Why Did Women Go Nuts?

About a dozen years ago, I heard a Brit remark that you can get charged with rape in Sweden if you brush against a woman in an elevator. It did not quite register with me at the time. I just thought it was an exaggeration about Swedish prudishness. Then a few years later Assange was charged with rape and it made sense. He was accused of having sex with two women and then not calling them the next day, thus hurting the feelings of the girls. In Sweden, hurt feelings and regret are enough to support a rape charge.

What no one knew at the time is that the estrogen fueled lunacy that was raging in Sweden was headed our way. The #metoo stuff is pretty much what happened in Sweden, except it is playing out on social media. Of course, it was the gals in Sweden who demanded the nation import millions of swarthy males from over the horizon, so the Swedes could have a real rape problem, rather than an imaginary one. That most likely means the girls of the #metoo movement will be demanding the same for us.

A popular topic in our thing is the fact that our women have gone insane. Some say the mistake was giving them the vote a century ago. Others say it was multiculturalism and the resulting break down in society. Both are probably true to some degree, but that does not explain what happened in Sweden. It does not explain why mentally unstable coeds are making up bizarre rape fantasies, like the one at UVA. It does not explain why European women are trying create a land of Amazons in the Baltic Sea.

We’ve all had those moments, whether you’re drowning in work in a cramped cubicle or just tired of the daily grind. In those moments, a thought might cross your mind, like “I wish I could escape to a private island.”

Well, entrepreneur Kristina Roth actually made that happen. She’s not just escaping to an island, she owns it. And she’s opening it up to women worldwide. But men? They’re not allowed.

SuperShe Island is tucked away in the Baltic Sea off the coast of Finland. The 8.4-acre (literal) no man’s land features four newly renovated cabins and can accommodate 10 people. Its amenities give five-star resorts a run for their money, with Finnish saunas, spa-like facilities and beautifully decorated rooms. Daily wellness activities on the island include yoga, meditation, farm-to-table dining, cooking classes, fitness classes, nature activities and more.

Now, women have always liked being with other women, which is why beauty shops and day spas exist all over. The thing is though, these activities are not about hating men or hating themselves. Women head off to the day spa so they can get the some of the dents knocked out and look good for their man. That’s not the only reason and hanging out with their female friends plays a role, but the point of the activity fits in with the traditional male-female relationship. This man-haters island is about man-hating and self-abnegation.

Of course, this is just one wacky example, but all over the West, women have gone bonkers, making crazy demands and fighting against their nature. The star of the linked story is a German women who came to New York to make a nuisance of herself, then went to Finland to create Sappho-by-the-sea. It’s tempting to think this stuff is local, but the fact is the West has had a girl problem for a long time. It started in the early 20th century and then took off in the post-WW2 years. The girls have gone mad.

The question thought, is why has this suddenly happened. In the US, women were mostly normal until the early 20th century. The war years seem to have either accelerated their descent into lunacy or magnified some trends causing it. Modernity is a good scapegoat here, but how much of modernity is caused by the derangement of women? If the girls had held up their end of the sexual relationship, how different would the social mores of modernity be now? Could there even be modernity with normal women?

It sounds like I’m blaming the women, but the last century in America is often called the Jewish Century, but it could just as easily be called the Female Century. We went from a world where Western societies were run by men to one where many of them are run by women. Others have ceded much of the high ground to the girls, suggesting it is a matter of time before the girls run the West. A world run by the blue-haired rage heads of gamergate is probably not a world that anyone wants to live in for long.

Back in the financial crisis, I read some stories about how tiny Iceland had turned itself into a massively leveraged hedge fund with a small fishing society attached to it. One explanation was that the male culture of Iceland had always been about pointless risk taking this led to the financial mess. The result was a shift in the culture where women were taking a prominent role and Icelandic women had always been known for their prudence and caution. Iceland is now a tourist island as a result.

Perhaps that’s a clue. The wars of the 19th and 20 century, particular the industrial wars in Europe, discredited Western man generally and particularly. As Spengler would put it, the culture died with the men who died on the battlefields. The society was left, but the animating spirit of it, the passion that built it, was gone. What has filled the void is the raging anguish of Western women. Put another way, the rise of feminism is the spread of women in mourning raging against their loss. Maybe feminism is the long black veil.

Speculative Speculation

Pat Buchanan wrote a book contemplating alternatives to war with the Nazis. One implication of Buchanan’s alternative history is the Nazis never would have existed. A more sensible policy toward Germany after he Great War would have short circuited the process that created the Nazis. His other assertion is that even if Hitler came to power, his ambitions would not have been magnified by the humiliation resulting from the Treaty of Versailles. This means the Nazis would have followed much different trajectory.

In one of Dan Carlin’s podcasts, he speculated a bit about what would have happened if the Nazis had survived World War II and continued to rule Germany. Instead of war, the British had struck a deal with the Germans so they could have a country for all German people, but not dominating the continent militarily. The result being something similar to modern Germany, in terms of territory, but run by the Nazis. The point of his thought experiment was to imagine how Nazism would evolve as a peacetime ruling ideology.

Usually, these sorts of thought experiments just assume the Nazis would have remained the evil Hollywood version we have all been trained to imagine. The rest of the fantasy has them doing awful things to all of the usual suspects. In reality, the Nazis evolved into what they were partially in response to war. Germany was turned into a munitions factory in order to wage war and that altered the nature of the Nazi party. A party ruling a complete nation, at peace with its neighbors, would have been a different party.

