The Supplicant

The professional right is often referred to as the controlled opposition, because they have the habit of throwing the match whenever they have a chance to win. This is happening with the Rep.Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia) controversy and will no doubt happen with the scandal around Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-Puerto Rico). Rather than take the opportunity to twist the knife, the professional conservatives will jump to the defense of their friends on the Left and attack those on the Right trying to exploit the situation.

The term “controlled opposition” is a handy bit of rhetoric on social media to help red-pill people, but it misses some important points. The most obvious being these are not men thinking “Hey, I better find a way to lose, so my real friends on the Left can win.” None of these guys are that smart. On the other hand, the Left is not cultivating these guys like the KGB cultivated traitors during the Cold War. There’s no control center in Arlington tracking the conservatives, instructing them in what to write and say.

Such a formal set of arrangements would require a sense of awareness on both sides that is simply not in evidence. There’s skulduggery, for sure, as we have seen with the neocons, all of whom are coded to be subversive. Even there, it’s biology at work, not agency. They can’t help themselves. For the rest of the so-called conservatives, it is a lifetime of conditioning by a political culture that has created two main roles. One is the priest and the other is the supplicant. The latter is reserved for conservatives.

You see it in this Washington Post opinion piece about Ilhan Oman, by someone calling himself Henry Olsen. He is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank in Washington. In his post, he unfavorably compares Omar to Steve King, who he just assumes everyone knows is the worst person on earth. He thinks he is a cheeky fellow by creating this parallel between someone the Left has put on the proscribed list and this Somali woman. You see? The Dem are still the real racists!

It’s not all that clear whether Olsen is trying to condemn Rep. Omar or forgive the Left for tolerating her. On the other hand, he seems to saying to his exclusively Progressive readers, this is the Washington Post after all, that his side has learned their lesson and will have zero tolerance for blasphemers in the future. In other words, in what is supposed to be a post lampooning the Left for their hypocrisy with regards to blasphemers, he spends a lot of time groveling to the Left and offering them support.

Republicans learned the hard way with King that where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire. His repeatedly bigoted statements about immigrants were condemned but otherwise ignored by House Republican leadership. Clearly, they hoped that they were aberrations, or that the congressman would come to his senses and keep whatever bigotry he harbored in his heart to himself.

But that approach proved too lenient. Earlier this year, King finally made indisputably clear what many had long suspected during an interview with the New York Times, in which he said: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” He had finally crossed the line, and Republicans — who could not expel him from their caucus under party rules — removed him from all committee assignments. (King has argued that the quote was mischaracterized.)

The trouble here is that the Progressive media smeared King, claiming he said things he never actually said. It was then a pile on by so-called conservatives that turned a cheap political hit job into the crime of the century. There’s also the fact that King was more than happy to play along and go through the required struggle session. Omar actually said the things that have Mr. Olsen upset and she is not backing down from them. The only similarity to King here is they are both correct about the topic at hand.

Mr. Olsen is a man whose morality is entirely defined for him by the Left. They have declared it immoral for whites to cheer for their own team, so he is enthusiastic to enforce that morality in his sphere of influence. Similarly, any questioning of Israel is strictly forbidden, so Mr. Olsen is physically incapable of even contemplating the subject. It’s not that he is sitting there, pecking out these sorts of posts, thinking about how he can turn this problem for the Left into an own goal. He sincerely believes this stuff.

Now, to be fair to those who are sure money is changing hands, there is a financial incentive built into the supplicant’s life. Mr. Olsen gets to write for the Washington Post, which is a nice paying gig. He also gets $130,000 per year from think tank work, which amounts to showing up at receptions and luncheons. He gets other writing jobs because of his association with these well-known operations. Then there are the books that no one reads and speeches at tax payer funded operations. It’s a nice life.

To be even fairer, Mr. Olsen is probably a great guy. That’s something you can’t help but notice with Conservative Inc. Other than the neocons and libertarians, everyone is super nice and very friendly. That’s part of what makes them great supplicants though. They are so willing to please, so easy going in the face of humiliation and torment, there is just about nothing the Left can do to them to make them angry. The Left selects for submissiveness in its loyal opposition and they are good at it.

That’s the problem. It has always been the problem with the Professional Right. A genuine alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy is never generous with the other side. The point of being in opposition is to turn everything against the other side, to advance your agenda and to sweep the other side from the field. There can be no mercy, as the other side will never return the favor. The Left gets this. That’s why they feel no compunction about attacking school children for the crime of rooting for their own team.

This is why people like Mr. Olsen are much less generous with people on our side than with his alleged opponents on the Left. Because his role is defined by the Left and his morality is defined by the Left, he has no choice but to defend the Left. An attack on the Left is felt as an attack on him. If the Left is ever forced into retreat, Mr. Olsen will be there with the other camp followers, padding along behind them. Without the Left, he and the other toadies of Conservative Inc. are nothing. They no longer exist.

