Voting Your Skin

Way back in the olden thymes, when Pat Buchanan was challenging Bush the Elder in the GOP primary, I found myself in a working class Irish bar talking politics. The TV in the bar was on the local news and they were doing a segment on the race. A male and female were beside me at the bar and were chatting about the race. The woman said something like, “I can’t vote for Buchanan. He a racist and I can’t vote for a racist.” The male sort of nodded along. He was clearly just going along with it because that was the easy route.

I think that was the point when I began to realize politics, at least for me, was only going to be for entertainment purposes. I did not fully comprehend the implications of what was happening, but in retrospect, Buchanan’s run was the beginning of the great unraveling of the Reagan coalition. The old sandwich attack was back, except this time, the bottom would include many whites attracted to the blue flame of social justice. Upper class whites had found a way to woo them back. The virtue of the multicultural paradise was the lure.

Of course, the managerial coalitions, that evolved in the 90’s and ran through the Obama years, were built on a lie. The managerial elite, particularly the corporate side of the house, had nothing but contempt for working class Americans. They developed a particularly healthy disdain for normal white people, as seen in their jihad against companies like WalMart. This was the heart of the Sailer Strategy for Republicans to regain the edge in elections. Now it appears the Progressives are beginning to come to terms with it too.

With the 2018 midterms months away and the 2020 presidential election cycle approaching rapidly, Democrats are considering how to improve their poor showings in 2014 and 2016. The party has been debating — sometimes heatedly — how to do this. Which voters should they target? How should Democrats target them?

But here’s what’s clear: White voters have been fleeing the Democratic Party, and that’s a big reason Democrats are looking to rebound from back-to-back losses.

Whites have slowly but consistently moved away from the Democratic Party. These recent losses are on top of Democrats’ losses among Southern whites during the 1960s and 1970s after Democrats’ support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Bill Clinton won 49 percent of the white two-party vote in 1996. Al Gore won 43 percent in 2000. John F. Kerry won 41 percent in 2004. Barack Obama won a slightly larger share in 2008, but then dropped to only 39 percent in his 2012 reelection bid. Hillary Clinton got the same percentage as Obama.

Obama was able to mask the Democratic Party’s weakness among whites by prompting record-high turnout among African Americans, as well as strong turnout from other Democratic-leaning minority groups. Hillary Clinton was unable to generate the same level of enthusiasm from racial and ethnic minorities.

What some on the Left are beginning to notice is called math. If you increase your share of a large voting block, like say white people, you get more votes that if you increase your share of a small voting block, like Hispanics. This was the point Sailer made a long time ago, one that Donald Trump took to heart in his 2016 campaign. There’s also the fact that the black vote is maxed out and the Hispanic vote has proven to be quite fickle. It takes a massive effort for the Democrats to get that vote out in strong numbers.

I used the American National Election Study data to show that many whites view the Democratic Party as moving further away from their own positions. This is true both when whites are asked to assess the positions of the parties generally and on a variety of specific issues such as government-sponsored health care and the government’s role in providing employment.

My research suggests this combination of political “sorting” and changing white perceptions of the Democratic Party has resulted in an almost eight-point swing in white vote choice. That lines up well with actual vote returns. White votes were split between the two parties about 50-50 in the 1970s — but in elections since 2000, that has become closer to 60-40 in favor of the Republican Party. Democrats might be gaining more votes from Latinos, Asians and other emerging demographic groups, but they are losing whites as a result.

Furthermore, the demographics of the white voters who are likely to support Democrats are different from the white voters who supported the Democratic Party in previous decades.

Most notably, while the Democratic Party is winning a lower percentage of whites overall, a greater proportion of college-educated whites are voting for Democrats. Attitudes on social issues in particular have become stronger predictors of voting behavior in recent elections; economic attitudes have become more important, too, but were already quite a strong predictor to start with.

The reason for this phenomenon is another temporary factor. College educated whites can afford to avoid many of the realities of multiculturalism. At least they think they can, by moving to ex-urban enclaves. That’s something this study missed. The suburban white boy vote started to move toward Trump in the last election. Despite the hand-waving from the Left, these voters are waking up to the reality of the demographic age as well. It’s playing out in their neighborhoods now and they are responding accordingly.

There’s also something else that left-wing analyst don’t get and that is the intensity of the white response. In the South, whites are much more keenly aware of race and therefore more attuned to voting on racial lines. When it matters, whites will come out hard for their team. The white vote is much harder to split using the normal subversive tricks. This is starting to play out on the national level as even areas close to the Canadian border are seeing violent African and Hispanic migrants dumped into their communities.

As an aside, take a look at the comments of that Post story. You see many of the usual auto-responses from people who think it is still 1968. You also see many more normal responses from people who get it. It takes time for this type of culture changes to seep into all the nooks and crannies of a society, but people are slowly waking up to the demographic reality of our age. While we still bother having elections, white people will increasingly choose to vote their skin over all other considerations.

