The Irrational Mind

Smart people tend to think smart people are immune from irrational beliefs. The smart scale has belief at one end and rationality at the other. The conceit of smart people is that they populate the rational end, while dumb people are at the other end. This leads to hubris. Smart people often fail to examine their own beliefs, assuming their every utterance is the model of rationality. It also leads to blindly going along with the crackpot ideas popularized by pseudo-intellectual posers adept at playing the role of smart guy.

The fact is, that smart scale is a fiction. Smart people are just as prone to nutty ideas as anyone else. Belief as a stand-alone cognitive trait is largely independent of our ability to work the puzzles of life. History is full of examples. Francis Bacon dabbled in the occult and alchemy. Ben Franklin was a Rosicrucian. J.B.S. Haldane was the father of population genetics and a dedicated communist, then a socialist and at one point a fan of eastern mysticism. The most bloody ideologies were the invention of intelligent men.

Another consequences of thinking belief and rationality are mutually exclusive is the mistake of assuming a rational motive to the crazy actions of smart people. For example, Steve Sailer thinks people like Paige Harden are running a complex ruse when they go out in public and howl from the Progressive catechism. After all, Harden is a smart person who spends all day working tough problems related to human genetic diversity. Sailer jumps to the conclusion that she must be doing this to safeguard her research.

That’s comforting to a smart guy like Sailer as it appeals to his preference for a wheels-within-wheels explanation of the world. The truth is though, smart people are just as prone to group think and crazy talk as everyone else. Read Mx. Harden’s social media feed and you come away with the sense that she is every bit as nutty as the hormonal feminists from the womyn’s studies department. She believes these things, because these are the things her social class now believes. All of her smart friends hate white people too.

That’s the age old error regarding the Left. The default assumption is that they are acting as rational players. If they are rational, yet arriving at insane ideas like communism, egalitarianism and multiculturalism, they must have the wrong facts or a mistake in their reasoning. After all, they are smart people and smart people always seek the factually correct answer. Therefore, the only explanation for their mistake is they lack the facts or have a flaw in their logic. Fix that and the radical will embrace you as a brother.

The bourgeois Marxists of a century ago are now bourgeois anti-whites of today. Read old books from a century ago and it is remarkable to see how many smart people bought into fascism, socialism and communism. The New Deal intellectuals were all fans of European fascism and many were communists. The British ruling class was saturated with various forms of socialist. Today, you cannot be a Cloud Person without embracing some degree of anti-white hatred. It’s what’s come to define the Western ruling elites. It’s their religion.

Of course, most of the bourgeois socialists of a century ago were serious about their radicalism right up until it required sacrifice. It is the old gag about the pig and the chicken discussing breakfast. The pig is committed, while the chicken is merely involved. You see that with the modern anti-whites. They talk like MLK and live like the KKK. You can be sure that Mx.Harden makes sure to avoid the spicier parts of Austin like Montopolis, which is just seven percent white. She appreciates her diversity from a great distance.

Just as pointing out the outlandish contradictions between how bourgeois socialists lived and what they advocated had no effect on them, pointing out Mx. Harden’s hypocrisy is a pointless exercise as well. She’s not motivated in this area by rationality. In fact, she will hate you all the more for having tried to force her to focus on herself.  The whole point of being an anti-white is to hide from her own whiteness. Her belonging to the anti-white anointed is all about self-abnegation. She hates white people because she hates herself.

Modernity is based on the false assumption that man is rational, at least in the general sense. That people wish to be satisfied in their material wants and at peace with their neighbors. The truth is, people are motivated by a quest for grace. Humans want to believe the universe cares for them and it has a purpose for their lives. Therefore they seek out some avenue to reach that state of grace, to give purpose to their lives. Ask Paige Harden about her research, and you will get some statement about social justice.

That’s the key to understanding the current crisis. Our ruling elites believe they are on the side of history, so the results of their actions must be the will of the heavens. They don’t measure the results empirically or think through the consequences. When they see white people complaining about anti-white rhetoric, the anti-whites see this as proof of their righteousness. Marxist said the recalcitrant working classes were suffering from false consciousness. Today’s anti-whites accuse recalcitrant whites of white privilege.

The Power Of Comfortable Beliefs

A frustration of our side is that vast numbers of people, who should be on our side, continue to believe things that are obviously untrue. Everyday, for example, we see new evidence against the alleged benefits of immigration, yet most Americans still worship immigrants like they are magic talismans. Show some principled conservatives, who claim to work from facts and reason, video from a naturalization ceremony, featuring bearded Muslims, and those principles conservatives will burst into celebratory tears.

What makes this even more frustrating is that you could sit down with these same people and explain the facts of immigration and they will nod along in agreement. Then, an hour later they will say something stupid like “we need these workers to do the jobs Americans won’t do!” Generations of propaganda about open borders plays a role, but a bigger part is that it is just easier to stick with the familiar opinions. Once you arrive at an opinion on some subject that seems to work, changing it is hard work for no obvious benefit.