One outcome of the Buchanan scenario of a Germany at peace, but ruled by the Nazis is there would not have been a Holocaust. That sounds counter-intuitive, but the choice of mass murder was not the first option for the Nazis, when dealing with unwanted minority populations. War made it the default option. In a peaceful world, the most likely scenario would have been the traditional one, where Jews, gypsies, slaves and anyone else deemed undesirable would have been exiled to lands at or beyond the border.

Another probable outcome is Hitler would have been deposed at some point after peace with the rest of Europe. His personal style was appealing in the economic and political crisis of pre-war Germany and tolerable in the crisis of war. Megalomaniacs tend not to do well in stable periods. Eventually, the various classes and interests of German society would have decided they could do better than Hitler. That and the leadership of the party was full of ambitious and aggressive men willing to hatch a coup against the Fuehrer.

That means the most likely outcome of peace would have been turmoil in the party and either a collapse of authority or a series of purges similar to what happened with the Soviets. Germans are not Russians, so a period of turmoil would most likely have resulted in a some sort of stable ruling committee at the top of the party. The unbalanced lunatics and sadists would have been purged in favor of the more practical. There were a lot of Albert Speer types in the junior ranks, who knew how to run a proper society.

There are a lot of assumptions there, but that’s the nature of alternative history. If things were different, they would not be the same. Assuming the Nazis could have negotiated peace to a willing Europe and managed to get through the decade or so of intra-party squabbles to emerge as a stable ruling elite, what would the “new” Germany have evolved into as a society? It’s not something anyone thinks much about as it does not further the narrative. The Nazis are the forever black hat in the mythology of the present orthodoxy.

In all probability, the Great War veterans that founded the party would have been pushed aside, in favor of the inter-war generation from upper-class families who joined the party in the 1930’s. A guy like Albert Speer was able to rise quickly because he was smart, well educated and cultured. That means the party would have become less militaristic and more corporate. That also means German society would have evolved away from a martial order to something like a corporate order. Something like modern Europe, in fact.

Economically, the Nazis were ad hoc socialists, in that they embraced command economics as a practical solution to present problems. Ideologically, they had no economic plan. Again, Albert Speer provides some insight into what the post-peace Nazi party would have done. Companies like Mercedes, Siemens, Krupp, BASF, Deutsche Bank and others that profited doing business with the Nazis during the war, would have emerged as the dominant companies under the imaginary peacetime Nazi Germany.

It would have been the sort of corporatism we see emerging in America, where private firms get narrow monopolies and in exchange for enforcing the cultural norms desired by the ruling elite. Corporations are not supporters of civil liberties and they certainly don’t like market competition. Wherever big business prevails, freedom declines and markets collapse. Instead of being turned into a massive munitions facility, the peaceful Nazi Germans would have been turned into a national corporate conglomerate.

The point of this sort of speculation is not to better understand the past, but to better understand the present. The first half of the 20th century in Europe was the result of a great economic paradigm shift. Europe had moved from an agrarian, trading society to an industrial and urban one. The result was the great concentration of wealth and the rise of corporatism. It was not just in Germany. The Italians, Spanish, Portuguese and even the Americans saw a lot of merit in fascism. The New Dealers loved Mussolini, for a while.

When looked at from the current age, where global corporations are enthusiastically enforcing moral codes and partnering with the state to impose an order that benefits the managerial class, it suggests corporatism is inevitable or a default arrangement. The democratic state prefers dealing with a few dominant actors, so popular government encourages the concentration of capital. Eventually, those concentrations of wealth become rival power centers and then they join the state as partners in power.

Interestingly, what the Nazis imagined for Europe, where Germany sat atop a unified continent, is pretty much what the EU is today. What we have come to call globalism is taking the same concept and scaling it up to include all of the modern economies. A guy like Albert Speer, if he were alive today, would recognize what was evolving. It also means that the balance to this would be some sort of organized labor component, that includes everyone outside the managerial class. The third leg of the stool, so to speak.

The Gathering Darkness

Christopher Caldwell wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, “One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.” It is a wonderful observation that applies to much more than just affirmative action. It seems to apply to all aspect of Progressivism. Today’s minority view is tomorrows absolute, inviolable dogma. It happens so quickly, no one seems to notice.

That’s been the way with Progressives and science. It used to be common to see a Subaru or Volvo decorated with a Darwin fish. The point was to let the world know that the driver was a good liberal, who embraced reason, rather than superstition. Of course, the other point was to stick it to Christians, who the Left had declared their primary enemy somewhere in the middle of the last century. Even so, science was a big part of how Progressives defined themselves. Then suddenly, imperceptibly, the opposite was true.

That’s what we are seeing with the response to David Reich’s book, Who We Are and How We Got Here and the subsequent articles he has written about his research. The great Greg Cochran has been reviewing the book, pointing out the bizarre contortions Reich goes through in order to avoid having his lab burned down. It’s a bit of an exaggeration to say that Reich fears an angry torch wielding mob, but it is only a small exaggeration. Many careers have been ruined by getting on the wrong side of the mob.

Understandably, Cochran takes exception to much of this, because he is a true man of science. He values truth above all else. He has no patience for the political, and now theological, nonsense that saturates the modern academy. There’s also a personal aspect to it, as Reich takes some cheap shots at the late Henry Harpending, who was Cochran’s colleague for many years. They collaborated on The 10,000 Year Explosion and on this groundbreaking paper. Cochran can be forgiven for taking this a bit personal.

