Anarcho-Mendacity

It used to be that conservatives held one piece of high ground in the long running intellectual civil war in the West, that began in the Enlightenment. Conservatives, for all their faults, maintained that the ruling elite of any society had a duty to safeguard the interests of the people. That was the check against social experimentation and the wholesale overturning of traditional institutions. The interests of the people demanded prudence and a deference to the people’s traditional ways of living.

Looking back at the intellectual battles in the West, since the Enlightenment, the one thing the sides were forced to agree upon was that the duty of the state, the ruling class and social reformers, was to safeguard the interest of the people. After all, what would be the point of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, if it immiserated the proletariat? It was not just a material argument either. Much the critique of communism from the Right was on aesthetic grounds. Communism was the triumph of the ugly and vulgar.

That’s probably why libertarianism was always on the sidelines, more of a commentary than a serious political philosophy. That is the correct way to view libertarianism. It was a set of running commentaries on the great works of political economy produced by socialists, communists and Marxists. Frédéric Bastiat does not make a lot of sense in isolation. His significance is only in contrast to 19th century industrial socialism and the reaction to it from the Right. Libertarianism is the peanut gallery of the Enlightenment.

It’s why, in the fullness of time, the story of the collapse of mainstream conservatism will include a chapter on the error of fusionism. By grafting onto the Right, libertarian arguments about economics and individual liberty, the Right invited a cancer that gnawed away at its legitimate claims to proper elitism and traditionalism. In other words, they forfeited the one piece of high ground they held. You see this in the debates over immigration. The so-called conservatives no longer have the tools to argue the issue.

This piece at Reason Magazine is a good way of understanding the problem. Nick Gillespie is not a serious person, but he is one of the leading voices of American libertarianism. He is embraced by the so-called conservatives a fellow traveler, even if they have minor quibbles. His response to the immigration debate is a dog’s breakfast of mendacity and incoherence. The most charitable way to view his article is that he has never bothered to examine the issue, so he is pulling this out of his ear.

Of course, this is mostly true. Libertarians have not spent a lot of time thinking about immigration and that’s because they long ago embraced the materialist view of humanity that animated left-wing ideologies since Marx. From the perspective of modern libertarians, people are just interchangeable meat sticks with no intrinsic value. The measure of a man is his economic utility. A factory worker from Bangladesh is no more or less useful than one from Bangor Maine. Whittaker Chambers was right about them.

It is when they are forced to address an issue like immigration that something else is revealed about libertarians. They are not honest. That which contradicts the faith is denounced or discarded, Gillespie’s first point is an example of this. It used to be a article of faith that the laws of supply and demand apply to everything, including labor. Therefore, the only reason business would want foreign labor is that it is cheaper. The reason they like illegal foreign labor is that it is even cheaper than legal foreign labor.

The innumeracy is one thing, but Gillespie is also conjuring a straw man. Yes, wages are one element, but no one makes that the focus of their brief against open borders. He also relies on two logical fallacies that gets a college sophomore flunked out of class. “Virtually all economists, regardless of ideology, agree that immigrants, both legal and illegal, have little to no effect on overall wages” is not an argument. It is a recitation of a spurious Progressive talking point that has shot down many times.

The mendacity is on full display when Gillespie addresses the rule of law. The very core of the libertarian critique of socialism is that it does not abide by the orderly administration of the law. Socialism is an ends justifies the means philosophy, so it cannot, by definition, respect the law. It is why flouting the law can never be tolerated. If a law is found to be unjust or improper, then there is an orderly way correct the error, a lawful way to address the natural mistakes that arise in any social organization.

Gillespie’s argument, with regards to illegal immigration is an embrace of anarchy. In this case, he thinks the immigration system is inefficient or incompetent, so that justifies the wholesale abrogation of the law. No reasonable person would argue the immigration system is logical or coherent. That’s the reason for this reform effort that is at the heart of the national populism. By cavalierly rejecting efforts to reform the law, embracing a form of deliberate chaos, Gillespie reveals libertarianism to be nothing more than anarchism.

This gets back to the original point. The legitimacy of any ruling class lies in its execution of its duty to its people. A monarch loses his crown, and maybe his head, when it becomes clear that he is serving a narrow interest over the general good. The current managerial class is losing its legitimacy as it becomes clear that it not longer sees itself as having a duty to the people. A stable society is one that embraces a bi-directional hierarchy of duties. There’s no place for selfish, materialistic creeds like libertarianism.

This is something the alt-right gets that no one bothers to notice. They often talk about this duty that a people have to one another and their posterity. It’s something that the Founders understood, which is why they wrote this in the preamble of the US Constitution. This is why so many of the alt-right started out in libertarianism. They learned all this stuff about the Founding and natural rights, then figured out that modern libertarians really don’t believe it. It was just a sales pitch to move product. That’s why we have an alt-right.

Political Violence

Why is George Soros still alive?