This is not just something that happens with the hoi polloi. The intelligentsia suffers from it more than normal people. Steve Sailer often notes how supposedly smart people in the human sciences fall for old fallacies about genetic group differences. Here’s and example from a while back. Eric Turkheimer is a smart enough guy to know he is wrong, but it is easier to be wrong than re-think his position. There’s also a social benefit to remaining wrong, so he stays in the easy chair of egalitarian ignorance, rather than change.

Greg Cochran puzzles over this stuff in the field of medical reaearch, about which he knows a great deal, because he regularly challenges old truths about the human sciences. His idea that pathogens may be the root cause of things like Alzheimers is a revolutionary idea that is universal rejected by science, despite some promising evidence in the case of Alzheimer’s disease. Cochran remains puzzled by this, but the answer is the same as with group genetic difference. It is is simply easier to believe the old ideas.

There seems to be something baked into the human consciousness that rejects empiricism, even for people in empirical fields. Mystery is more interesting than certainty, superstition is more inspiring than materialism. A famous example of this is how medicine initially responded to the Spanish Flu. Despite germ theory being established science, many doctors still thought the cause was bad miasmas that came from burning human waste in the Midwest. Maybe they just liked wearing those beak masks.

One obvious cause is that when everyone believes something, or people assume everyone believes something, it is assumed to be correct. This is human nature, which is why propaganda is such a big part of our lives. Our rulers flood the zone with one set of opinions, in an effort to drive out all others, so that people will assume everyone accepts the official dogma. It’s why every TV ad features race mixers and a Google image search of white couples returns race mixers. There can be but one opinion, the approved opinion.

There are practical considerations, as well. If you are in politics, there is no upside to pointing out to your liberal colleagues that open borders is suicide. Bernie Sanders is not a bright man, but even he understands the laws of supply and demand apply to labor markets. He will enthusiastically support the Puerto Rican bimbo running on a mix of open borders and universal free stuff. There’s no obvious benefit to Democrats in pointing out that this woman is as dumb as a gold fish, so they nod along with her.

When even people in difficult STEM fields virtue signal on nonsense like racism, there’s more than practical necessity at play. Paige Harden is a smart women working in a field compiling mountains of evidence contradicting the Progressive narrative, but she will stick with the narrative, because everyone she knows believes it. If she gets her way, brown people will be squatting in the burned out husk of her lab, as society will have reverted to that which can be sustained by them. Yet, she preaches in favor of white genocide.

It is an important thing for outsider movements to keep in mind when thinking about how to approach the other side. The normie BoomerCon in the tricorn hat hooting about the constitution is not amenable to facts and reason. He’s in a comfortable place that let’s him feel morally superior to lefty, while embracing Progressive morality. You turn him to the dark side by making that place uncomfortable for him. It’s why mockery and humor are the most powerful weapons of outsider movements. No one feels smug when being mocked.

It’s also why various forms of socialism persist, despite the monstrous failures at implementing them and the mountain of evidence contrary to the theory. The appeal of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is that going along with her is easy and fun. She is being celebrated by the media and all of the beautiful people. She’s like a viral video that everyone feels they need to see. Socialism has always pressed on that nerve, that need to feel like you are being swept along by the tides of history toward the promised land.

Barak Obama was the definition of an empty suit. He managed to make John Forbes Kerry seem complex. Yet, millions of white people showed up to vote, crying as they pulled the lever, believing they were about to experience the rapture. Obama was obviously a feckless ninny, but it was easier to believe he was the messiah, so most people went along with supporting him. It turns out that the most effective movements are the ones that make it easiest for people to accept things that are obviously untrue.

Old TV Shows

I have been working on some projects that have required me to sit in front of the laptop most evenings. My habit when I have to work in the evening has been to watch some television while working. Without a cable subscription, this means watching something off the Kodi or whatever movies are free on Amazon. I saw they had The Sopranos and The Wire on prime, so I decided to binge watch those two series. I watched them when they were on, but it has been ten years so I figured I had forgotten most of it.

I enjoy watching old movies just to see the culture change. Watching a movie from the 1940’s is like watching a foreign film. There are hints at subversion, as the commies were in deep with Hollywood back then, but they had to be very careful, so it is extremely subtle. A degenerate like Gore Vidal could slip some subtle homosexual stuff into the script, but even in the 1960’s, the degenerates had to be careful. They had to fear old weird America, as whites were still in charge and were willing to fight back.

Anyway, I was a little surprised at having the same sort of reaction watching shows that are just ten years old now. I watched The Wire first, as I get asked about it and I forgot most of the story. There were scenes in the show that would be cut out today, for fear the anti-racist lunatics would burn down the studio. A realistic portrayal of black America is no longer permitted, so I wonder if the show would even get made today. Then there would be the demands from the actors to make it even more black or make the whites more evil.

The fact is, the writers highly glamorized the hell out of black crime in Baltimore. There are no savvy and clever black drug dealers. All you have to do is look at the crime reports and it is obvious. Most of the murders in the city are between knuckleheads over petty disputes. The crime is disorganized and random, because the street gangs are just as disorganized and chaotic as everything else in the black community. The truth is, the smart drug distributors stay far away from the street level drug dealing in Baltimore.