On the other hand though, David Reich is not an old guy with his career behind him and his retirement vested. He is in his prime years as a scientist and as such he has to be careful to not upset the mullahs in the orthodoxy. That’s why he is going through these ham-handed efforts to inoculate himself against the charge of heresy. The morality police may not burn down his lab, but they are more than happy to burn down his career. If they will hurl a giant like James Watson into the void, they will not flinch at David Reich.

If you are old enough to remember the 1980’s, you remember a time when it was Progressives chanting about free speech, the need for independent media and the glories of scientific inquiry. Today, it feels like a million years ago, only because none of it is true now and not just in small ways. Progressives have swung so far in the opposite direction, becoming what they always claimed they were fighting, it is impossible to imagine them being otherwise. A younger person must assume it has always been this way.

The funny thing is that our Progressive mullahs are probably worse than the people who suppressed Galileo. Relatively speaking, they are worse than Torquemada. The old inquisitor was quite lenient, relevant to the age, when stealing a cow could get you hanged. Galileo’s trouble with the Church had as much to do with politics and his personal squabbles as science. Today, the people in charge take a perverse pleasure in destroying the life of a heretic. Billionaires now hunt Dirt People on-line for sport.

If you are in the human sciences, none of this is lost on you. If you read academic papers, they have become so thick with jargon and statistics, they are impenetrable to all but the people in the field. Some of it is the normal pattern of group behavior, but some of it is a defense against the charge of heresy. Instead of writing coded notes in the margins of approved texts, people in the human sciences rely on impenetrable gibberish and  eye-glazing statistics. Race has now become “ancestry group”, for example.

One thing that is clear, in hindsight, is that Church efforts to contain the growth of scientific inquiry were a rearguard action. The institutional place of the Church was not toppled by science and reason. The role of religious institutions was already diminishing with the rise of the secular institutions and the spread of commerce. The clergy was no longer the richest faction in European society. Their efforts to re-impose their order on society was reactionary and doomed. The world was changing and the feudal era was ending.

Perhaps something similar is happening with Progressives and human sciences. Their embrace of reason was always like their embrace of liberal democracy, socialism and social reform. It is as a means to an end. Free speech was a bus they rode from their position outside the academy, to a position atop the academy. Once they got to their destination, they got off the free speech bus. That’s certainly true of their embrace of science and reason. Once they gained power, they peeled the Darwin fish off the car.

On the other hand, there is no reason to think that humanity is a linear progression from tribal darkness to some glorious post-human future. We have the phrase “dark ages” because there have been dark ages, when civil society reached a dead end, collapsed and sat dormant for centuries. Back when the turn began, Allan Bloom wrote that relativism and multiculturalism were ushering in a closing of the American mind. Perhaps now we are seeing the fruit, the coming of a new dark age ruled by fanatics and dullards.

The War On Us

Whether you know it or not, you are at war. It’s not a shooting in the street war, at least not yet, but it is a war. Specifically, the people in charge have decided to wage war on segments of the American society. To paraphrase the late historian Christopher Lasch, the managerial elite has turned their back on average Americans and opted instead for a ruthlessly cosmopolitan view of life, one that values rootlessness, internationalism and transience. Increasingly, their ends are in direct conflict with liberal democracy.

Another way of looking at this is that the managerial elite has reached class consciousness in the Marxist sense. Who they are is defined by who they are not and who they are not is you. Their class interests may or may not overlap with the interests of society, but their identity, their sense of who they are as a class, only exists in opposition to the white middle class. That also puts them at odds with the institutions of liberal democracy. That’s the point of this article this article on the new Civil War.

Peter Leyden is a high end grifter who makes his money telling the managerial elite what they want to hear. He pitches himself as a technologist, despite having no math or science. He’s a blend of Alvin Toeffler and Tony Robbins. Ruy Teixeira is an old Progressive hand, who has spent his life pushing various political strategies to help the Democrat Party win elections, mostly by undermining the white middle class through open borders and multiculturalism. These are men who know the mind of the managerial class.

Most of the article is complete nonsense, especially the part about blue state energy versus red state energy. That’s almost as daffy as framing the Republicans as the party of the elites and the Democrats as the party of middle America. That’s the thing though. They did not write the article to clarify. It was written to flatter. These are people who make their money telling the people in charge what they want to hear. When Jack Dorsey, the head of Twitter, is retweeting the post, it means it rocketed around the ruling class.

The other interesting thing about the piece is the naked hatred of white people. If you read “Republican” to mean white middle-class, the snarling is not hard to miss. Much has been written about the motivations of the open borders people. There’s certainly a money angle, with business wanting cheap labor. There’s also a political component, as the Democrats cannot win without foreign voters. The core motivation,  that co-evolved with class consciousness, is a visceral hatred of white America. They really do want to replace us.

This is why they really hate Trump, despite the fact he is more than willing to sign off on big slabs of the Democratic agenda. He’s not a threat on social issues and he will spend like crazy on infrastructure projects, that disproportionately help Democratic Party constituencies. They hate what he represents. Trump is a reminder that white people will not go quietly into the night. Again, the article reads like the authors spend their nights dreaming of genocide. They don’t want to win, they want to win permanently.

Of course, the increasingly bold and sophisticated efforts to wall off the public square from dissent is part of this larger project. The social media platforms are now using sophisticated analytics to piece together the network of people they see as the enemy of their class. This lets them coordinate their efforts to purge dissent from their platforms, without having to go to the trouble of finding violations. They are using the tools they developed for the Chinese Communists, against American dissidents.

