or a movement in order to swap their individual identity for that of the group. In other words, people are driven to ideology out of self-loathing. A society based on ideology must therefore reward those most riddled with doubt and celebrate self-loathing as the highest virtue. The ideological state, regardless of design, must always become a suicide cult. It simultaneously boils off the skeptical and rewards the most fanatical. A society run by fanatics always ends in a blood bath.

Thoughts On The Current Crisis

Imagine you and a group of your friends come up with what you think is a revolutionary way to improve the world. You’re so sure it is great idea, you and your buddies decide to overthrow the government so you can implement your idea. Now, even assuming your revolutionary idea is legitimate, that is a terrible way to go about changing the world. You and your band of nobodies lack the numbers and the moral authority to take over the government. The most likely result is you get arrested and locked away in a padded cell.

Now, a more rational way of putting your brilliant idea into action is for you and your group to go out and start telling people about it. In a prior age, this meant handing out fliers and knocking on doors to spread the good word. In the current age, you can start a social media campaign and create a YouTube channel, where you post informative videos on your brilliant idea. Maybe someone with a big following on-line notices your efforts and joins the cause. Perhaps someone of importance gets interested in your ideas.

The point of raising awareness and getting people involved in your movement is to increase your numbers. One reason your plot to overthrow the state failed in the first paragraph is you lacked the numbers. If you get a million people to sign onto your cause, then you have a chance. Not only that, when it comes to changing minds, quantity has a quality of its own. People are much more open minded to an idea that has a big following than one held by a tiny fringe group. Human beings are social animals.

On the other hand, numbers alone are not enough. Your revolution in paragraph one, also failed because you still lack moral authority. In a country of 300 million, a million strong movement is still pretty small. The state will feel justified in using extreme force against you and your movement if they see you as a threat. Numbers are not the only reason you failed. The people in charge could operate in the knowledge that most people see them as the legitimate power in the country. Therefore, they can squash all threats.

Revolutions succeed because the prevailing order lost its moral authority. Even though the numbers that oppose them are small, the lack of moral authority means no one is willing to risk much to defend the status quo. The lack of legitimacy is why governments fall, religions collapse and cultures collapse. The Bolsheviks did not succeed because they had a better set of tactics or a plausible alternative. They toppled the Czar because the one thing everyone agreed upon is the old order had to go. Anything had to be better.

That means you and your band of revolutionaries from paragraph one don’t really need a manifestly brilliant idea to change the world. If the prevailing orthodoxy has lost its legitimacy, even a mediocre alternative is enough. If you examine successful revolutions, the alternative on offer is usually quite vague and, in the end, totally impractical. It was more of a sunny vision, a promise for a better day, than a fully considered alternative moral order. It was just something that felt better than the discredited status quo.

The point of all this is that in the current crisis, the job of the dissidents is to build numbers and delegitimize the prevailing order. When the alt-right got full of themselves and decided to it was time to start the revolution, they were squashed like a bug. The reason was they lacked the numbers and they had done nothing to undermine the moral authority of the people in charge. To most white people, the riot in Charlottesville looked like a bunch of fringe weirdos making a nuisance of themselves. They deserved what they got.

Ultimately, revolutions that matter start with the small group in paragraph one and slowly grow into a larger group. That was true of the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks and the Iranian revolutionaries. It was true of the American revolutionaries. The small group grew into a larger group and then it became a sub-culture. Finally, it blossomed into a counter-culture that provided a home for the whole man, not just the revolutionary. Dissidents in America are in the sub-culture phase or possibly in the early phases of becoming a counter-culture.

Another aspect of successful revolutions is they are short on concrete ideas. Detailed plans can be analyzed and critiqued. Vague promises cannot. Let’s face it, that’s one reason Trump won in 2016. His promises sounded good, mostly because they lacked specificity. They were aspirations, not policies. That means the people spending their days working out the new legal code for the ethno-state are wasting their time. The timeless principles of today are just the rules instituted by the winners, after they won.

There are two recent examples American dissidents should study. The first is the Evangelical movement that started in the 1970’s as a response to the cultural revolution of the 1960’s. They had unassailable principles and specific policy goals that arose from those principles. They had great organic organizations, their churches. They had money and manpower. They also focused on one party, hoping to make the GOP the counter to the Left. By the 80’s, the Evangelicals were a powerful political force.

They also failed to accomplish any of their goals. Their top issue was abortion, specifically rolling back Roe. They lobbied hard to get their guys into office and on the bench so they could get that ruling overturned. They had zero success. In fact, it is hard to find any aspect of the culture war they were able to win. If you had told Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in the 70’s that their efforts would still mean gay marriage and trannies stalking little girls in public toilets, they probably would have lost their faith entirely.

The reason they lost is they engaged the ruling class on their terms. The Evangelicals agreed to play by the rules set by the ruling class. This ultimately meant supporting the ruling class institutions, like the political rules and the party system. Those things are designed to preserve the current order. In effect, the Evangelicals agreed from the start to defend and support the prevailing order. It was inevitable that their efforts would only lead to more of the same, because they agreed to all of the assumptions of the prevailing order.

Another useful example is the NRA. Starting around the same time as the Evangelicals entered politics, the NRA decided to change direction. They became apolitical, supporting only candidates that were pro-gun. They stopped arguing about the efficacy of gun control as a crime fighting tool and started arguing about gun culture as a vital part of American culture. The NRA shifted from political debates, to moral debates and captured the high ground by linking gun rights to patriotism and basic America concepts of liberty.

This is why the fight over guns has been the one exception in the culture war. The Left tried hard to capture the high ground, usually by standing on the bodies of dead kids, but they failed because the NRA always fights to hold the moral high ground. They never conceded the premise or the moral framework of the debate. When the Left says they wants guns off the streets because of the children, the NRA says they wants guns in the hands of parents, so they can protect their children and themselves.

The lesson for our thing is to first understand where we are in the process. Our job right now is to grow our numbers by promoting about our ideas. Part of doing that is taking every opportunity to undermine the other side’s moral authority. Just as important, it means developing a genuine alternative to the moral order. A counter-culture has its own ethos, which means its own media, its own language and its own comedy. That last part is important, because what we mock speaks directly to what we believe.

Revolutions feel like they happen overnight but they are the culmination of a long process that starts before the vanguard is out of diapers. The 60’s radicals would never have existed without the Beatniks and the drug culture. The Jacobins would not have existed without the salon culture that had developed in Paris. Radical politics are born of a counter-culture that provides the basis of an alternative moral order. For there to be right-wing radicals tomorrow, we must build the right-wing counter-culture today.