Similarly, there are no smart, but corrupt black politicians. There is plenty of corruption, in fact the entire city government is riddle with hacks. It’s just that they are ham-handed about it. The Feds could lock up every elected official tomorrow, but that would be both pointless and politically impossible. Imagine the reaction to seeing black politicians frog marched out of their offices.Watching these parts of the series, I had the same reaction as I do when watching a 1970’s portrayal of black America. It’s all sadly alien.

The Sopranos is a show that certainly would not be made today. There is a part of the story when the main character’s daughter dates a mixed race boy at college. For starters, the kid is half-Jewish and half black, with his mother being black. No way the today’s writers touch a topic like that, unless the mulatto is somehow made into a Wakandian superhero. Then there are the comments from the mafiosi about blacks that no actor would agree to utter on screen. There’s simply no way it could get made today.

That said, I forgot how good the program was for a TV show. I recall that pretentious phonies preferred The Wire at the time, but the truth is, The Sopranos is a vastly better show. The humor is first rate. That’s the thing that struck me. Our current age is dominated by vinegar drinking scolds, so nothing is funny anymore. Humor is dead, because everything Hollywood makes is saturated in multicultural proselytizing. Much of what makes the Sopranos work is it still has plenty of old fashioned jokes about life.

Keep in mind that these shows were made just a decade ago. In the 1980’s, watching shows from the 1970’s meant adjusting to the lower technical standards and clunky sound tracks. Frankly, I find it easier to adjust to black and white movies than the campy soundtracks of the 1970’s, but maybe that’s just me. The point here is that the damn broke in the culture war last decade. The lunatics no longer feel any restraint, so it is endless poz in everything. Someone from the recent past would not recognize us today.

Something I’ve mentioned before, but really came to mind while speed watching these shows is just how much is crap you can skip. I now fast forward through all sex scenes, as they add nothing to the show. Thirty years ago I could understand spicing the show with some smut, but in the world of unlimited porn, there’s no need for it in a regular adult drama. Maybe they put it in there out of habit, like the car chase in every action film or maybe the actors demand it. They are all vulgar degenerates, after all.

Another thing I find myself doing is skipping past the pointless character development stuff that usually makes no sense. Maybe women like learning about the emotional issues of the fifth guy on the crew, but it adds nothing to the story, so I don’t care. In the Sopranos, I skipped most of the scenes featuring the kids. I get that they are a part of how this mob boss is struggling with life, but that can be assumed. I don’t need to spend twenty minutes watching the daughter interact with the mulatto in her college dorm.

Vae Victis

The FTN guys posted a special podcast on the American Revolution and the process that resulted in the Constitution. Instead of reciting the standard mythology about the Founders and their alleged love of liberty, they get into the economic motivations of the men who met in Philadelphia to restructure post-colonial America. They also talk about the men who were excluded, as well as the interests they represented. It’s a well done episode that gets into the forgotten parts of the founding story, as well as the economic motivations.

The basis of their analysis is the historian Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Beard argued that the structure of the Constitution and the process that produced it, was the result of the personal financial interests of the Founders. For example, George Washington had provided significant financing for the revolution, so the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts, worked out pretty well for people like Washington and the other bond holders.

Beard built on earlier Progressive interpretations of American history and can probably be described as a proto-Marxist historian. His analysis of the Founding is that it was first a revolt against the monarchy and then a counter revolution against democracy by the mercantile class located in the cities. It was not just the issue of repaying war debts. The financial class also saw the Articles of Confederation as a hindrance to trade, because there was no central authority to strike trade agreements with foreign governments.

Beard is an interesting guy, who was very popular with the Left into the Cold War, but then fell out of favor in the 1960’s. This seems like an odd thing, given that his reading of American history is based in class conflict. The New Left historians, however, rejected that interpretation in favor of  racial and sexual conflict, which meant abandoning facts and standards in favor of emotion and vengeance. Neo-conservative historians rejected all of that in favor of selling the narrative of Americanism as a vehicle for present policy.

One of Beard’s insights was that the people located in cities not only have a different set of economic interests, but they also have a different relationship with government. In the 19th century, that meant the city dweller was much more receptive to socialism than the citizens in the country. The main reason was that the city dweller gets used to bumping up against government on a daily basis. It feels natural to them. Citizens in the country, particularly in the 19th century, had little contact with the state, so it seemed alien to them.

This suggests something about the nature of socialism, as throughout history urban populations have supported authoritarians, while rural populations have not. In the ancient world, a savvy tyrant like Peisistratus could appeal to the masses of urban poor, to challenge the power of the aristocrats. On the other hand, authoritarian appeals work much better in high density environments. Still, daily familiarity with the power of the state makes people more trusting and comfortable with it. Socialism relies on that trust.

Of course, the defect of class-conflict historiography is that it tries to jam all facts into a model of society. Instead of the theory explaining history, history is used to explain the theory. There’s no question that the men who met in Philadelphia had direct financial interest in the outcome. They were also motivated by all the usual stuff like patriotism, regional loyalty and petty stupidity. That stuff is every bit as interesting as the economics and just as important. In other words, history is both particles and waves.