Serendipity

In early December of 1241, the great Mongol army was camped on the Hungarian plain, poised to invade Europe “all the way to the Great Sea.” In the spring, they had defeated the Hungarian army at the battle of Mohi and spent the summer and fall ravaging eastern Europe. By autumn, all of the lands east of what is now modern Germany had been subdued by the Mongols. There was no army between the Mongols and the Atlantic Ocean capable of stopping them from ravaging the rest of the continent.

Then, in the middle of December, Ogedei Khan, the Great Khan, died on a hunting trip, most likely drunk. He was well known as a drunkard and the legend is he fell of his horse while drunk. Regardless of the reason, his death required all of the Mongol leaders to return home and select a new Great Khan. That meant the Mongol Army, instead of sacking Europe, returned home. It was one of the strange, fortunate events that probably made it possible for Europe to be Europe. The Mongols were not known for their mercy.

To put this into some perspective, the Mongols invaded what is now Iraq, known in the 13th century as the Abbasid Caliphate. This was the third caliphate, whose rulers were descended from Abbas, the uncle of Muhammad. Baghdad was the capital and at the time, one of the most advanced cities in the world.  The Mongols sacked the city in 1258, putting anywhere from 200,000 to one million people to the sword. They destroyed the city, filled the canals and stole or burned everything of value. It was an annihilation.

At the time, Baghdad was the center of the Islamic world.The Grand Library of Baghdad may have been the most important center of knowledge on earth at the time. It had books ranging from medicine to astronomy. The 36 public libraries in the city were also burned. Of course, the scholars and learned people who used those books and libraries were murdered. What was once the center of Islamic learning was destroyed. The population of the city and surrounding areas did not recover until the 19th century.

The point of this is that serendipity often plays a definitive role in humans affairs. At the dawn of the 13th century, there was no reason to think Europe was about to rocket ahead of the rest of the world. Through the Middle Ages, Europe slowly began to develop more advanced societies and develop a high culture, but they were still playing catch-up with Asia and the Middle East. Yet, the totally unexpected and unpredictable events of the Mongol invasions, radically changed the trajectory of Europe and the Middle East.

In retrospect, it is easy to look at a singular event like the Great Khan dropping dead just when his armies are about to sack Europe and see the significance. Once you read the story of the Mongol invasions, you know the West dodged something close to a meteor strike. The Siege of Baghdad, and its subsequent obliteration, is probably the great inflection point in the history of Islam. There’s no doubt that Islamic intellectual curve bent sharply downward because of the Mongol invasions and destruction of Baghdad.

The thing is, serendipity can also be the result of great stupidity. The Mongols initially tried to establish trade relations with the Khwarezmid Shah, who ruled the lands between the Mongols and the Abbasid Caliphate. The trouble was the caliph and shah hated one another and conspired to keep each other from making a deal with the Mongols. It’s a matter of dispute, but some historians argue that the Mongols never would have invaded if they could have struck a deal. They took the rejection as an insult and invaded.

This brings us to some rather interesting serendipity of our own age. In 2015, there was no reason to think the 2016 election was going to be anything but more of the same. The smart money said it would be Bush versus Clinton to decide the title. If not Bush, then one of the Bush family flunkies. Then like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, Trump entered the race and altered the political trajectory of the empire. Not only has this event extinguished the Bush wing of the GOP, it is threatening the neo-liberal world order.

How did this happen? Mostly it is due to Trump getting angry about how the political class has treated him. Like all rich guys, he had spread his money around to buy friends in the political class. He never had any respect for them, but if you want to do business in the world you have to do business with the people who run it. According to people who know him, what got Trump interested in running is being disrespected by the people in the chattering classes. The political class simply ticked off the wrong guy.

How this improbable event happened is going to be debated for a long time, but there is no debate about the consequences. Imagine if Clinton were president. The CIA meddling in our politics would only have accelerated. The corruption of the FBI would never have been revealed. In fact, it would have metastasized. People like to focus on the policy issues that would have been different with Clinton in power, but without the miracle of Trump, Washington would be ruled today by a dumpy old Caligula in a muumuu.

Here’s another bit of serendipity. Even if Trump won, much of this would never have come to light if not for two wholly unnecessary actions taken by the Democrats. One is the nonsense about Russian hacking. For no other reason than spite, the Left embraced this ridiculous narrative. The demands for an IG investigation of the FBI’s handling of the Clinton e-mail stuff came from liberal Democrats. They were the ones who demanded it, after blaming Comey for the election loss. Two dumb decisions have changed the world.

Thoughts On The Coming Events

Since it appears we are going to have lots of political news break over the next few weeks, I thought it might be a good idea to do some more political posting, which I have not been doing much of lately. The IG report on how the FBI handled the Clinton e-mail crimes is due out this week or next. Trump is laying the groundwork to fire Mueller and possibly behead his own Justice Department. It’s midterm season and there will be a summer battle over the next round of government budgets. Lots on tap this summer.