The brashness of it is suggestive too. They are now censuring harmless black ladies because they amusingly support Trump. After all, all’s fair in war. It’s one thing to censure some guy, claiming he is alt-right or a racist. No one is going to believe two middle-aged black ladies are in the alt-right or part of a racist group. This indicates they no longer think they have to conceal their motivations. We’re a couple of clicks away from people having their credit cards cancelled because they live in an area that votes heavy Republican.

That last bit may sound ridiculous, but we have credit card companies working to prevent you from using your Visa card to buy a gun. If that is permissible, it is a short trip from there to shutting off your internet access because you won’t die fast enough. More important, the fact that the captains of industry, the tech giants, are sitting around scheming of ways to undermine the very notion of your citizenship, suggests they see no limits to what they can do to solve their problems with the white middle class of America.

Again, this is war and all’s fair in war. You may not think you are at war with them, but they are at war with you. The longer you stay stupid about it, the better. That’s why the morons at places like Reason Magazine and Cato get a free pass. You can be sure they will be celebrating “property rights” when every bank in America coincidentally stops doing business with gun makers and gun retailers. What’ the matter? Are you against free enterprise? Start your own bank and credit card system if you don’t like freedom!

Over the last couple of decades, many reform minded writers have been doing yeoman’s work, trying to convince the public, but also the ruling class, that preserving the heritage of America is essential to maintaining civil order and liberal democracy. Lots of people in the civic nationalist camp agree with this approach. Just one more election, one more reform movement. The trouble is, the people in charge are at war and the only things they want to hear are the time and place of your death or the time and place of your surrender.

In Defense of Kevin Williamson

I’ve made no bones about the fact I don’t like Kevin Williamson. I’ve called him “Sloppy Williamson” and a “gold-plated phony” for years. I think his quill pen act is just that, an act intended to make his otherwise mediocre views appear sophisticated. I know that is probably unfair of me, but some people just bug the crap out of me and Williamson is one of them. I fully accept that I could be wrong in my opinion, although I’m not, and that it is petty and small of me to say mean things about someone I don’t know all that well.

The point is, I take a back seat to no man in my disdain for Williamson and all of the Buckleyite-Conservatarian-Libertarian cabal. To borrow a Derb phrase, I’m a low number hater on this score. That said, what the Atlantic Magazine has done to Kevin Williamson is despicable. In fact, it looks like they plotted it, hiring the guy knowing they would soon fire him, because the lunatics would start howling. Even if the execrable Jeffrey Goldberg is simply a spineless pussy who folded to pressure, firing Williamson is immoral.

Kevin Williamson is a guy with bills and responsibilities. He needs an income like most everyone else in this world. Firing someone is never something to be taken lightly, because it is a life altering experience. To hire a guy away from one company, only to fire him a week later, is to recklessly cause harm to another, for no other reasons than a failure to do your job. If Jeffrey Goldberg was really upset by his hiring of Williamson, he should have quit as editor-in-chief, but that would require personal integrity.

There’s a larger point here. The Atlantic is basically succumbing to the mob, one that is most likely entirely artificial. It is the ultimate heckler’s veto. A relatively tiny cabal of lunatics get to determine who is and who is not allowed on the public stage. It’s exactly what can never be allowed to happen if you want a civil society. The reason is, torch wielding mobs encourage the formation of counter mobs, who see that their only rational option is to meet force with force. Succumbing to the mob only encourages more of it.

Just as important, from our perspective, is what our Progressive oppressors are trying to establish with this move. All of a sudden, a guy who is slightly to the right of center – maybe – is now beyond the pale. Williamson’s views on social issues like abortion and gender delusions are held by the majority of Americans. What this is about is a new push by our oppressors to make any criticism of their increasingly deranged opinions a disqualifying act. If Williamson can’t get work, imagine what happens to us.

One of the great mistakes of the Buckleyites has been to think they can cut a deal with the Left, by purging people to their right. The various groups in polite conservative circles have been silent as people on our side have been systematically attacked by the orthodoxy and shut out of public debate. Now they find themselves facing the same challenge. Kevin Williamson has just learned that no matter how often he punched right, not matte how much he disavowed our side, Progressives would never accept him.

Welcome to the party pal.

Edit: I dashed this off in five minutes, so I was not clear on a couple of things. One is the dumb cuck had it coming. If you get in bed with Lefty, expect to wake up with a lot of problems. The other thing is these guys give legitimacy to Progressive media by going on their platforms, so I have no sympathy for them when they get thrown off of them. I just wanted to make the point that we either have a public square or we have mob rule. I’m good with either, but I don’t think the people in charge want the latter.

A Million Petty Tyrants

When news broke that someone was shooting up YouTube, the usual suspects geared up to profit from it. You can be sure that the ridiculous little twerp David Hogg was looking for cheap airfare to California, so he could mug for the cameras. Then it turned out to be a Persian woman, who was pissed about being censured by the YouTube Stasi. She was most certainly a nut, but what sent her over the edge was the way she was treated by the petty tyrants of YouTube. She was the multicultural version of Falling Down.

The funny thing is, none of the respectable people have bothered to notice what has been happening with social media until now. This story on PJ Media takes the girl angle and this post on National Review takes the CivNat approach. If the shooter had been Baked Alaska or Sam Hyde, they would be saying the usual things about extreme right wing extremist hate speakers. Instead it was a neurotic foreign vegan, tormented into a homicidal rage by the semi-official thought police now running the public square.