More important and related to the podcast, is the fact that the people who drive history have personal interests. The men who revolted against the king, did so because they saw an advantage in it. Once they gained control of the country, they were not about to give it away or arrange things to their disadvantage. After all, the whole point of the revolution was to get a better deal. The Articles of Confederation were simply an interregnum, while the new elite figured how they were going to lock in their position after evicting the old elite.

That was the point of the Constitution and the point of all subsequent changes to it, including the Civil War. Similarly, the mythology of the founding, as well as the “second founding” as neoconservative historians call the Civil War, is part of locking in that position via the miracle of propaganda. All of the soupy romanticism of American history is intended to convince the rest of us that the current arrangements are the result of Providence. Political arrangements are not about ideals. they are about power.

This is an important lesson for anyone in dissident politics. The first goal, that which everything bends toward, is to gain power. This is why the New Left has rolled through the culture. They first seized power and then cooked up timeless principles to justify their position. It’s also why the legacy Right’s appeal to principle must be rejected. Limiting your options by self-imposed rules and inviolable principles is a recipe for failure.  The truth of life is that politics is about power. First you seize power and then vae victis.

No Ideas

The other day, I was looking around for ideas and stumbled across this article at the ironically named American Conservative. I mock the name of that site because there’s not much about it that is conservative. Even their anti-war positions are reflexive and not very well thought out. Rod Dreher has been the main guy for a while and he has lurched from one fad to the next, looking for a cult he can join that will give meaning to his life. The new editor appears to be trying to make the site more like other legacy right operations.

That article got my attention, because at the top was this note, “Editor’s Note: This is the first in a collaborative series with the R Street Institute exploring conservative approaches to criminal justice reform.” I had never heard of the R Street Institute. There are so many of these rackets around Washington, it is hard to keep up. I looked up their financial and saw right away that it was the usual cast of subversives. Any operation with David Frum must be working against the interests of white American. That’s axiomatic now.

If you look at the R Street website, they pitch themselves as a generic libertarian sort of operation. The word “free market” has become an abracadabra word to the donor class that subsidize these outfits. It basically means these guys are OK with the cultural strip mining that passes for capitalism these days. Just as over-class jargon about “diversity” always signals a war on white people, the use of “free market” means a war on the middle class by the globalists that see America as nothing more than a pirate’s cove.

Ironically, these R Street guys have landed on prison reform as an issue they will champion as conservative. Anyone over the age of 45 knows that “prison reform” is code for “throw open the prison doors so the blacks can run wild.” There’s never been a prison reform effort with the goal of making the streets safe. Instead, it’s either a libertarian fetish for anarchy and free weed or a Progressive assault on order. The effort to make this a conservative principle is just another example of the death of conservatism.

Now, the Right was always just the dancing partner for American Progressivism. A great way of putting it is from Robert Louis Dabney, “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.” You’ll note that he wrote that over a century ago. What tends to lead people into dissident politics is the realization that the so-called conservatives are just body men for the people they claim to oppose. Their ideas are intended to enhance, rather than reject, the morality of the Left.

The reason the modern Right seems like a barren field with tumbleweed bouncing across it is that their dancing partner is now just a shuffling zombie. The Left has not generated a serious insight about modern society in over a generation. Their last big public policy idea was ObamaCare. Otherwise, it has been a series of bizarre gestures toward increasingly narrow fringe groups. They are the dog that caught the car. The Left has a free hand to do what they please in America and they have no idea what to do.

The result of this lack of ideas is that politics is now just a combination of money grubbing and hysterical public tantrums. The hilariously over-the-top reactions in the media to Trump’s meeting with Putin is a good example. None of these people can tell us why Putin is suddenly the devil. They don’t even try. Instead, they carry on like teenagers in a slasher film. They took turns trying to outdo the previous loon’s contrived outrage. It’s as if they are trying to scream the devil into existence, so they can have a reason to scream.

Much gets written about the impact of cosmopolitan globalism on the middle class and the cultural identity of western nations. It is assumed that the people doing this to us have a purpose, but in reality they are working on inertia. They don’t move forward toward a goal, rather, they just move forward because that’s what they do. The politicians are feckless airheads and their advisers are craven ninnies. Everything is a bust-out now, not because they are crooks, but because they can’t think of another reason to get up in the morning.

That’s the other consequence of cosmopolitan globalism. It hollows out the intellectual elite, just as it kills the middle-class. This was evident a century ago, the last time the world was sure globalism was the cure. The great powers staggered into the abyss, because they lacked the ability to question their own policies. A war that should have never started, went on for years, because both sides kept doing the same things over and over, hoping for a different result. They murdered themselves for lack of a new idea.

Of course, I could have the cause and effect backwards. Maybe the cultural collapse of the West naturally makes one-world utopianism appealing. The Left ran out of ideas fifty years ago and the Right has been on fumes since the 1980’s. Europe has not had a new idea since Marxism. Without a reason to argue and debate, maybe it is natural to assume there is nothing left to debate. All the big problems have been solved and it is time to step into the glorious future. The lack of competition has made our ruling class dull.