The first item is what we see happening with the FBI spying scandal. I must admit that I followed initially it because I liked boasting about having predicted it. Then I moved into cynical mode, assuming it would be swept under the rug like all of the crimes perpetrated by our rulers. I may have been wrong on that score. The people slowly unearthing the details and revealing them to the public appear to be extremely savvy political operators. I see now why the Democrats tried to assassinate Devin Nunes. He is a dangerous man.

One of the rare things in American politics these days is the smart politician who is not desperate to ham it up for the cameras. Nunes, Grassley, Goodlatte and their staffers have carried out this probe in a way we just never see. They took turns nibbling away at bits of the story, working with IG Horowitz, while quietly confronting the FBI and DOJ each step of the way. The level of coordination is what I find intriguing. It feels like maybe there is an inside player making sure everyone in on the same page and working their role.

On the other side of the ledger, the insane things coming from the Brennan camp are jaw-dropping. For the former CIA head to not-so-subtly threaten the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader on social media is incredible. Either the guy is insane or he really feels he is bullet proof. That would be an incredibly ballsy move to do behind closed doors with no witnesses. This guy is basically telling the political class they better remove the sitting president or else. It is not the sort of thing I ever expected to see in my lifetime.

What it could mean, is that off-camera, there’s a change in opinion. This assault on Trump was led by a well known group of people, the same people who ran the phony-baloney NeverTrump campaign. Brennan’s nutty public statements may reflect his sense that the tide is now running against him and his cronies. He’s not taking twitter because people are taking his calls. You have to think that the leaders of both parties would like to get away from this whole thing and the easy way to do that is turn on the conspirators.

The other aspect to this is Trump has played his hand about as well as possible. The press will focus on his handling of the Mueller stuff, but what Trump has managed to do is much more strategic. Look at his polling. Normally, even saints lose support after waves of bad press. Trump has managed to bob along around 50%, slowly creating an image of himself as David fighting Goliath. The Mueller problem, in light of the spying scandal, now looks like part of the elaborate scheme to thwart the will of the people by Washington.

That’s going to give him enormous amounts of political capital in the coming months. You don’t want to be on the wrong side of a popular president. The Ryan faction, which is bottling up all reform efforts in the House, has to be wondering if they picked the wrong team at this point. With their leader quitting to cash in as a lobbyist, we may see that coalition within the GOP start to fracture this summer. The tell will be if Ryan steps down early and we get a new Speaker. My guess is he is gone by Labor Day.

A long forgotten element of the intrigue in Washington is the Clinton e-mail scandal. That’s supposedly the next item IG Horowitz will report on and it is the reason he is has been digging around in all of this stuff. Many of the characters involved in the spying scandal were involved in the cover-up of the Clinton e-mail scandal. The main target is Andrew McCabe, so we probably learn just how much jeopardy he is in over this. Whatever caused Mr. Magoo to fire him, despite not wanting to do it, is in that reports.

Something Chuck Schumer said two years ago should be revisited. He publicly warned Trump that “Intel officials ‘have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you'” meaning Trump should not take on the FBI. Maybe it was just Schumer flapping his gums, but maybe there’s more to it. It is safe to assume that guys like Brennan were abusing their power for a long time. There may be another game afoot, behind the scenes, to rein in an intel community that has been out of control for longer than the public currently knows.

Finally, I used to compare Trump to the Asimov character “The Mule” because I saw him as the destroyer of the current order. I still think that is largely true. The one thing common in all of these scandals is the participants operated on the assumption that Trump can never win. It is not just that he could not get elected. They have been playing the game assuming that he had to fail eventually. The body of official Washington would expel him like a foreign object. Instead, everything is falling to pieces and Trump keeps winning.

It is going to be a fun summer.

The Snowglobe

Way back before the 2016 election really got started, I recall watching National Review’s David French learn on twitter what the word “cuckservative” meant. It was an amusing thing to watch as he went back and forth with some alt-right types. I could tell he was feeling like a cool kid picking up slang from the in-crowd on the playground. Then he realized that the “cuck” they were referring to was him. He then set off blocking half the internet. It was an amusing example of just how isolated these people are from us.

The chattering classes are supposed to be the interface between the Cloud People and the Dirt People. Before the explosion of mass media, the chattering skulls would go on the three Sunday chat shows to tell us what to think, while pretending to tell us what our rulers were thinking. Usually, these people had a column in one of the big city broadsheets or they were a “reporter” in Washington. This worked as the Dirt People had nothing against which to compare it and we never got to see these people outside of their roles.

Mass media has some unexpected consequences. For example, we get to learn much more about the commentariat. A super cuck like David French has put his whole life out on the internet, so he’s not fooling anyone. They say familiarity breeds contempt and the general hatred of the media is most likely due to the exposure that comes in the mass media age. That and their lies are much more easily exposed. When some popinjay goes on a rant about something, we can easily find where he said the opposite in the past.