For most of human history, a person who caused trouble for rulers found himself either on the run or on a pike. A earl or prince that made trouble for the king was dragged before the king, humiliated and then hanged. If he fought back, then the king sacked his lands, killed his family and made an even bigger spectacle of killing the the troublemaker. After all, the point of political power is to reward your allies and punish your enemies. Yet, George Soros, an international troublemaker, is free to make trouble wherever he likes.

The obvious reply to that is civilized nations no longer rely on political assassinations to handle their business. Political leaders have a self interest in discouraging the practice of killing heads of state. If ruler X has ruler Y killed, because it advantages him, the other rulers have no choice but to band together and kill ruler X. Otherwise, it is a lawless world of all against all. President Gerald Ford issued an executive order in 1976 prohibiting US intelligence services from conducting political assassinations for this reason.

That makes sense with legitimate political leaders, but George Soros is a rootless grifter, who has no allegiance to any government. Killing him would be no different than droning a terrorist. Some argue that international law prohibits targeted assassinations, but international law is mostly meaningless. The Israelis have been using targeted assassination against whoever they like for a long time, including the murder of Canadian engineer Gerald Bull. The US has droned more Arabs than we can count.

The most likely answer is that George Soros is not seen as anything more than a nuisance and only to certain members of the political class. He may be a billionaire, but he has no armies and he has no real reach. He’s smart enough to know that, so he makes sure to keep on good terms with the right people. It’s fair to assume that he is a master at not pissing off the wrong people. The proof of that is he has not suffered from whatever the Europeans call Arkancide. Still, no one stays lucky forever, yet Soros still lives.

It’s not just Soros. What we don’t see in the current age is any political assassinations in the West. For that matter, there are no attempts to take out an important person. The last such example in America was Patty Hearst and there is some question as to the reality of her kidnapping. Maybe there have been some recent cases of rich people targeted in Europe for political reasons, but none spring to mind. You would think with all the Muslim fanatics lurking around that some of them would decide to target a rich person.

It’s a strange thing that makes even less sense when you consider the realities of the modern age. In the 1970’s, someone like Squeaky Fromme taking a shot at Ford had a certain logic to it. Today, killing the president does not make a lot of sense. Sure, Trump is a critical component of the current fight, but generally the head of state is nothing but the part of the iceberg we see. The real political power is the cabal of rich people under the waterline, controlling things out of site of the public. Regicide has no value these days.

On the other hand, blowing up a few important political influencers in the Imperial Capital would have an enormous impact. Imagine back in the Bush years if opponents of the war, started targeting neocons. Alternatively, think about the impact it would have if Muslim terrorists blew up Mark Zuckerberg. Sure, taking down an airliner is a big show, but it is really hard. Killing some billionaires is a lot easier and the impact is much more significant, assuming you kill the right billionaires. It never happens though.

Of course, we could be in a transition period as the world of political violence adjusts to the changing nature of politics. Thirty years ago it made a lot of sense for political terrorists to attack civilian targets. The IRA and the Basques separatists lacked the capacity to take on the state, so they attacked the people in effort to put pressure on the state. Today, the state is not the only player and not the most important player in most of the world. Maybe political actors have not yet internalized the new global order.

The decline in political violence in the West sounds like a good thing. Most people would prefer it if car bombs are not going off in their cities. Even if heads of state are off limits, killing important political figures is destabilizing. The rise of a global order not only reduced the need for violence between countries. It may have reduced the need for violence within countries, as the political factions merged into a unified managerial ruling class. Rule by hyper-educated bureaucrat means disputes are handled over cappuccinos.

This may not be a good thing. For all of human history, power brought risk. The higher someone climbed the hierarchy, the greater their responsibilities and the greater their personal risk. The very real threat of personal violence had a tempering effect. Today, people in the managerial elite don’t have to worried about getting fired, much less assassinated. They occupy a world where no one is ever held accountable for their actions. As a result, they have become dangerously cavalier about their duties.

In fact, the main feature of the on-going domestic espionage scandal of the last administration is the brazen and reckless way the players went about it. High moral character is what leads good men do the right thing when no one is looking. Fear of the hangman is what leads lesser men do the right thing when no one is looking. In the political game, personal risk has always been what weeds the reckless and dangerous from the game. That’s been removed so our political class is full of reckless and stupid people.

Nature has a way of correcting itself. If a species evolves down a dead end, something else evolves to replace it. Maybe what comes next is a new brand of political violence that meets the needs of the managerial state. Instead of people shooting political players, managerial class types will get snuffed out when going for their mocha latte. The assassination of Seth Rich could turn out to be the model. Maybe what will evolve to provide vigor and discipline to the managerial state is a grad school version of Arkancide.

The Fate of the NeoCons

The term “neocon” has been a fixture of political debates in America for the last 40 years, being both an epithet, sobriquet and honorific. In the 80’s, a white person in the commentariat using the term was doing so as a stand in for “hawkish liberal Jews” and he would most likely be called an anti-Semite. It became very important to neocons for people not to notice they were all liberal Jews. After the Cold War, Progressives started attacking the neocons, so the squealing about antisemitism lost its potency.