To Kill A People

Youth participation in soccer continues to decline, despite the best efforts of the cultural elite to promote it.

Over the past three years, the percentage of 6- to 12-year-olds playing soccer regularly has dropped nearly 14 percent, to 2.3 million players, according to a study by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, which has analyzed youth athletic trends for 40 years. The number of children who touched a soccer ball even once during the year, in organized play or otherwise, also has fallen significantly.

In general, participation in youth sports nationwide has declined in the past decade, as children gravitate to electronic diversions and other distractions.

Yet in recent years, while soccer continued declining, baseball and basketball experienced upticks, buoyed by developmental programs begun by Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association.

This was always predictable, as soccer never had strong appeal. Youth soccer leagues were middle-class suburban creations, designed as safe spaces for white kids. No one says it that way, but that’s the reality of youth soccer in America. As a result, the soccer infrastructure is labor intensive. It requires lots of parents volunteering to make it work. It also requires a lot of cash. Maintaining a segregated anything in modern America is expensive, which is why real estate in a place like San Francisco is so pricey.

In fairness, all sports have seen a decline in youth participation. People like to blame video games and social media, but those are symptoms. Youth sports require a high degree of parental support and involvement. They also require infrastructure. That local ball field exists because the city, town or county makes it a priority. That happens when you have a society of strong families adhering to traditional roles. When those families are not there to volunteer and agitate for youth sports leagues, inevitably those leagues atrophy.

Most people struggle to understand long term trends, so it is not surprising that it is easy to peddle the idea that video games are the cause of this. Parents today see the decline and just assume it is a new thing. The fact is, kids vegetating in front of a video screen is just another symptom of the same main cause. When most kids grew up in normal homes, there was more organic structure to their lives, so they were less likely to indulge in whatever strikes the fancy of a child. There was a parent around to provide guidance.

It is the hidden cost of ripping women from their homes and putting them to work. Those mothers and grandmothers, staying home to raise their kids, provided a hidden infrastructure to American life. In stable, healthy societies, women maintain the social organizations and the social life of the community. When women are working ten hours a day at an office, that social work does not get done, so something fills the void. That has been the sewage of popular culture, along with state provided stand-ins for the parents.

Traditional sex roles also work as a bulwark against mischief. Fifty years ago, even public schools in poor areas could expect plenty of mothers volunteering to help with various school projects. They would also be the main labor pool at the church and other voluntary community organizations. It’s hard to corrupt these organization when mothers and grandmothers, people with skin in the game, are there to make sure those organizations serve their interests. Take away the mothers and the degenerates run wild.

The fact is, if you were looking to exterminate a people, by that I mean destroy their culture and identity, the first thing you would do is put the women to work. It’s not an accident that invaders who kill off the men and marry the women almost always adapt to the culture they conquered. That’s because the culture of a people is their women. Men have a role, but primarily as the guardians of the engine of their culture. Women are the ovens that bake the bread. Take away the oven and there can be no bread.

By ripping women out of their homes and putting them to work like field slaves, modernity has destroyed the natural framework of society. The state has tried to fill the void, which is why per capita, inflation adjusted government spending has quadrupled as women moved from the home to the workplace. All that government supervision of children and maintenance of synthetic community organizations comes with a direct cost, which shows up in paychecks and the cost of goods. It’s one reason the middle class is broke.

On a more esoteric note, what the modern age has been is an elaborate strip mining operation, where the hidden capital is monetized and carried away. Another example is what we see with Amazon destroying retail. The price of cheap stuff delivered to your office is the harvesting of the social value of local business. Instead of Johnny’s Appliance Warehouse sponsoring your kid’s baseball team, it is a government run program paid for by your property taxes. Without local business, there are no local sponsors.

Again, if the point is to kill a people, the first step is to put their women to work, turning them into economic units, like farm animals. From there,. it is easy to strip out the rest of their organic infrastructure that maintains their culture. Before long you have a collection of people with no identity of their own, wholly dependent upon their masters. That’s where we are headed as a society. It’s also why fertility rates are falling in the West. Why would anyone bring a child into the world when life is just pointless work and consumption?

The Great Undoing

One reading of the 20th century is that it was the concluding chapter of the great battle between aristocracy and liberal democracy that began with the English Civil War. The Great War started when the  Austro-Hungarian Empire delivered a set of demands on Serbia, knowing it would provoke a wider war in Europe. At the start of the war, three major European empires governed most of Europe. By the end, all three empires were gone and the victors were the republics, who imposed their political system on the losers.

American involvement in the Great War is usually characterized as the great coming out event for the country. The hesitant Woodrow Wilson, goaded into joining the fight by the bellicose Teddy Roosevelt, moved the country from its traditional isolationist position into a fully engaged world power. That fits the the preferred narrative of our elites, as it makes it sound like they rule the world reluctantly. The Europeans could not manage their affairs, so noble America had to step in, defeat the bad guys and impose order on the West.