Another result is the strange isolation of the media from the rest of us. Read biographies of old newspaper guys and one of the things that stands out is their working class lives. It was not just that they were the sons of toil, they remained in that world. In 1934, it was not weird for a big city newspaper reporter to live in the same building as a plumber or bus driver. Carl Bernstein never went to college but worked his way up from the copy boy at the Washington Star. Today, no newspaper in America would hire a guy like him.

This isolation has a another facet to it. The volume of media means the number of people thinking of themselves in that world is massive as well. Then there is the overlap between the academy, government and the media. When Obama took office, over 100 media members quit and went to work for the new administration. As the managerial state has grown and matured, it has absorbed the mass media with it. Look at the major chat shows and you often see people who have been in government, media and the academy.

These blurred lines mean the sense of community has grown. The people covering the Imperial Capital no longer see themselves as natural adversaries of the people they cover, unless those people are seen as a threat. The fawning over Obama by the press corp even embarrassed Obama. Contrast that with Trump, who is viewed as an outsider. The conspiracy to rig the last election by the CIA/FBI/DOJ has largely been ignored by the media, because they see the principles as their neighbors, allies and friends.

A more amusing reminder of this great divide between them and us was the heavy breathing last week about the so-called “intellectual dark web.” Someone from alt-right central casting, name Bari Weiss, wrote a piece declaring a group of old warhorses the new radicals of the internet. Like all women writers of her age, Mx Weis employs the autoethnographic style, popular with the womyn in gender studies. It’s mostly a feeble attempt to cast herself as edgy, because she knows people who think they are edgy.

That was the point though. This was not written for the broader audience, if it even exists for publications like the New York Times. It was written for people in the media. It was the sort of self-adulation you see on award shows. From the perspective of someone like Mx. Weis, Ben Shapiro is super-edgy. Anyone inside the managerial class, offering the slightest resistance to the prevailing orthodoxy, is a rebel. It’s not a lot different from the guys at prep school who cut class to smoke weed. To their peers, they are bad boys.

The old paleos were able to see the managerial state forming up. They were surprisingly prescient about what would happen to the politics of both liberalism and conservatism, as practiced thirty years ago. What they did not anticipate is the merging of corporate culture, multiculturalism and the mass media into the managerial state. They can’t be faulted for it, as no one could really anticipate how new technology would accelerate the growth and evolution of the American ruling class. In the 90’s, the smart people predicted the opposite.

The managerial class has achieved class consciousness. If you are working at the New York Times, the American Enterprise Institute or a government agency, you see the people in these roles as your colleagues. They are the people with whom you socialize and gossip. Their kids go to school with your kids. You live in the same exclusive neighborhoods. Not only are the people outside that world strangers, they vaguely feel like a threat, with their inability to vote correctly and complaints about diversity.

Unlike ruling classes of prior ages, this one is not entirely endogamous or closed off to outsiders. Like the Chinese imperial exam system, Dirt People with something on the ball can test into this world. But also like the exam system, the American managerial class is becoming immune from new ideas and innovation. What passes for creativity is simply neologism filled recitations of the one true faith. If Jordan Peterson is your idea of a radical thinker, you’re living in an intellectual waste land. A world where Bari Weiss makes sense.

In the Belly of the Beast

On Friday. I went into the lair of the most vile, racist hate filled monsters to ever crawl this earth. That would be The Daily Shoah. When you get around these people, what’s most disconcerting is that they are genuinely nice and honest. Our rulers put so much energy into demonizing dissenters, it is easy to forget that even the most fringe partisans are just decent people with different ideas about the world. Usually, the ideas that come to shape the future start out on the fringe, so it worth engaging with them.

As far as the show itself, it was fun. Mike and Sven are very nice people and extremely generous with guests they have on their show. Unlike the mass media, they don’t see their guests as furniture they can abuse for the amusement of the braying mules in the audience. My only regret is not having used my podcasting setup to do the show. I used my laptop because I could not get Skype working on the other machine. Skype is crappy software and on my laptop the sound quality is terrible, but it came out good enough.

I got a bunch of responses via e-mail. All of them fall into a number of categories. One group wondered why I would go on a show run by anti-Semites, given that I am not an anti-Semite. My view is antisemitism is just an opinion, with the same moral currency as tastes in ice cream. Here’s how I like to explain it. Imagine you move to a new town and learn that one new neighbor is an anti-Semite. Then you learn that another neighbor is a Methamphetamine cooker. Only a liar or a lunatic cares more about the anti-Semite.

More important, the open exchange of ideas and opinions is a base line requirement for a civilized white society. Like any marketplace, the marketplace of ideas does not always produce optimum results. That’s an argument against democracy, not a reason to suppress heretical opinion. In time, bad ideas fail while good ideas eventually succeed, which is the foundation of popular government. That means engaging all comers, as long as they are honest and willing to debate in good faith. It can also be a lot of fun.