The truth is, the original neocons were never conservative. Many were Trotskyists, but most were just very liberal Jews who wanted to use up America’s wealth to fight their ancient enemy, the Russian empire. Otherwise, they embraced the cosmopolitan Progressivism emerging on the Left. Probably the most generous description of neoconservatives was that they were anti-communists, who integrated into traditional conservatism in the effort to prosecute the Cold War. That was the spin, at least.

The years since the end of the Cold War has revealed them to be something else. The berserk, preternatural hatred of Russia is now a major component of neocon arguments, which is why they never shut up about Putin. After the Cold War, neocons opposed efforts to integrate Russia into the modern global economy and they have advocated in favor a hostile foreign policy toward Russia. They backed intervention in South Ossetia and they were behind the coup in Ukraine that has plunged the country into chaos.

Neoconservatism has also curdled into a bizarre hatred of Trump, with many neocons indulging in the most bizarre conspiracy theories. The people defending the FBI in conservative publications are all neocons. Here’s Ben Shapiro defending the FBI. Here’s Jonah Goldberg defending the the coup plotters. Of course, the chief nutter of the NeverTrump club is Bill Kristol, whose son-in-law bought dirt on Trump from the now infamous Democrat dirty tricks operation, FusionGPS.

In the interest of accuracy, a major cause of neocon hatred of Trump is money. For eight years these guys were rubbing their hands together thinking about the great jobs they would land in the Jeb Bush administration. Jonah Goldberg’s old lady spent 2015 shopping for outfits, anticipating a six figure job in the next Republican administration. When you add up the book deals, salary, speaking gigs and insider dealing, Trump was a million dollar catastrophe for each of the leading lights of neoconservatism. Of course they’re mad.

That can explain some of the bitterness over Trump, but none of these guys are skipping any meals. John “Thanks Dad” Podhoretz takes $400,000 a  year in salary just from his limited work at Commentary. Goldberg lives in a seven figure home in one of the most elite suburbs on earth. Max Boot just signed on with the Washington Post, where he probably makes $250,000 per year to write a weekly column. All of these guys were born into the world of “high pay, but low work” lifestyles that define the commentariat.

What really vexes them, is the the fact they can no longer hide in the weeds of Buckley Conservatism. They used to be able to pass themselves off as conventional conservatives, who just had an active interest in foreign policy. Now, it is eminently clear that there is nothing conservative about them in the least. Whatever hand waving they offer in favor of traditionalism and normalcy, is always in the form of “Of course we should defend X, but let’s not waste political capital on that when we should be doing…”

Reverting to their liberal roots is one thing, but it is hard to see what is American about them, given their advocacy against Americans. When a central plank of your philosophy is that native stock Americans need to be replaced, you’re un-American. Steve Sailer once described neoconservatism as “invade the world, invite the world” and it was an excellent observation. The growing recognition of this truth, seems to be turning neocons in to outright, anti-white bigots. They despise you for noticing what’s happening to you.

You see it in this Jonah Goldberg column the other day. The debate over immigration has made plain to white voters that the divide in Washington is between those celebrating the “browning of America” and those who oppose it. The Trump Effect is making that increasingly clear to voters. The people opposing Team Brown, want to preserve their communities and their culture. There is nothing more conservative than that, but the neocons have now taken to calling this a cult, an obvious reference to you know who.

Neoconservatism has come a long way from when Irving Kristol wrote “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative'” in 1979. The world has changed since the concepts that came to define neoconservatism were developed. Of course, all of the guys who founded it are dead. The people leading the movement today are mostly the ne’er do well sons of the founding generation of thinkers. The “Thanks Dad Chorus” that is modern neoconservatism is a very good example of reversion to the mean.

Of course, what Eric Hoffer observed about causes is true of the neocons. “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” In fact, this is true of the entire ecosystem that is mainstream conservatism. The Buckley crowd are just squeezing out every last dime from National Review, trading on nostalgia to fleece Baby Boomers of donations. Commentary Magazine has a dwindling readership of septuagenarians worried that Hitler really did not die in that bunker.

Even so, Jews in America have faced little in the way of Antisemitism. That’s something white Americans have always celebrated. So much so that no one thought much of the emergence of Jewish triumphalism in the last decades. If that triumphalism curdles into anti-white ethnocentrism, then that could change. When you see a guy like Jonah Goldberg appropriating the title of James Burnham book for his next screed against white people, you have to suspect this is all going to end poorly.

Something’s Happening Here

True believers are incapable of accepting disconfirmation. The reason for this is their individual identity becomes so entangled in the cause, that anything contradicting the cause is viewed as a personal assault. That’s why Progressives react to contacts with reality as if they have been violently assaulted. For them, there is no line separating themselves and the cause. An assault on the cause, even just contrary facts, is felt like a kick to the groin. It’s why Progressive women equate free speech with violence.