Of course, when bullets start flying, people tend to get serious. Up until now, the people running the social media companies have paid no price for their behavior. In fact, they have been publicly praised by the left side of the ruling class, and quietly praised by the right side. All of a sudden, the folks in charge have to consider the possibility of a lunatic with a gun showing up in their offices, when one of their moderators willy-nilly decides to nuke a user account. That changes the math of being the morality police.

Even through this has been given a good leaving alone by the media, there are now two types of meetings going on in companies like YouTube. The people in charge are huddling in their executive suites, talking about security and how best to make sure the next lunatic does not get beyond the first floor. The soulless shrew running YouTube will no doubt make sure security around her is beefed up in response to this incident. She will probably issue a memo demanding greater vigilance by the YouTube morality police.

There’s a second form of meeting going on today. That’s the one in the lunch rooms and chat rooms for employees of these social media companies. These are the people who take the bullet when the next pistol packing Persian shows up with a beef about the arbitrarily enforced terms of service. At least for a little while, some of them will think twice before pushing the button to delete a video or take down an account. After all, that vegan yoga instructor with quirky politics, could be a really good marksman.

A smart man once said that the post-modern age is a period where the best people painfully relearn all the things everyone used to know. For example, the whole point of liberal democracy was not to give the people a say in how things are run, but to give them a non-violent veto. Instead of the angry rabble stringing up their local rulers and burning down their mansion, the angry rabble gets to vote out some candidates or perhaps pass a referendum that will be ignored. Political liberty is the pressure release.

The guy on street corner, waving around a manifesto, proselytizing to his fellow citizens, is only a threat to the public order, if the people in charge don’t have better answers or a way to steal his ideas. Otherwise, he is just a crank who can be ignored. Today, the street corner is a user account on social media and the manifesto is a series of videos detailing some political or social cause. All of which is entirely harmless, just as long as the people in charge have better answers. Within this lifetime, people used to know this.

Something else people used to know is that the guy with a tiny bit of power, is often the most dictatorial. Meter maids, building inspectors, zoning office clerks, these are people with very narrow authority, but hey wield it with the zeal of a bloodthirsty tyrant. That’s because the sort of people attracted to the work, are the sort of people looking for any chance to have authority over another person. The way American cities solved their sadist problem is they installed parking meters and made the sadists into meter maids.

Today, it is the social media companies hiring the petty tyrants, sadists and mentally disturbed spinsters, giving them a job of reading your tweets. These are the people who scan the internet, looking for “hate speech” they can put on a list, so that other petty tyrants can use it to torment the hate speaker or anyone interested in him. These are people who relish the task, because it is the only time anyone notices them. Our public space is turning into a daycare center run by sadistic schoolmarms.

The people in charge of social media firms spend so much time smelling their own farts, they truly think they can regulate what the world has to say about things. Again, people used to know better. Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it and reality is, there’s no controlling public opinion. There’s no way to stifle dissent. The only thing that comes from efforts to do so is a violent response. But, the petty tyrants will only learn that lesson when the next Persian vegan shows up at their door.

Prince Rupert’s Revenge

In my youth, it was possible to have cordial and even friendly relations with people in the Progressive cult. I spent many hours debating my lefty friends over drinks, about the defects of various central planning schemes. Anyone my age or older remembers the way these debates would go. One side talked about economic justice for the working class, while the other side talked about the glory of free markets. Usually, the “right-winger” would bring up the Soviets, as an example of the failures of central planning and socialism.

Often, one side or the other would get mad, but it was rarely personal. People get hot in political debates, mostly because we are social animals. Conflict with people inside our group vexes us. It makes us uncomfortable. That was the thing. Liberals and non-liberals could operate in the same peer group. The reason is the Left and Right back then, agreed on the goals. Both sides wanted prosperity. The Left believed socialism produced equitable plenty, while the Right believed a rising tide lifted all boats.

Thinking back, a strange thing happened in the 1990’s, with regards to my own debates with lefty friends and acquaintances. The debates in the 90’s were almost all about the peculiar personal lives of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Right was always scandal mongering and the Left was conjuring novel defenses for the degeneracy of Bill Clinton and the personal corruption of Hillary. These revolved around Red Team/Blue Team scat fights, that had little to do with policy or ideology. It was just ritualized tribal warfare.

That changed instantly with the 2000 election. All of my lefty friends and acquaintances went insane overnight.  They hated Bush with the intensity of a fanatic. The wars made it impossible to have a discussion with the Left, outside of things like the weather. Granted, many of us were naive about the lunacy of the neocons and what they were planning, but the Left’s opposition was never more than shrieking madness. How does one debate someone who thinks Halliburton controls the weather and attacked New Orleans?

I remember thinking my lefty friends would return to sanity after Bush left office, but that never happened. A few stopped foaming at the mouth, but for the most part, they crossed into a realm from which there is no return. In the Obama years, they went from one peculiar fad to the next. One week it was homosexual marriage, while the next week it was claims about sex being a social construct. There’s simply no discussion, much less debating, the racial and sexual utopia that is now the center of the Progressive cult.

Looking back, it’s useful to think about the fight between the official Left and the official Right as a set piece battle on an agreed upon battlefield. At the center of both lines was economics. The Right had religious archers and the constitutional conservatives on the flanks, but the center of the army was formed around economic issues. Similarly, the Left had race hustlers, second and third wave feminists on the flanks, but their main line troops, the center of the line, were economic Utopians. They were the main army.