Another part of America’s decision to enter the war was the deep hatred Wilson and his advisers had for the European empires. Wilson thought the Kaiser was deeply immoral, but he really hated the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Wilson was influenced by Giuseppe Mazzini, who was a zealous nationalist and republican. He not only rejected the concept of empire, he lived it as an Italian nationalist. Mazzini also rejected materialism and class struggle, which had a natural appeal to the moralizing idealists in charge of America.

The American entry into the Great War, tipped the balance in favor of Britain and France, but it came with a price. Wilson played a prominent role in the post-war diplomacy and that meant the dismembering of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the imposition of draconian punishments on Germany. The fact that Hitler came from Austria suggests history has a sense of humor. The point though is that the extreme expression of liberal democracy conquered and destroyed the last empires of Europe and imposed its will on the West.

This conflict between democracy and monarchy is the launching pad for Hans-Herman Hoppe’s critique of democracy. Hoppe is a libertarian, so his critique is aimed at elevating his preferred social arrangements, which he calls the natural order. As a libertarian, his concern is purely on the material, but others have picked up on the idea and extended it into the cultural realm. Whatever the defects of monarchy, it provides a much more robust cultural framework than democracy, which tends to reward the worst instincts of citizens.

Another angle to this way of thinking of the 20th century is that the West struck a bargain of sorts. In exchange for accepting American imposition of liberal democracy, the West got peace and prosperity. That worked fine as long as the American ruling class accepted the fundamentals of the nation state. That is, a nation was the geographic boundary of a single people, who were ruled by people chosen from their own ranks, by the people themselves. Stable borders and stable cultures defined the modern political entity.

Like doing business with the mafia, accepting the American hegemony meant going along with the rules set by America. That was fine when America was ruled by white men with a strong attachment to the West and Western traditions. That changed toward the end of 20th century as the complexion of the American population slowly changed and the attitudes of the American ruling class began to change. America no longer believes in the nation state and has tried hard impose that belief on the ruling classes of Europe.

Up until the last few years, it appeared that this abandonment of the old order was going to go on without much resistance. But the revolts we are seeing in Europe, with the rise of nationalist parties and growing resistance to immigration, suggests the American hegemony is beginning to unravel. More important, the rise of Trump and his push to make the Europeans stand on their own feet suggests the American retreat is not without some support in the ruling class. The Wilsonian order may finally be about to unravel.

This does not mean we will see the return of monarchy. Hoppe’s critique of democracy has merit, but his error is the same made by the Western ruling class over the last half century. That is, the assumption that political economy is the the horse that pulls the cart of human society. What Muslim immigration is teaching Europe is that biology is what drives society. Get the biology right and you can make any political system work, but the only way social democracy can work is in a homogeneous population.

In a way, the unraveling of the American hegemony is the retreat of the universalism that has always animated American Progressivism. It’s not so much that democracy failed, as Hoppe claims, but that universalism has failed. The reason Europeans have reacted so strongly to a relatively small influx of foreigners, is universalism has never been a part of continental culture. Tossing it off will be much easier for them than for Americans, but the realities of the demographic age will force the issue everywhere. Universalism is dead.

Fighting Back

One of the basic errors the so-called conservatives made when dealing with their Progressive betters is to assume the Left has a rational plan. The Buckleyites always started from the assumption that there was some logical plan behind the liberal schemes, so they spent a lot of time to trying to abductively arrive at the motivation. The Right spent most of their time making well reasoned arguments against what they assumed was the true motivation of the Left. The result was the Left won every battle in the culture war.

This post from an English professor at Emory University about the logical ends of diversity is a rare example of someone noticing the flaw in this approach. He starts by doing what no one on the conventional Right dares, and that is admit defeat.

Conservatives, libertarians, traditionalists, and classical liberals need to get clear on something: the ideological contests are fading. What Irving Kristol famously said in his 2001 Bradley Lecture, “We in America fought a culture war, and we [conservatives] lost,” applies well to higher education. Conservatives fought wars over multiculturalism, Western Civilization, affirmative action, the Academic Bill of Rights, and political bias in hiring, and we lost every time. The educators have no reason to debate ideas, much less ideology. None of those old issues are up for discussion.

(It should be said that Kristol noted that conservatives still had some influence in one theater of American life, religion, but that exemption is irrelevant to the 21st-century campus.)

You can tell ideology is a settled matter by the way in which faculty and administrators handle the core terms—diversity, inclusion. No moral or conceptual examination of those terms ever takes place. Liberals and leftists mouth them without even pondering what they mean save for the simple-minded aspiration of “more women in science” or “more blacks among the leadership.” The only rejoinder conservatives have is, “What about the diversity of thought and opinion?” to which the educators respond, “Oh, yes, that’s good, too,” then proceed on what they were thinking before. When it comes to diversity, everyone’s a bureaucrat.

He then points out the inherent irrationality of the diversity rackets, at least on the college campus.