There’s another product of this and that’s the inability to adapt to political reality. They set off on a course, with a pleasing narrative in their head, and stick with it no matter what happens. This delusional determination is why the Left keeps at their pet causes with a great deal of success, but it is also why they eventually burn themselves out in an orgy of recrimination. They can’t let go of the dream, even when the cause is lost, so they look for people to blame. You see that in this Atlantic piece.

Remember “this is not normal?”

A year ago, it was the motto of the self-styled “Resistance”—the coalition of liberals, Democrats, and a few wayward conservatives who were implacably opposed to the Trump administration. The endless refrain represented the refusal to countenance Trump as an ordinary political actor. Doing so, they feared, would eventually lead to the acceptance of racism, xenophobia, corruption, and authoritarianism as a regular and unremarkable feature of politics and society.

People articulating  such views were easy to find—online, on the front pages, and on the streets. The day after President Trump’s inauguration, the Women’s March turned into one of the largest nationwide demonstrations in American history. A week later, tens of thousands of people turned up at airports to oppose and obstruct Trump’s Muslim ban. By harnessing this unqualified opposition, Democrats were able to score shocking political and policy victories: stealing a Senate seat in Alabama, saving Obamacare, winning deep-red districts in state races, and coming close to taking the Virginia House of Delegates in the face of heavy gerrymandering.
And yet, today, in the highest circles of Democratic party politics, resistance is waning. “This is normal enough,” many key Democrats seem to be saying. When Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote in advance of Trump’s State of the Union several weeks ago, he focused on finding ways to “work with” the president, such as infrastructure.

The lunatics are sure they are winning. It is written in the prophecies. How can their elected leaders not see this? Why are they quitting just when victory is at hand? Of course, that’s not reality, but reality is far too unpleasant to accept, so they are re-imagining the present in order to hold onto the dream. The Democrat leaders, especially Chuck Schumer, they know what’s happening. Thanks to Trump’s political maneuvering, white voters now see the Democrats as the Brown Party.

The outcome of any final immigration deal is unknown, in part because Democrats voluntarily relinquished much of their leverage by striking a bargain on the budget. But there can be little doubt that many in the party were prepared to make serious—and politically unpopular—policy concessions to Trump. At one point, that reportedly included funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border (opposed by 60 percent of Americans). As it stands, Democrats in both houses appear to be on the brink of dropping demands to protect the “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children (protections that are supported by 74 percent of Americans). “He’s not asking for the kind of money that would build a wall sea to shining sea,” reasoned Missouri’s Claire McCaskill. “He’s asking for the kind of money that can say he built a wall.”

The reality is the Democrats got a better deal from the seditious Mitch McConnell than they were ever going to get from Trump, so they cut a deal with the treacherous wing of the GOP. That was smart politics, even if the lunatics in the Democrat Party refuse to accept it. As it stands, spending for the wall is now off the table for two years and there is no reason for the cucks to bring immigration issues to a vote. Basically, the cucks are doing the heavy lifting for Team Brown to undermine the patriots.

That’s depressing, but the good news here is that Chuck Schumer suddenly realized that the whites are waking up to what’s happening and they are prepared to act accordingly. That means the midterms could very well be a referendum on Team Brown’s plan to turn America into Brazil. More important, Trump seems to have figured this out too and he is now talking about making the midterm a referendum on immigration. That’s a huge change in the political culture. It speaks to just how fast things have changed in the last year.

The better news is the mouth breathers of the “resistance” movement have decided to go full jihad over immigration. They see their leaders as insufficiently enthusiastic for the great brown future. They will want to make the midterms about immigration and send a message to their leaders. For decades, immigration patriots like John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow labored just to get politicians to mention immigration. Now we appear to be heading a big political fight about serious immigration reform.

It’s just a symbolic fight. Chad and Stacy are now talking about chain migration and wondering if it makes sense to be importing Somalis into Minnesota. Up until recent, most Americans have known nothing of visa lotteries, chain migration and visa abuse. Now the granular details of the issue are circulating in polite company. People are waking up to the fact that the nice Hindu at the 7-11, also means a village of his kinsmen settling in your town, going on welfare and turning your town into a squalid mess.

It’s a long war, but Team White has gained some ground on Team Brown.

Do We Have A Brutus?

For most people, the name “Brutus” brings to mind the Roman politician, who took a leading role in the assassination of Julius Caesar. Because the winners write the history books, he is also remembered as a villain, the guy who murdered the great man and sent the Roman Republic careening toward authoritarian rule. That’s probably not fair to Brutus or the other members of the Optimate faction. Julius Caesar was no friend of the Republic, despite being the leader of the Populis faction, but that’s how it goes with history.

There is another Brutus, one who is relevant to our age. Lucius Junius Brutus is remembered as the founder of the Roman Republic. Until the fifth century BC, Rome was ruled by a series of kings. According to Livy, The son of Tarquinius Superbus raped a noblewoman named Lucretia, who was a relation to Brutus. There was already great discontent with the behavior of the king and Brutus had many other grievances, but this was the tipping point. Brutus led the revolt against the king and established the Republic.