The collapse of the Soviet Union had an enormous impact on the ruling classes of the West. In America, it meant the center of the Progressive army broke and fled in all directions. The flanks, however, the racial justice warriors, the gender dragoons and exotic identity battalions rushed into the center, forming a new main line of the Left. The Right, despite carrying the day, was too busy setting up battlefield trophies to notice that the Left had reformed around sexual and racial fanatics, so they promptly surrendered.

A curious thing is happening to this new center of the Progressive battle line. Their moral certainty about the innate equality of man and his infinite malleability, is crumbling in the face of scientific reality. The release of David Reich’s book is the latest direct hit on Boasian anthropology. The response from the soft sciences, which has been a key intellectual authority for the blank slate Progressives, looks like a panicked flight from the battle field. They simply have no answer to what genetic research is revealing about man.

The tent pole holding up modern Progressivism is the assertion that all humans are essentially the same and that the observable differences are trivial. All of the Left’s arguments spring from that belief. It’s why they insist the magic of white privilege is the reason black crime is so high or rape culture is why girls don’t go into STEM fields at the same rate as boys. In other words, magic is a plausible answer, as long as reality is ruled out as an option. Biological realism explodes the center of Progressive theology.

That’s what we see happening all over the human sciences. Twenty years ago, some guy in a cardigan could claim that racism was learned behavior and their was no biological basis for race. He could be held up as an intellectual authority and therefore, a moral authority. Genetics is undermining the intellectual authority of those preaching cultural anthropology, multiculturalism and the blank slate. The main line of the Progressive army is suddenly looking like a bunch of primitives chanting oogily-boogily.

It’s tempting to say I’m getting ahead of myself, but we have millions of people relying on DNA services to map their ancestry. Genetics is promising new cures for disease and soon, people will be able to get their intellectual destiny for $50. It will not be long before some clever fertility lab begins offering bespoke artificial insemination, using donors with desirable traits, based on their genetics. There’s some of that happening now. People are becoming habituated to the idea that humans are different, because of biology, not culture.

The question, of course, is where does the Left go now. In the late 19th and early 20th century, what we call Progressivism was mostly a Protestant crusade. In the 20th century, they shifted to embracing  the economic utopianism of socialism, with racial and sexual politics as side acts. For the last three decades, the dream of sexual and racial utopias has been the dominant theme of the Left. Once the blank slate is broken on the wheel of biological reality, what comes next? What replaces the center of the line?

The answer could be nothing. There are many currents to American history, but the dominant one is what John Derbyshire calls the Cold Civil War. It is our inheritance from the mother country. The story of America has been the good whites and bad whites, the Roundheads and Cavaliers, fighting for control of the country. It’s also a conflict of visions, where the Roundheads always embraced extreme egalitarianism, while the Right has embraced the natural hierarchy of man. Maybe the end is a Cavalier victory after all.


Feudalism, in the most general sense, is a set of obligations between a superior and a subordinate, based on land. The lord owns the land and grants access to the land to vassals. The lord provides services like protection and the imposition of order, while the vassal provides food rents, military service and labor to the lord. In practice, a lord could also be a vassal to a greater lord or a king. The result of this combination of relationships is the system we know as feudalism, that dominated Europe in the Middle Ages.

From the perspective of economics, the key components are land and labor, with land being the critical one. For most of human history, labor was interchangeable. German speaking peasants working estates in France were the same as Frankish speaking peasants. Wars were fought over land, so chasing off the other guy’s peasants, in order to take his land, made perfect sense. The land was the thing of value, while the labor that worked it was a commodity. The supply of peasants was never a problem.

The politics of a feudal system are simple. The arrangements were designed to serve the needs of the warrior nobility at the top the system. The lords may serve a king, but they also serve one another in defending and perpetuating the system. It is why innovation was often seen as a threat. If one lord could get much more from his fief, than the other lords, or even the king, then the power relationships all change. Feudalism, by nature, must be highly conservative, as it is based on legal and economic relationships never changing.

The other thing worth noting is that feudalism arises when an empire begins to decline or collapse. The central authority is no longer able to maintain order, so local power centers emerge that can protect land and impose order. Since no single local lord can impose order over his rivals, a system of rules and obligations evolve to handle relations between the local power centers. In other words, feudalism is what comes after the collapse of central authority. It is a return to a default position of local control and local autonomy.

The relevance of this to our age is that we are at the end of the liberal consensus or maybe even at the end of liberal democracy. The West is not an empire, in the way Rome was an empire, but there’s no doubt that the last 500 years of human history has been about the rise of Europeans and the evolution of European social order. The liberal order is base upon the nation state, which roughly corresponds to a single ethnicity. The people of that state own and control the assets of the state, picking rulers from their own people.

The role of the state has been the single focus of Western intellectuals since the Enlightenment. The evolution of economic arrangements, political arrangements and international arrangements, have all been in the context of the state. What is called the liberal consensus is the combination of all these things, based on each state having some form of liberal democracy. A nation gets to be in the liberal order if it holds elections and has a form of representative government, that is notionally responsive to its people.

What has become increasingly obvious, is that private entities now perform many of the duties formerly delegated to the state. Regulating political speech, has always been the job of the government, but now it is tech companies serving that role. Similarly, it used to be the job of government to control the financial system, even at the retail level. Today, firms like  PayPal or CitiBank are in charge of regulating and controlling access to the financial system. Even central banks now operate outside of national governments.