Now, diversity means just that: getting more underrepresented people in place. That’s all. The campus managers don’t think about what will happen then. Diversity among the personnel—that is, more proportionate representation of all “underserved” identities—is an end in itself. If you asked a dean what diversity is for, what purpose it serves, he wouldn’t have an immediate answer. He spends so much time in a habitat of tautology (“diversity is good for . . . diversity”) that the very question stumps him until he remembers blather from the Old Times about diverse perspectives and educational benefits and repeats it like a ventriloquist’s dummy. But don’t try pressing him on it. He doesn’t want to talk about it. The self-evident good of diversity has long been established, and he clings to it like a Catholic does his rosary.

The professor does not have the courage to point out the obvious. Replacing capable white people in college positions with non-whites, reduces the quality of the staff. It is not so obvious in the humanities or social sciences, where much of the work has been nonsense for a long time. In the STEM fields, it is a recipe for disaster. Any effort to scale up the diversity rackets popular on campus, to society as a whole, is a recipe for rolling back a millennium of human progress. Without white men, there is no modern world.

At the end, the professor suggests an answer whites should use when asked by a white interviewer about diversity. It’s good advice, only if you know going in you will not be selected because you are white. It would be fun to point out to the diversity spewing white person that the best thing they can do for diversity is quit their job. It is, however, an example of that old habit of the Right. The professor thinks such a “gotcha” response will result in the great Progressive awakening, when the blindfold will drop from Lefty’s eyes.

It is why the Left in America went from one victory to the next in the culture war. They never faced an adversary willing to fight them on their own terms. The American Left has always been a spiritual movement. Talking a lefty believer out of their beliefs is as rational as talking a Muslim out of his faith. No one ever argues that the solution to violent Islam is a well reasoned argument with facts and examples. Even the dullest American understands that this is not how religions work. By definition, faith is not about facts.

American Progressivism grew out of the Puritanism associated with the founding stock of New England. Reform movements of the 19th century all had their roots in New England Christianity. Just read the writings of abolitionists and the Christian foundation is plainly obvious. Then in the 20th century, as Norman Podhoretz explained, Jewish intellectuals embraced Progressivism as their religion. The Left lost its Christianity, but it remained a spiritual movement that became more intense, more exotic and esoteric.

It is an important lesson to learn from the failure of the American Right, in their 20th century fight with the Left. They lost because they never understood the enemy. They invested all of their time conjuring an enemy they could beat with facts and reason, while the Left went about destroying the enemies they had in their path. It’s not a mistake that a new alternative can afford to make. You don’t beat a moral order with reason. You defeat it by attacking it on moral grounds, while offering an alternative moral framework.

The Death of Tinker Bell

The Tinker Bell Effect is an expression for when people want something to be true so deeply, they believe it actually exists. This is commonly used in education reform, where the reformers are so sure their blank slate fantasies are true, they convince themselves their reform efforts are having the desired effect. Head Start is a total sham, but proponents pretend it is wildly successful. It’s a step beyond confirmation bias, in that the believer not only sees the desired result, they make it a core assumption and act on it.

This has been the condition of the America Left since the election. What we call Progressivism has curdled into a feminist cult. Maybe it was always thus, but not always obvious, and the election made it plain. Maybe the election was a triggering event. Either way, the Left is now just angry women who can’t get past the fact Hillary Clinton lost the election. To cope with this, they have concocted a number of fantasies about why it happened. The most obvious one involves Boris and Natasha colluding with Trump.

To most people, the Russian collusion thing has always been absurd, but to the hardcore Hillary supporters, it is an article of faith. The political Left may have piped down about it, but their supporters have never stopped believing that Trump won the election because of nefarious forces out of Moscow rigging the election. For the last 18 months, the Left has been operating on the assumption that this is true and it will be revealed any day. In other words, they have been operating as if the removal of Trump is a forgone conclusion.

Another example of the Tinker Bell Effect is with immigration. The Left has been swallowing the multiculturalism pills for so long, they can’t imagine an alternative view is possible. They as so sure about what happens when bad whites are swamped by noble browns, they have started to assume that it has already happened. As a result, they ran an explicitly anti-white campaign in 2016. They even had the so-called conservatives convinced of this, which is why they have yet to get past their hatred of Trump.

This fantasy has been so powerful, than even some people on our side are sure we are following the path of South Africa. In other words, they have blown past the Argentina or Brazil models and gone straight to white genocide being the future. That’s why they cannot see how Texas is much less likely to become California, despite the demographics. They believe in the vision of white dispossession so strongly, so emotionally, that any facts or arguments to the contrary are treated as insults. This is the reverse Tinker Bell Effect.

Another group still clapping their hands, yelling “we believe!” are the libertarians. They are so sure that Trump prudent economic policies with regards to trade are going to usher in the end times, Goth Fonzi has started to stock up on canned goods. Reason Magazine has at least one post a week working from the assumption that economic devastation is spreading across the country. This one is the latest. Amusingly, they now pretend that Trump voters are locked into some sort of cult, where reality is replaced with fantasy.