The story itself is worth relating. After she had been raped, Lucretia summoned Brutus, her father, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus and Publius Valerius Poplicola, whose name the Founders would use when promoting the Constitution. After she told them what had happened and how she had been dishonored, she committed suicide by stabbing herself with a dagger. Brutus pulled the dagger from her chest, held it up and immediately shouted for the overthrow of the Tarquins. The revolution started at that moment.

Hidden in that story, which is most likely apocryphal, is the logic of republican virtue and republican morality. Free men fight and die for their honor, for their liberty and for their posterity. It is a form of rule based on a set of ideals, rather than a practical arrangement among men. A king is a pragmatic compromise that works now. A dictatorial committee is just the best way to establish order in the moment. A republic assumes men are not angels, but it assumes each generation will generate enough virtuous men to maintain it.

Our first Brutus is remember as an example of that republican virtue, not because he established it, but because he sacrificed for it. Brutus became the first consul of Rome. During his consulship the royal family tried to subvert the republic in order to regain the throne. This is remembered as the Tarquinian conspiracy. Among the conspirators were two of Brutus’ sons, who were sentenced to death. Brutus gained great respect among his peers for stoically watching as the sentence was carried out.

We are a long way from those times, but we have similar challenges. The emerging conspiracy among career political appointees and intelligence officials, a conspiracy to overthrow the orderly functioning of the republic, is not a lot different from what the Romans faced 25 centuries ago. It’s not very different from what faced them five centuries after the founding of the Republic. In the former case, a Brutus was able to rise to the challenge. In the latter, another Brutus was not able to answer the call.

In the current crisis, there are some similarities to both events. Those plotting against republican order are doing so claiming Trump is an authoritarian. They see his very existence as proof of some hidden conspiracy to overthrow democracy and install Trump as the 12th invisible Hitler, returned to usher in the Fourth Reich. That sounds ridiculous, but not unlike the plotters against Caesar, the people scheming to get Trump, justify their actions, not on merit, but against what they imagine Trump is secretly plotting.

Those defending the plotters believe it too. Like the conspirators, they have no choice but to believe it. They are calling the release of the memo a constitutional crisis, implying a grab for power by Trump. They have to go down this path, turning everything on its head, otherwise they are the villains. They need to see themselves as the white hats and they need the public to see them as that too. The men who assassinated Julius Caesar justified murder, by imagining themselves as the defenders of Rome for the same reason.

On the other hand, we have Trump, maybe the last man in the Imperial Capital, who still believes in the old ideal of America. Trump is a true civic nationalist. He is the first president in many generations to truly sacrifice in order to serve in office. He’s a man of old weird America. He even sounds like where he comes from, which is no longer typical of a member of the political class. He came into office believing that his victory would be enough to convince the political class to go along with his reform program.

On the other other hand, Trump is the guy tasked by history to impose order on a chaotic American political world. Much in the same way Julius Caesar was faced with a choice between obeying the rules and permitting chaos, Trump is faced with the choice of letting things go on as usual or imposing the rule of law. If he yields to the will of the Senate, so to speak, he risks undermining the constitutional order. If he goes against the political class and business as usual, he risks war with the old guard and all that comes with it.

Trump is both the tribune of the people and the defender of the prevailing order. He is in a strange position, in that he is pushing for the sorts of reforms popular with the Populis faction and tasked with defending the order that makes it possible for the Optimate faction to exist. He is Lucius Junius Brutus, overthrowing the current order, but he is also Marcus Junius Brutus, motivated by a desire to defend the old order. It’s like the confluence of two rivers of Western history. Time will tell if we have the Brutus to save the republic.

Open Thread: The Memo

I never do open threads, but this seems like a good time to try it.

I think this is just the start. Wait until the bank records of FusionGPS come out. Then we see who was paying them and the list of reporters being paid by them. I’m also sure McCabe is a bitter man right now, thinking long and hard about throwing everyone under the bus. He’s no hero and he is no G. Gordon Liddy. Rod Rosenstein should think about hiring a lawyer now. No way he can hide is role in this anymore.

The un-Americans

One of the things that has always been true about America is that you never question someone’s patriotism unless you have very strong evidence. Part of this is due to the immigrant back story of most Americans, but a bigger part is the fragmented nature of the country. Patriotism is the glue that holds the American Nations together. Different groups from different regions stick together because of a common national creed. This also works across class lines. The rich, the middle and the poor are equally patriotic.

One result of this has been a desire by leaders to not look like fops. Politicians, business men, even generals, have always done the every-man act in order to seem like one of the folks.We don’t have a hereditary class, but we do have rich people. Rather than a rigid class system, the rich make sure to let the lower classes know they have the same duty to the country as everyone else. This soul and soil nationalism, rather than blood and soil, is what binds the social classes and the regional cultures together. At least it used too.

That’s certainly not the way things are now. Our cultural and political leaders go out of their way to signal their hostility to the lower classes. In fact, it has become so common for our betters to sneer at us, they are competing with one another to prove just how much they hate Americans. Of course, they mean white Americans. The swarthy recent imports are the best, but the old stock, well, they are the worst, according to the people claiming to represent us. It really is remarkable just how much they detest us.