Another category of response was to ask why I don’t do more of these things. One main reason is time. My day job, life, the blog and the podcast fill up the dance card. I’m also not a fan of the “blood sports” model that is most popular. Some are OK, but most degenerate quickly into the typical internet purse fight. They should call these things “bum fights” because it’s usually two poorly trained and equipped debaters desperately trying to land a hay-maker. The Daily Shoah format is more to my liking as it fits the medium.

Of course, there were people wondering if Mike Enoch had red-pilled me on the JQ. I’ve come to hate that expression, to be perfectly honest. It implies a soteriological awareness that is only achieved through devotional study. I know the arguments around the JQ as well as anyone can know them. I’ve read the source material and listened to the proselytizers. I’ve done the math. The facts are what they are and there’s no denying Jews wield an enormous amount of influence, in absolute and relative terms.

Where Enoch and I would disagree is in whether or not Jews can be a part of white identity politics. With some exceptions, anti-Semites say no, Jews have their own group and therefore cannot be part of the white group. On the other hand, I would be thrilled if Jews swung our way. Having six million rich smart guys on our side would turn the fight instantly. We’d have a wall on the border that would make Israel envious. Fifty years of multiculturalism would be reversed in no time. The remaining liberals would be in hiding.

In fairness to the anti-Semites, there is zero evidence of this happening. In fact, the most berserk opponents of our remaining liberties are Jewish organization like the ADL and they get zero push back from their fellow tribesman. It is probable that the arrival of alt-Jew will be permanently delayed. I find that disappointing, but I’m used to it. That does not change the essential message, which is that whites in America must come to terms with the realities of being a minority surrounded by hostile minority populations.

This is another area where Mike and I would disagree. If white people in America come to except that they must put their racial interests ahead of all us, in order to contend with the swelling minority populations, the JQ answers itself. Jews either join White Team or join the dark side. Therefore, instead of expending energy on the JQ, a better use of time is to focus on the HQ – Honky Question. There’s a reasonable debate to be had there, which is why it is important for people on our side to have these debates and discussions.

The Warcast

The show this week was a technological struggle. The mic I had been using started to give me trouble, so I had the bright idea of upgrading the recording gear. Now I have a bunch of wires hanging off the desk, which bugs me no end. Worse yet, I’m not entirely sure how to use the new stuff. I’ve muddled through, but I have much to learn. That said, if I’m going to do this right, I should learn how to use the proper equipment.

The funny thing about doing something like this is you get into a rhythm, as far as picking topics and the recording schedule. Every day I take some time to look for material, surfing reliable sites. Then I make some notes on what I find and think about what I want to say about it. Every evening, I record a little. When something changes, like the technical issues this week, it can throw you off your game. But, I suffer for my art.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below.

This Week’s Show

Contents

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

A Vibrant Society

When you live in Lagos on the Chesapeake™, people like to send you stories about the place, as if to be reassured that it is as bad as advertised. I’ve developed the habit of telling people that it is worse than they’ve heard. That’s probably not true, as Baltimore has quite a reputation, but it makes people feel better about it. One of the items sent to me recently was this story about the restaurant closures in Baltimore. So far this year, 24 trendy restaurants have closed, continuing a trend of bad news for the city.

Baltimore has seen another spate of restaurant closures — as consumer habits change and suburbanites find less incentive to dine in the city, according to experts, restaurateurs and consumers.

At least 24 restaurants have closed since January, including Federal Hill stalwart Regi’s American Bistro, Hampden’s popular Corner Restaurant and Charcuterie Bar and Canton’s Fork and Wrench.

Increased vacancy rates for small commercial real estate spaces reflect those closures. Chris LeBarton, a market economist for CoStar Market Analytics, said vacancy rates for spaces up to 3,000 square feet — often home to independent restaurants — rose to 8.1 percent at the end of March, up from 6.8 percent at the end of September, when the city underwent a previous wave of closures. That rate is at its highest since 2010.

Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics point toward a trend long in the making. The number of Baltimore’s food and drinking establishments decreased 4.6 percent between 2013 and 2016 — from 1,613 to 1,539. Nationally, the number of establishments increased by 5.7 percent, from 8.9 million in 2013 to 9.4 million in 2016.

Analysts attribute Baltimore restaurant closures to factors including the natural cycles of the industry, millennials’ preference for convenience and value and — more particular to this area — competition in the suburbs and high crime rates that ward off suburbanites.

Downtown Partnership President Kirby Fowler pointed out that restaurants often have a three- to five-year life cycle.

“There might be issues involving the city’s reputation, but it as well could be an explanation of what the restaurant is doing or not doing,” he said of the factors driving local closures. “To open a restaurant is a risky endeavor, but it’s what we all want to happen more and more.”

One of the funny things about life in Lagos is just how many of the locals work hard to avoid noticing the obvious. You see the self-deception is this story. It’s those rotten millennials or the wacky unpredictable nature of the restaurant business. There is an oblique reference to the “city’s reputation” but the bulk of the article is about blaming things that have nothing to do with the problem. They say people see what they want to see, and that is very true, but people can also not see what they don’t want to see too.