Libertarianism, like Progressivism, has always been a cult, so it is not surprising that libertarians are prone to magical thinking. It’s a requirement of cults to hold a set of beliefs that are at odds with reality. This way, the adherent invests their energy into believing and helping their coreligionist believe. It’s why there are no cults built around observable reality. Even so, libertarians are so sure Trump’s policies are going to usher in the end times, they are convinced that displaced Okies are now trundling cross America.

In fairness, it is not unreasonable to think that liberal democracy must rely on the Tinker Bell Effect. Much of the voluntary conduct of American citizens is based on the belief in things like equality before the law and the rightness of our economic model. If people stopped believing in this stuff, they would act differently. Most Americans believe our society is morally good, something to sacrifice for, so lots of people sacrifice to keep the current regime in place. Look at how many young men join the Army each year.

Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it. Patriotism has started to slip, as the younger generation, facing the mess their parents created for them, comes to terms with that reality. Boomers had a great ride in a great country, so they will remain patriotic and optimist. In fact, the rise of national populism and the nascent white identity is driven by the death of Tinker Bell. The younger generation simply does not believe the things the older generation believed and still believes about America.

The interesting thing to watch for is what happens to the feminist scolds when Tinker Bell dies for them. The end of the Mueller probe is coming sooner rather than later. Trump is not going to be impeached and he will most likely win in 2020. Similarly, the great brown future is not just around the corner, so the Left will be confronted with demographic reality at the voting booth. Belief is powerful stuff, but so is disconfirmation. One of the most emotional parts of Peter Pan is the death of Tinker Bell. There’s a reason for that.

No Easy Answers

It is natural for people to embrace simple answers to complicated problems, even when it is obvious that those simple answers have no chance for success. One reason is complicated solutions imply a lot of hard work. Most people would prefer as little struggle as possible, so the option that offers the least amount of effort is always going to have the most appeal. Then there is the fact that hard solution mean hard problems, problems that change things. People don’t like change, so they avoid facing reality as much as they can.

This is the heart of the current crisis. White people in America are faced with a set of facts that are immutable. Demographics is a straight forward issue. As of 2011, about 60% of the population was non-Hispanic white. The percentage of the minor population that is non-Hispanic white fell below 50% for the first time. Given current immigration and fertility numbers, America will be a majority-minority country within a generation. The crisis of our age is not just how we respond to this reality, but how we come to accept it.

The civic nationalists will move heaven and earth in order to avoid facing demographic reality. In fact, they do everything they can to avoid thinking about it. The results of the NY-14 election are a great example. The civic nationalists latched onto the socialist angle, with the desperation of a drowning man. The fact that the district is over 60% Hispanic was lost on them. Even when presented with the facts, they preferred to prattle on about “muh socialism.” The simple answer asks the least of them, so they go with that.

On the other hand, we have the recently red-pilled. Like ex-smokers, they demand action now, believing all they have to do is explain what they have just learned to everyone else, and public opinion will turn on a dime. Paul Nehlen and Patrick Little are good examples of how this works. They read Culture of Critique, had a revelation and then found the nearest street corner on which they could preach the gospel. All of their efforts were based on the belief that the solution was simple. Just red-pill everyone and the problem is solved.

Of course, the very act of running for office is a denial of reality. It assumes the system is fine, but the people are defective. This has been the guiding star of conservatives for three generations. The simple solution to the culture war is to get the “right people” in office and they will solve the problem. The fact that this has proven impossible, and that the system has led us to this point, is never considered. The possibility that liberal democracy inevitably leads to cultural suicide is unpleasant, so even the red-pilled look the other way.

It used to be a popular line on social media to comment about something being the reddest of red pills. The JQ’ers loved using that line to pose as the most “woke” people in the movement. The truth is, the reddest of red pills is accepting that there is nothing to be done, with regards to our demographic destiny. The die is cast. Barring genocide or some weird plague, the land currently called America will be majority-minority. We can seal the borders tomorrow and the facts will not change. There’s no answer to that problem.

Further, liberal democracy assumes things about the citizenry that cannot be true in a majority-minority nation. The Founders saw this from the start and worried about factionalism ripping their new creation apart. Even in a completely white, English speaking country like early America, there was lots of diversity. People putting loyalty to their tribe ahead of loyalty to their nation was a legitimate concern. The American Civil War was not fought along regional and cultural lines by accident. It was tribal warfare.

The fact is, another bit of that dreaded demographic reality is that what comes next cannot include the current system of governance. In a multicultural society, everyone’s primary loyalty is to their group. Liberal democracy assumes people are loyal to their narrow economic interests. The black guy will vote for what works for him, not for what blacks ad a whole think is in their interest. In an all-white society, this works as whites are the least tribal humans. In a majority-minority society, this cannot possible work.

What comes next for us is what we see in the Middle East. In every country, one group dominates the rest, imposing their idea of order on the society. Saddam controlled Iraq for his people. The Persians run Iran. The Muslims run Lebanon, where every hill and valley may as well be its own country. The rule in multi-cultural, multi-tribal societies, is that one tribe rules the rest. That’s our future. The question is which groups will come to dominate the rest and what sort of system will they impose in order to remain in charge.