A commenter on Steve Sailer’s blog asked, in response to this David Brooks column“Has there ever been another time in American history when American elites felt this comfortable expressing such open contempt and hatred for their fellow citizens?” It is a good question. Certainly elites from some sections have hated the people of other sections. Virginia gentry, prior to the Civil War, thought the goobers from West Virginia were worst than Indians. New Englanders hate the South. Everyone hates Cleveland.

What we’re seeing today is different. It is a public hatred directed at the fundamental nature of America, and by extension, Americans. Here’s an example from Bill Kristol in response to an immigration segment on Fox News. What Kristol is arguing is that Americans, as in current citizens, have no right to discuss immigration policy. It is immoral for us to say anything about it. On the other hand, non-Americans, people not currently citizens, have a moral duty to cross the border and settle in your neighborhood.

Kristol is hardly alone. It is not strictly a Jewish thing either. Lyndsey Graham is not Jewish, as far as anyone knows. He no longer thinks America should exist. He denies that the current citizens have any right to exist whatsoever. Granted, he is a shrieking hysteric, prone to hyperbole, but there’s only one way to interpret what he is saying. Being an American is no longer permissible. In fact, the underlying rationale of the open borders side is that the current Americans are just no good and need to be replaced.

Now, this turn in elite opinion has been a long time coming. In the Clinton years, suddenly comfortable Boomers started buying McMansions and pretending they were too good for the hoi polloi in flyover country. Progressive politics moved away from the bread and butter economic issues and onto esoteric identity politics. This snottiness was most apparent when the Left went to war on WalMart. Once Progressives stopped pretending to like normal Americans, the so-called Conservatives joined them.

Elites have always had a disdain for the lower classes. This has been true at all times and all places. Elites have also always had a duty to look out for the interests of the lower classes. The ruling class may not have liked the people over whom they ruled, but they were duty bound to look out for them and keep their opinions to themselves. What’s happening in modern America is the ruling class is rejecting their duty to their fellow citizen, because they have contempt for the very notion that we are their fellow citizens.

There really is no example from history where the ruling class revolted and declared war on its subjects. That’s where we are today in America. When Trump gave his State of the Union, most of the people in the building hated him because he holds onto the old fashioned belief that the American government should serve the American people. As far as they are concerned, he’s not just a class traitor, he is insane. After all, why would anyone think the people in charge have any responsibility to the rabble?

It used to be that “un-American” meant counter to the American system and the American creed.The people charged with policing that were the people in charge. Today, being un-American is a badge of honor for the people in charge. A US Congressman actually fled the building when the crowd started in with a patriotic chant during Trump’s address to Congress. You can be sure he was the toast of the city, a hero to his coevals in the political class. Bizarre as it sounds, America is a country now ruled by un-Americans.

Somewhere To Run

One of the themes of this post at American Renaissance last week, was that there is no where for the race aware white person to go in America. The war on whiteness is happening at every point on the social structure and in every town in the country, even the rural areas where whites dominate. Wherever white people congregate, a cosmopolitan wrecker will be there to try and brown the place. Therefore, there is no running away from the slow moving white genocide being perpetrated on us by our rulers.

The generally accepted view of this process is it will play out in one of two ways. One version has Team Brown, which is the coalition of blacks, Hispanics, miscellaneous foreigners, Jews and white feminists, will become the new ruling class. The alternative, the Alt-Right version, holds that whites will become race aware and unite against the dusky hordes to form an ethno-state. In fairness, there is a CivNat version, that argues in favor of unicorn riding leprechauns, but no adult takes them seriously.

Looking at the current fight over immigration, it is not hard to argue with either vision of the future. Team Brown is unwilling to give an inch on their plans for unlimited non-white immigration. The only justification for this is they are seeking to replace whites in America via the miracle of open borders. Logic further dictates that even the dumbest tricorn hat wearing BoomerCon will eventually wake up to this reality. Think about how many people you know who were CivNat a decade ago, but are race realists today.

Neither of those scenarios sound appealing and that’s an important thing to keep in mind when looking down the road. Given enough time, human organizations faced with two bad choices will evolve alternatives. It’s a natural result of seeking to mitigate the costs of each choice by addressing the underlying premises. In the case of American racial conflict, the underlying premise is that the future is a transcendent, winner take all, fight that will be decided in Washington and imposed on the rest of us.

That’s not the only future and probably not the likely one. Look at what is happening in the states. The other day I wrote about one of the consequences of the marijuana legalization efforts at the state level. Here we have, for the first time in generations, the states forcing policy changes on the Federal government. In fact, the most likely result is the states will force the Feds to retreat from this area of civic life. The regulation of recreational drugs will be a local issue. Replace “marijuana” with “discrimination” and the enormity is clear.