On the other hand, it is tempting to blame the crime wave that was unleashed by the Freddie Gray case. The riot was national news, but the subsequent spike in murder has done far more damage to the city’s reputation. That’s most likely not the cause of trouble for the restaurant and entertainment businesses. The real issue is the uptick in black on white crime, particularly in the hipster areas of the city. When a bartender at a trendy restaurant is gunned down in a robbery, white people take note.

There is a phenomenon, that most white people in vibrant areas intuitively understand, but people rarely discuss. That is as vibrancy increases, black-on-white crime escalates. The legendary quantitative blogger La Griffe du Lion showed that the risk whites faces from whites, in terms of crime, is independent of neighborhood size and racial composition. The probability a white is attacked by another white in a given year is the same no matter where he lives. This is true when adjusted for socioeconomic factors, as well.

On the other hand, as the number of blacks increase, the odds of a white being victimized by a black accelerate upward. The reasons are well known now. Blacks are more than three times more likely to commit violent crime than whites and black on white crime is vastly more common that any other inter-racial crime. It turns out that what everyone knows is true. Blacks prefer to target whites when committing crime, especially violent crimes. So as vibrancy increases, white victimization rates accelerate upward.

Again, most people intuitively know this and pick up on the clues from news accounts and conversations with friends. All it takes is a spike in well publicized black on white crime in a tourist area and whites stop going to the tourist area. Of course, this accelerates the trend, as the black-white balance swings to the dark side. It’s why when a neighborhood around here “turns” it tends to do so slowly, then all of a sudden. As La Griffe du Lion noted, the threshold for these things is about 20%. After that begins the run for the exit.

If you look back at the population mix of cities like Baltimore and Detroit, they thrived up to the point where their vibrancy crossed the 25% line. At that point, the infrastructure started to crack under the strain of keeping the vibrancy under control. As the vibrancy spilled into white areas, whites began to flee, the vibrant-to-plain ratio began to quickly tilt to the former and the die was cast. It’s why gentrification only works when the locals are physically removed or they are systematically walled off from the gentrifying areas.

The Rock Fight

The on-going investigation into FBI shenanigans trundles on and it is easy to be a bit cynical about the whole thing. It’s clear that the DOJ and FBI are stalling, hoping the Democrats take the House thus relieving them of their duties to Congress. The modern habit of the Washington elite giving themselves a pass for their bad behavior, should lead sensible people to assume nothing comes of this. After all, it involves some of the biggest players in the semi-permanent Washington ruling class and they are above the law.

On the other hand, the list of people who tangled with Trump and then came to a bad end is long enough now to think it is not a coincidence. The mass media and the NeverTrump loons like to paint the guy as a buffoon, but he is a very savvy political athlete. What makes it work for Trump is that when guys like Eric Schneiderman go up in flames, it looks like Trump was not involved, but curiously prescient. The fact is, Trump plays rough and the people in the FBI scandal have every reason to fear retribution from him.

That’s the thing with Trump. He is a genuine politician, who does not have his head in the clouds or frets about getting a little dirty in a street fight. This is something we have not seen on the Right in national politics since forever. Reagan, on occasion, would throw some sharp elbows, but all of his worshipers since then have either confined themselves to the world of forms or found a reason why their principles prevented them from getting into the fight. The result has been a once sided drubbing of the Right by the Left.

The great Sam Francis observed this about the America Right a long time ago. The Old Right, as he called what think of of as CivNats, lived in the world of ideas. They operated under the assumption that their ideas would take human form and do the practical work of politics without the creators leaving their salons. You hear echos of this with libertarians and TruCons today. Every discussion ends up with them quoting some theorist and waving around their Cato supplied pocket Constitution like it is a magic talisman.

On the other hand, the New Right, as he labeled the neoconservatives and Buckleyites, were willing to engage in practical politics, but assiduously within the rules, as currently written.This meant they were always captive to those rules. This gave the Left the whip hand, as they could change the rules whenever the Right was getting the upper hand in politics. The Buckleyites and neocons, instead of challenging the managerial state, have been absorbed by it and have become its champions. Sam Francis predicted this.

The fact that neocons and Buckleyites have been assimilated into the Borg that is the managerial class is evidenced by the people participating in the FBI scheme. You have neocons, their former critics and hard thumping Progressives working together in this conspiracy. Further, the extreme Left, that operates the mass media, is endlessly promoting the narrative cooked up by the conspirators. Whatever minor quibbles these people have with one another, defending the managerial state comes first.

It’s why, to some degree, the alt-right and its fellow travelers punch so far above their weight and scare the people in charge. Outside of a few basic ideas, the alt-right is non-ideological. Put three of these guys in a room and they have ten different arguments, depending upon how the alcohol is flowing. At the same time, this loose collection of the like-minded is willing to engage in ad hoc guerrilla war against the managerial class, mostly for the laughs. It is, in part, why the managerial class has over reacted to them.