The result of this delegation of power is that the national authority is losing power over the societies it allegedly rules. This may be the natural result of globalism. As the states delegate important duties to international authorities, they lose the power to impose order domestically. The result is they must rely on private interests that are not constrained by constitutions and customs. In order for government to maintain the illusion of power, they have ceded domestic power to multinationals and tech giants, that they claim to regulate.

In feudalism, the political relationships between the warrior elite were about controlling land and defending it from those outside the alliance. The subjects working the land were not all that important. The post national world we are entering will be one where the global tech and finance giants control the flow of information, working with one another to maintain control of the system. Because a feudal system must be conservative, defending this new system will mean stamping out dissent and alternatives to the dominant platforms.

The thing about the feudal order was how effective it was at preserving itself. At the dawn of the French Revolution, as France began to emerge from feudalism, most people living in what was then France, did not speak French. They spoke regional dialects that dated back, in some cases, to the Roman Empire. Given the ability of tech giants to regulate the flow of information, it is not unreasonable to think they will be better at controlling and isolating people, as a form of defense in depth. Everyone will live on a data manor.

Puritans and Progressives

If you were going to put together a list of major mass movements in American history, a good list would look like this. Women’s suffrage, Social Gospel, Abolitionism, Temperance Movement, Efficiency Movement, The New Deal, Civil Rights Movement, New Left and maybe Neoliberalism. There are others, but that’s a pretty good list of the major ones. What’s remarkable, even looking at only the major ones, is the number. America is the land of reformers and proselytizers. It’s no wonder that Europeans think we are moralists.

The movements in the 20th century, starting with the Efficiency Movement, would usually be called Progressive. They usually get its own stall in the American mass movement bizarre, but Progressive is a good umbrella term for them. In fact, you can lump earlier movements in with the latter movements. All of them trace some of their roots to the Puritan founding of New England and all of them are spiritual movements. Unlike European mass movements, American movements are about communal salvation.

For the American Left, it always starts from some version of “a society is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members.” This is part of its inheritance from the Puritans. While the Puritans that settled in America believed in predestination, only God knew who was chosen. Clues about one’s fate could be found in good works, church attendance and prayer. Part of that was making sure others did the same things, as they sought to discover their destiny. It’s why church attendance was mandatory for Puritans.

Similarly, this individualized concept of grace, meant an individualized reading of and interpretation of Scripture. That led to tensions, even open hostility, within the church. The solution was a strict hierarchy and consensus. If one could only find clues to their own salvation in a thriving community of believers, maintaining the community becomes paramount. That resulted in a forced consensus within each community. Dissidents were persecuted and even banished. A Puritan community functioned like a single organism.

It’s a good example of how the practical application of belief can result in practices that appear at odds with the belief. The Puritans rejected the concept of free will, but they still judged one another’s action, because leading a righteous life might be an indication of God’s grace. The righteous, of course, would never tolerate an obvious sinner in the community of believers, so policing the ranks for sinners was a potential sign of God’s grace. Everyone, even Puritans, wants to hedge their bets when it comes to grace.

Of course, anyone paying attention to the modern Left understands that forced consensus is at the heart of their beliefs. The constant cries for “unity” and the railing against those who “divide” or “polarize” is an effort to enforce consensus. It’s also why northern conservatives, like the Buckley crowd, are so fond of purging people from their ranks. It is a purity test, but also a way of removing trouble makers from the community of the righteous. Instead of Quakers, it is racists getting run out of the community.

Another thing that you see in all Progressive movements, rooted in Puritan New England, is the hunt for Old Scratch. The Puritans, like all Christians of the age, believed that Satan was a real thing and played a role in human affairs. They saw Satan as a creation of God, that punished the wicked, but also gave purpose to the pious. After all, if your deeds had no impact on the disposition of your soul and there was no price to be paid for sin, what would be the point of virtue? Satan solved half that problem for Puritans.

The post hoc fallacy is not new to this age. If you believe that bad things happen because of a lack of piety, then the only reason for the bad things happening to the community is someone cavorting with Old Scratch. The Puritans were uniquely susceptible to the witch panics, because they saw a direct causal link between sinners in the community and bad things befalling the community. The hunt for those working with Satan makes obvious sense. Combined with the forced consensus, Puritans were unusually paranoid.

Even though modern Progressives no longer explicitly talk about God or Satan, they still carry with them a fear of supernatural influences. The endless search for racists, for example, is just the same old hunt for Satan. If the community is not unified, it must be due to those polarizing types, who are responsible for white privilege, the glass ceiling or the rape culture. Now, suburban white mothers are fretting that their sons may be cavorting with alt-right people on-line. Everywhere they look, dark forces are tempting the righteous

Communal salvation, forced consensus and the fear of Old Scratch inevitably means a sense of alienation to the outside world. Read any description of Puritan life and you see a hostility to outsiders. This is another thing you see with all Progressive mass movements and you certainly see it today. The modern Left is consumed with defining who is inside and who is outside their thing. The people inside are the righteous, while the people outside are all evil. In fact, maintaining the boundary is what defines the modern Left.

Like the Puritan communities of the past, Progressives are inward looking. Those outside the movement are assumed to be hostile others. It’s why they have so many words that simply mean “people outside the walls.” The phrase “right-winger” is used interchangeably with the word “Republican” even though they are almost opposites at this point. To the Progressives, they both mean outsider. Puritans did not waste a lot of time understanding the difference between Quakers and Episcopalians. They just had to be chased off.