Another thing going on in the states is the idea of disaggregation. When you look closely at the CalExit thing, what you see is not a secessionist movement, but a reductionist movement. California is too big to manage as a whole, so the culturally homogeneous areas will be broken off from the culturally Progressive zones, to form at least two states, but there is no reason the concept could not result in three or four states. California has 40 million people. Rhode Island has a little over one million people.

What’s going on in California is possible because of something that has been going on with Progressives for the past thirty years. They have been self-ghettoizing. The ethnic cleansing we see going on in coastal cities is so Progressives can have swanky urban centers in which they can live. When you look at the last electoral map, at the county level, you see the slow re-segregation of the country between Team Brown in urban areas and Team America everywhere else. The blues will get bluer while the reds get redder.

This cultural reorganization of America is undermining the premise of a unified national culture dictated by our coastal elites. Therefore, that winner take all fight is becoming less and less likely. Further, the Progressive instinct to leave, unless they can dominate all others, an instinct they inherited from their Puritan forebears, is one cause of this reorganization. It’s why Progressives are talking about abandoning the national model in favor of the smaller, local, more autonomous model. Peaceful separation, so to speak.

It’s important to keep in mind that Team Brown seized on open borders and mass immigration when they began to lose the support of white ethnics. Progressives controlled the national government from the Civil War forward, but had to rely on urban white ethnics for building a coalition. Once those voters started joining Team America, Team Brown needed new voters and we got the 1965 Immigration Act. Then twenty years later they built on it with the 1986 amnesty. Open borders is a defensive strategy.

If Trump is able to strong arm Republicans into ending wholesale immigration, Team Brown’s strategy for dominating the nation is foreclosed. When even minor setbacks, like the 2016 election, results in calls for retreat, it is not unreasonable to wonder if the Progressive pendulum is about to swing the other way, away from national dominance back toward local autonomy. It’s been a little over 200 years since the Hartford Convention. Perhaps this is the end of a long cycle and the return to normalcy.

Memo Weeeeee!

The House has voted to release the infamous four page memo that many think outlines the broad contours of how the FBI and Department of Justice abused their powers to aid Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Some responsible people, who have read it, have indicated it is a very big deal. Other responsible people, who have read it, are working hard to prevent its release, presumably because it is a very big deal. Democrats have refused to read it, so they can go to their favorites media outlet and lie about its contents.

That’s one of the back stories to this whole affair. If you are permitted to read a top secret document, you are not permitted to say anything about it. In some cases, you are not even permitted to say it exists. On the other hand, if you get wind of some top secret document squirreled away in the security apparatus, you are allowed to say anything you like about what’s in it. That’s why guys like Adam Schiff refuse to read this stuff. That way, they are free to make up whatever whoppers they think are best, on media chat shows.

The funny thing about this is the memo probably has no new information. Lots of people have been following the news and piecing together the broad outlines of what happened during the Obama years. Conservative Tree House has been doing long essays connecting the dots for a while now. Doug Ross has been maintaining a timeline of events using media stories, most of which were likely sourced to people involved. For example, it is clear that Devlin Barrett has been getting his scoops from Strzok and Page.

Public information suggests senior people in the FBI decided to help the cause by providing the White House, through the Department of Justice, with surveillance information on Americans connected to the Republican candidates. The DOJ would then ask for the names of these people, what is known as unmasking, knowing that this would get out to the broad circle of political people with access to the security briefings. They would in turn leak this stuff to their favorite media people or to the Clinton campaign.

This has all the finger prints of a Clinton caper. Their game has always been to relax all of the rules, so it was hard to spot their malfeasance. At State, Hillary was obviously selling influence and possibly state secrets. In order to avoid anyone noticing it, her correspondence and all of the secret material her people accessed was left unguarded in a dozen places. That way, if counter-intelligence people noticed something, they had a million rabbit holes to inspect, looking for the source. It’s called hiding in plain sight.

It appears to have been the game played by Team Obama. Crooked FBI men would find some excuse to listen to foreigners, who regularly talked to American officials. This would be included in the daily briefings sent to the White House. Susan Rice would ask for the names of the US citizen to “get a better understanding of the material.” This is the sort of shenanigans that is hard to find, as long as it never gets out of hand. A leak here or there to the media to embarrass someone is not going to draw too much attention.

The guess is that things did get out of hand. Like a movie crime thriller, the conspirators found themselves in the third act of the five act structure. Events overtook them and they made some very bad choices. We are now into the fourth act where things have turned bad for many of the actors. Odds are, some well intended people tried to shield the FBI from embarrassment and lied or covered up things from investigators. Others succumbed to hubris and truly thought they could bring down the President on behalf of their cause.

It’s all speculation at this point, but what is not speculation is the two serious threats this poses to the constitutional order. The first and most serious is we have a Praetorian Guard problem in Washington. By allowing the security agencies to spy on Americans, on behalf of political factions, they are being setup as king makers. Imagine if they were able to frame up one of Trump’s kids, or even Trump, with phony intelligence. From that point forward, every politician would have to kiss the ring of the intelligence community.