That brings us back to how Trump is handling the seditious plot, currently being exposed by Congress and the Inspector General. The Right side of the managerial class is puzzled and frustrated by Trump’s unwillingness to put on his good government cap and yap about the process. The ridiculous bleating from National Review types about his boorishness or his recklessness reveals a central fact about Trump and the emerging political movement he has set off. Trump is not of the Old Right or New Right, and neither are his supporters.

For it’s part, the Left is unnerved by his success at undermining the Mueller plot, while exposing the FBI treachery. They are grasping the reality of Trump. He’s not a guy committed to winning them over with theory or looking for a way to join the club. Popular lore says he set off on this journey because he was insulted by the snubs from the political elite. The people peddling it hope it means he wants to join their club and will do so on their terms. It turns out that Trump is looking to bust up the club and make his own.

There’s a lesson here. A culture war is a zero sum game. The ground you gain can only come at the expense of the people in charge and there can never be peace. Complex political theories and carefully elucidated principles have no place in a culture war, or even a political war. It’s a rock fight and that means you have to use whatever is handy to take out the other guy. After you win and secure his turf, then you take a break and maybe use the off-time to think about theory. Principles are for the victory party.

The Sedition Lobby

I take some pride in the fact that I sniffed out the FBI scandal long before the media had any idea what was happening. The whole Russian hacking thing was such nonsense, that it had to be a cover for soemthing else. The subsequent machinations of the FBI and DOJ made it clear that they were hiding something. Of course, we now know that some members of the FBI and DOJ were engaged in domestic spying on the Trump campaign, for purely political reasons. We are now starting to get a sense of who is really behind it.

This post from Conservative Tree House is a bit meandering, the guy really does need someone to organize his thoughts, but it reveals an important fact about this case that has not been made public. That is, the root of the scandal is not the FBI, but the CIA. The guy who got this thing going was former CIA Director John Brennan. He’s been an anti-Trump rage head for a long time. It appears that he is the guy who initiated the surveillance of the Trump campaign and set off the FBI conspiracy to get Trump.

What appears to have happened is Brennan, or his people, contacted a trusted friend of the neocon family for some help. Stefan Halper is the guy fingered by the Tree House guys as the most likely candidate for the job. He is a good candidate, as he did meet with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. If you look at the career of Halper, he has been in these fever swamps¹ for a long time, so it is not unreasonable to think he was working for the anti-Trump loons. It’s also possible there were others used in this caper.

The way it works is he reaches out to these guys and gets them thinking they have been spotted as men on the come. Low-level types with big ambition are always looking for a chance to talk with the big shots, so Page and Papadopoulos were easy marks and they took the bait. Then he engages them in discussions that he can then claim were initiated by them. He passes it along to his friends in the CIA, but the CIA cannot spy on citizens in the US, so they pass it along to the FBI as a friendly bit of inter-agency cooperation.

At this point, no one knows what was passed on from the CIA to the FBI. That’s the crux of the ongoing battle between Congress and the FBI/DOJ. It is well-established now that the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign and Trump Tower. Their explanation for why they did this is laughable nonsense, so the question is why did they do it and what was the pretext. Most likely, they used what the CIA manufactured, along with the phony dossier and possibly an FBI plant in the campaign, to get the FISA warrant and spy on Trump.

Since the mass media has been instructed to give this story a good leaving alone, it does not get the attention it deserves. What started out as maybe some bungling and perhaps petty malfeasance among middling FBI people, has now progressed up to include the former CIA Director, former Attorney General and Former FBI Director. Those are some pretty big fish. They are also the sorts of people who meet with the President and his top aids on a regular basis. This is looking like what the Left says Watergate was about.

What makes this more serious than Watergate is that the crimes committed here reveal a malice of forethought. The people caught trying to cover-up Watergate and other campaign shenanigans did so after the fact and mostly as non-participants. The people involved in this caper acted with a clear intent. They set out to trap some Trump people so they could then spy on the Trump campaign, including Trump himself, with the goal of ending his campaign. When that failed, they decided to try and remove him from office.

In what is turning out to be the proof of this post from five years ago, there was Russian meddling in the last election. The trouble is, the Russians were working with US intelligence to undermine the campaign of Donald Trump. That meddling may not have stopped at the election, but may be continuing to this day. In fact, according to that linked article in The Hill, the FBI was trying to enlist Oleg Derispaska in their scheme to link the Trump campaign with Russian espionage. You cannot make this stuff up.

There is another element here. The NeverTrump operations was a purely neoconservative operation, led by the current pope of the neocons, Bill Kristol. John McCain has confessed to having played a role in the phony dossier. Stefan Halper is a neocon fellow traveler¹. Bill Kristol’s son-in-law, Matthew Continetti, helped finance the dossier. Everywhere you look in this scandal, you find neocons. It’s almost as if these people have some sort of hidden agenda, that they were willing to do anything to promote, even if it meant sedition.