This binary world view has another effect. For Progressives, there are only two possible answers to any question and they are mutually exclusive. There is the righteous answer and the false or evil answer. It’s why they spend all of their time “debunking” human science. If they can defeat the evil answer, it means the righteous answer triumphs and, by extension, they are the righteous. It’s also why the concept of casual indifference is alien to Progressives. In a world of good and evil, there can be no compromise.

This is a good place to note that a generation ago, Progressives smugly put Darwin fish on their Subaru. Today, they shake their fist at the “scientific racists” using new finding in genetics to reveal the origins of modern people. Because unity is the promised land, anything that divides people is the work of Satan. It’s why racism is the great bogeyman of the Left. The growing mountain of scientific data revealing the diversity of modern humans, is seen as a gathering storm, threatening the righteous. Science is now Mordor.

There are other Puritan aspects to modern Progressives, things like conformity and an affinity for black clothing, but the important influence is the spiritual one. The Puritans were utopians, when you strip away all of the mythology and lore. They came to the New World to build their ideal community. When Reagan spoke of the “city on the hill” he was speaking to a spiritual sensibility that started at Plymouth. It is a spiritual sensibility that is the animating force of northern conservatives and America Progressives.

March For Our Masters

When I was a kid, I always wondered why the people in the Soviet Union just put up with being ruled by the commies. Even discounting for the propaganda, the evidence was clear that Russia was remarkably poor, by the standards of the West, and that the Russian people knew it. There were too many stories from defectors about how Western goods were smuggled into the Iron Curtain countries. Even if the material stuff did not matter, the thuggery should have pushed people into revolt, but it never happened.

Later in life, I got to know an Iranian guy, who was in the US on some form of phony student visa. Iranians with some money would get their kids student visas in Europe and then they would come to the US. He had served in the Iranian army as a conscript during the Iran-Iraq War. He told me a story about how they cleared a minefield near Basra. They asked for volunteers from the Revolutionary Guard, who then ran through the field exploding the mines so the unit could follow them through the field.

Over the years, I have met other people who had lived in totalitarian countries or in the more fanatical Muslim ones. It seems they always have these sorts of stories. Most of the time they are not as colorful as the one my Persian friend told me, but they usually have the same sort of matter of factness to the telling of them. I always get the sense that the people telling the story don’t think these events are all that interesting, but its better than talking about the weather or what they had for lunch last week.

The question that always comes to my mind, is whether ideological societies produce an excess of fanatics or simply evolve to use them like a natural energy source. The Bolsheviks figured out quickly that communist economics were nonsense. There was no amount of tinkering to make it work, but the supply of true believers made it possible to keep the system running, long after the people in charge knew it was hopeless. Without the zealots, the Soviet system would have collapsed after Stalin died.

The same thing is true of the Iranian theocracy. The energy of the revolution kept it going through the difficult early years, but that energy is long gone. The students who sacked the American embassy are in their late fifties and early sixties now. Many died in the Iraq War. The regime itself long ago descended into petty corruption. Still, there are plenty of fanatics willing to spy on a neighbor, in the name of the revolution. Like the Soviets, the mullahs seem to be powered by an endless supply of zealots.

When I look at what’s happening with the latest round of gun grabbing in America, I wonder if we are simply overflowing with rogue fanatics, looking for a cause, or, is the cultural revolution creating them, like batteries to fuel their latest push to slam the cage door on us? When you see bizarre posts like this from old men of the revolution, slobbering over the children now running around promising more revolution, the causal relationship is not all that obvious. It’s a snake eating its tail.

Of course, these public events are not organic or spontaneous. Daniel Greenfield has tracked down the money and it is clear this latest spasm of gun grabbing is financed by the same radical ideologues behind the Womyn’s March last year. Still, are these people financing the new fanatics because they need them or are the fanatics just always there, ready to run into the nearest minefield? Maybe natural selection plays some role, where the rewards for zealotry slowly increases the supply each generation.

I wonder what people in Iran or maybe Russia think about this stuff. There are plenty of people in Eastern Europe, who lived through the Soviets, so they probably recognize these organized propaganda riots. Instead of the state marching the children off to reeducation camps to train for the next parade, the camps are sponsored by Global Mega Corp and the parade is financed by a sports team. Is the fact the system is run by corporate ideologues rather, than religious or political ideologues a big difference?

Theodore Dalrymple famously said that communist propaganda was intended to humiliate and degrade the people repeating it in public. That may be true and it may simply have been a byproduct. Similarly, ideological authoritarianism like we see in America and Iran, may not set out to create fanatics, but it is a natural result. The zealotry that animated the regime in the early stages, becomes its sole purpose. It lives to create a new generation of fanatics, who push aside the old ones and start the process all over again.

In this regard, radicalism is like a pathogen. If it kills the host too quickly, it can not spread to new hosts, but it must always spread to new hosts. This is why radicals, since the French Revolution, have obsessed over children. The sight of ridiculous twinks like David Hogg promising a revolutionary bloodbath fills the Boomer radicals with joy, as they know the disease has been transmitted to the next generation. The radical pathos lives on, even as it kills the host. Radicalism feeds on the cancer of zealotry, until it kills the host society.

That gets back to where we started. Most Americans know the people behind the weekend’s orchestrated proselytizing are crazy. Parading children out to lecture the adults is creepy and weird. The last ten years has been an endless freak show of degeneracy and depravity. Yet, the public goes along with it. Those who speak out against it are hurled into the void, and the so-called conservatives mutter about hypocrisy, but otherwise, the radical orgy of depravity staggers on undeterred. The nut-job army serves its purpose.