Similarly, the massive holes in the intelligence system open pathways for foreign governments to subvert the nation and subvert the political order. It has been forgotten, but there is some possibility that MI6 had some involvement in this caper. Fake intelligence was fed to British intelligence, who then laundered it and sent it back to US intel agencies for use in FISA warrants. That could explain why Trump has gone out of his way to give Theresa May the cold shoulder, while treating Macron like a son.

The question at this stage is whether the political class can take the necessary steps to fix these problems. The Democrats have descended into madness, incapable of carrying out their basic functions. This is due to Progressivism morphing into a mystical suicide cult. At the same time, Republicans are afraid of their own shadow. Digging into the corruption of the Obama administration means they could be accused of racism by the Left. They would rather see the nation burn to a crisp than suffer that indignity.

There is another thing that is probably spooking the political class. How long has this been going on? One of the great unsolved riddles of the Obama years was the sudden, overnight transformation of Judge Roberts from opponent of the individual mandate to defender of it. There are serious people in Washington who worry about the consequences of revealing a wide ranging political scandal involving the nation’s top intelligence officials. Despite it all, there are still some patriots left in Washington.

Who’s In Charge

The alt-right boys are fond of talking about the various red pills and how their issue is the “ultimate red pill.” They are not entirely wrong. People are willing to accept some things more than others. All of us bob around in an ocean of agit-prop, pumped out by the people that rule over us. That is, though, the ultimate red pill. All the stuff we believe about democracy, our political order and the intentions of the people who rule over us, is mostly nonsense. Our ruling class is no different than any other in human history.

Steve Sailer is fond of talking about the Deep State, mostly as a way to explain how the people in the ruling class collude with one another against the interests of the voters and their elected officials. It’s not a conspiracy, with Ernst Blofeld controlling the world from his secret lair. It’s more like a community of like minded people, who exist within the high ground of the society. They hire one another, they socialize, their kids marry each other and they try to keep elected officials from screwing up their grand designs.

A good recent example is Alexei Navalny. He is the latest Russian opposition leader to cause trouble for Putin. He was recently arrested for trying to stage a protest of Putin’s run for another term in office. Navalny was just another guy until he spent time at Yale in the World Fellows Program. Then all of a sudden, out of the blue, he became a crusader against financial corruption in Russia. It’s not like any important people in America have connections to Yale. It is probably just a massive coincidence.

Putin, of course, is enemy number one for the Washington political elite. That means Mr. Navalny will be celebrated in the American media, while reliable politicians are sent out to tell us how Putin is the next Hitler. No one voted for this and no one in the elected class gives a damn about Alexei Navalny, but the people who were there befor the politicians showed up, and will be there after they are gone, do care so everyone cares. It all sounds conspiratorial, but it is just the way countries run, even America.

Another example of this is this story about John Forbes Kerry causing trouble in the Middle East. He’s telling the Palestinians to not cooperate with Trump as he expects a new president within a year. It’s totally a coincidence that Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor, was in the same prep school as John Forbes Kerry. In fact, they were on the lacrosse team together. Now, only a conspiracy nut would think there is any connection here. What are the odds that these two classmates talk about politics?

Again, it is not some wide ranging, multi-generational conspiracy. Every society has its elites and those elites control the state. For example, twenty-two families have controlled Guatemala since 1531. Another twenty-six families have married into this core group of elite families. The result is one percent of the population, the descendants of the Conquistadors, has controlled the country for over 450 years. It’s why their political elites tend to look like Old World Spaniards, rather than the indigenous Indian tribes.

In the case of America, year after year our elite colleges turn out a new crop of boys and girls from the best families. Many go into government, some go into media, others go into finance. Most go onto live self-actualizing lives in the top floors of American society. Their parents and friend’s parents help them along wherever they land. If it is government, they bounce from assignment to assignment, eventually landing in one of the Senior Executive Service positions. Or even better, a presidential appointment.

What does this all mean?

It means elections don’t matter all that much. Sure, getting Trump rather than Clinton is a big deal, but that’s just an exception to the rule. Clinton, Bush and Obama were pretty much the same guy. Their administrations were stocked with the same cronies that stocked the other administrations. Maybe they had slightly different ideas on how to sacrifice white Americans in the service of Israel, but otherwise they were on the same page on the big stuff. The people voted and then the people in charge ignored them.

Of course, this means those super-Progressive women are crazier than you think. These women, walking around thinking they are revolting against the patriarchy, are actually the vanguard of its defense. The proof that liberalism is a cult is that the members are sure they are a revolutionary vanguard, defending the status quo against the general public. That’s a degree of madness that exists only in mental hospitals and revivals. It’s why there is no reasoning with a Progressive. They have descended into madness.

It also means changing the current trajectory of the nation is not happening at the ballot box. As Steve Sailer noted today, the people in charge have gone insane. The orgy of anti-Americanism, particularity the hatred for whites, is a group psychosis. Fixing this is not going to happen with elections. It changes when the ruling class changes and that probably means the swankier parts of Cloud Country will experience car bombs, IED’s and assassinations. One Arthur Bremmer is worth an election full of ballots.