¹A reader (lars hemmer) pointed out that my short-hand description of Halper as a neocon was inaccurate. He’s more of a intel community insider, who has been a some time neocon fellow traveler, when convenient and hostile, when convenient. I changed the original post to reflect that correction. Thank you lars hemmer.

Countries and Nations

In our current age, we just assume that the world is organized into countries. Look at any map and there is no place on earth that is not part of a country. The exceptions are the Arctic and Antarctica. They are governed by a coalition of countries, but they lack more than a sprinkling of people. Otherwise, every bit of the world, that has people, is part of a country. More important, a bedrock assumption of the people who rule over us is that countries are a permanent part of the human condition. Countries are forever.

Nothing is forever, of course, but we can get a sense of how durable the current country model is by looking at some recent examples. The war in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein revealed that Iraq was not a unified country. The big sectarian divisions of Sunni, Shia and Kurdish became a problem as soon as Saddam was toppled. Then, within those larger divisions, there were smaller groups with other loyalties. There are 150 tribes in Iraq and below that are hundreds of clans and thousands of houses. Iraq is a complicated place.

After the fall of Saddam, we learned just how complicated. It turned out that keeping Iraq together required a very strong central government with the ability to balance the various tribes against one another to keep the peace. Even after the US military figured it out and pacified most of the place, the government did not fully control all of the country. The only reason it remains an intact country today is the surrounding countries prevent it from breaking up and the West provides money and material so the government can survive.

The fact is, Iraq is a country only as long as the rest of the countries accept it as a country and help it keep together. If Iran decides it wants to annex part of the country, a part with coreligionists loyal to Iran, there’s not much Iraq can do about it. Joseph Tainter explained this in his book The Collapse of Complex Societies. In the modern age, a society is unlikely to collapse, because of the surrounding countries. like Iraq, a country can go through a very difficult period, but ultimately survive, because there is no other option.

At the other end of the country scale, in terms of internal stability, we have some good recent examples in Eastern Europe. The Visegrád Group, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, have managed to stay together, despite enormous external pressures. Just surviving the Soviet Empire is something close to a miracle, given what happened to Russia proper. Now, under enormous pressure to allow millions of foreign invaders into their countries, they ostentatiously ignore the demands of Europe.

This is not hard to understand. Poland is 98% Polish. They speak Polish in their homes and see themselves as Polish by ethnicity. The tiny minority communities, like the Silesians, have been there for as long as anyone knows. Slovakia is 80% Slovak, with another 9% Hungarian. Again, the minority population has been there forever. The Czech Republic is 95% Czech. These countries are not just arbitrary markings on a map. They are nation-states that share a common language and a common heritage.

The peculiar history of these countries may explain why they have survived as nation-states, but also why they resist the calls for open borders. All of these nation-states have been absorbed by empires, but they have never been on the other end. Poland never tried to conquer Europe. Still, the core reason they have managed to survive through conquest and division is they are nation-states. What this says is that countries can come and go, but the nation-state has permanence. As long as there are people, there will be a Poland.

That brings us to another type of country, the United States. At the founding, calling America a nation-state was a bit of a stretch, but not unreasonable. The overwhelming majority of the people were English and spoke English. There were some Dutch and Indians, with some French sprinkled in, but the only other ethnic group of any consequence were Germans. They were about 10% of the population at the founding and clustered in the midland states, like Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland.

That’s not the America of today. You can probably just lump in the whites as a single ethnic group, the White American, but we have large numbers of non-whites now. Then you have those old regional cultures that are still lurking in the background, creating new divisions among the newcomers, as the newcomers magnify those divisions. Somalis dumped in Maine are going to change the state in a different way than those dumped into West Virginia. America is looking more like Iraq than the Visegrád nations.

A reasonable person should wonder how long before America starts to have the same troubles as we saw in Iraq. The central government is better organized and more capable than the Iraqi government, but there are limits to everything. The Federal government largely depends on the states voluntarily going along with what the Federal legislature decides is the law. But as we see with California, states are starting to buck this trend, mostly due to their new citizens. California is really not America now, in reality.

This brings us back to Tainter. His conclusion, after reviewing and analyzing why complex societies collapse, is that the modern age has too much inter-dependency for a society to collapse. Every country has deep connections with neighboring countries. Everyone agrees upon the borders and that the country system must be maintained. The thing is though, the primary force behind this is the United States. Without American economic and military might, the country system probably falls apart, at least at the fringes.

That’s not to say America is headed for a collapse or even a crackup. Maybe as the country turns into Brazil demographically, it will avoid becoming Brazil economically and culturally. The bigger question though is when does the internal cost of keep this country together, cut into the resources needed to keep the country system together? At what point does the vibrancy of America make it impossible to keep an Iraq together or a Mexico from dissolving into chaos? Someone should think about that.