It’s why the so-called Right, despite the facts on the ground, cannot stop themselves from stabbing the people to their right. It’s not professional jealously or a fear of their donors getting vexed with them. Sure, there is some of that, but those excuses always come after the knee-jerk reaction against dissidents. Guys like Mr. Olsen are entirely dependent on the Left to define their lives and give meaning to their efforts. They are as much a part of the Left as the house slave is a part of the master’s household.

Recursive Grifting

Last weekend was C-PAC, the annual convention for the Professional Right™ to show off their new wares for the coming year. In theory, it is a gathering of grassroots activists, conservative politicians and conservative media to socialize, network and strategize about how to defeat the Left. This was true in the early days, but somewhere in the 1990’s it became a trade show for Conservative Inc. The people living off politics and the people who hope to live off politics, use it as a way to network and showcase their talents.

Just as Conservative Inc. has become a grotesque mockery of itself, C-PAC is something closer to a clown show rather than a real political event. The organizers have given up pretending to be conservative. Instead they are going for something like an awards show. They actually invited a clown this year. It’s proof that the Official Right™ is now Trump’s world, which is a blend of reality TV and professional wrestling. There’s lots of drama, all of it choreographed, but in the end,, nothing actually happens. It’s just a show.

It’s tempting to get down about this, but the frivolousness of Official Conservatism™ is probably good news. An important part of developing an authentic alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy is discrediting the Potemkin version. There’s also the pure entertainment value in seeing our adversaries beclown themselves. C-PAC invited Prog and Antifa media into cover this circus and the results were predictable. The lefty media ran to their hives and bleeped all over their “friends on the respectable right.”

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at seeing a grifter like Oliver Darcy tell his fellow left-wing grifters about his time with the so-called conservative grifters. We have shameless grifters calling out other shameless grifters, as part of their grift. Of course, the grifters being called out will return the favor, as part of their grift. It’s a magnificent display of recursive grifting.  Perhaps grifter space-time is folding in on itself. We are about to see the grifter-verse collapse in on itself and form the prophesied grifter singularity.

While it is hilarious to write the word “grifter” that many times in a single paragraph, there is a very serious issue here. If a bunch of left-wing grifters are in the same room as a bunch of right-wing grifters, there is a the chance for a grifter paradox. This is when the two sides of the grifter-verse agree with one another. Scientists are not entirely sure what happens at that point. Some speculate it opens the gates of Hell, while others fear it will open a worm hole to the home dimension of the grifter, unleashing even more grifters.

The whole thing was not just a puppy-pile of political pornography. A few dissidents managed to suit-up in their EPA-approved hazmat attire and get inside to report back to the rest of us. There are people on our side who want to throw people like Loomer, Goldy and Fuentes into the same pile as the rest of the media whores, but there is an important difference. People who are good at getting attention and willing to do what it takes to get your attention are useful to the dissident effort to discredit Conservative Inc.

That’s what our side needs to get better at understanding. There is a difference between the tool and the man who wields the tool. It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools and it is a poor political movement that blames its media savvy people. The trouble with Conservative Inc. is not that it is good at media whoring. The trouble is that’s all they are now, media whores. They have not had a new insight since the 80’s. Our side is teeming with new ideas of varying quality. We need to get better at selling them.

Young people like Fuentes and Goldy also do a better job of connecting with the young audience. Young people like the ad hoc YouTube videos and live streams. The sorts of young people signing up for Young Americans for Freedom, the main group behind C-PAC, are the sorts of soulless careerists, who only appeal to aging Boomers. They are the sorts of young people old people admire. Having some edgy, grifty people of our own to real in new eyeballs from the younger generation is a worthwhile trade at this point.

That said, one of the unique challenges any dissident movement faces in the mass media age is keeping itself from becoming a feeding trough for media grifters. The Tea Party is a great example of a genuine grassroots effort that was swamped by an army of media whores and political con-men. Like a plague of locusts unleashed from Washington, these people chewed through the movement, leaving nothing but stalks. The great challenge is in defending against that, while not ghettoizing the movement in self-defense.

It’s why watching how legacy operations like CPAC operate and how dissidents nibble away at them is useful. It’s always tempting to turn away in disgust, but these sorts of events can be put to use in red-pilling the civic nationalist in your life. The over the top grifting on display is another opportunity to make contrasts between an authentic alternative and the Potemkin one called conservatism. Maybe we get lucky and see that grifter singularity and it takes the whole lot of them into the void.

We Ban Books Here

Way back in the old days, the Left used to accuse conservatives of being against free speech and open debate. They would say the Right was in favor of burning books and heresy laws. When conservatives rose to power in the 1980’s, it was time for them to “own the libs” by pointing out that the Soviets banned books, threw dissidents into gulags and banned speech critical of the state. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn became a celebrity among conservatives, as an example of how the communists suppressed speech.

Regardless of which side was making the case, the basic assumption was that authoritarian government suppressed speech, banned books and threw political dissidents into prison. Democratic governments, on the other hand, permitted a marketplace of ideas, encouraged debate and protected political dissidents. A popular thing to say on the Left was “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll give my life to defend your right to say it.” Even right-wingers would say it on occasion.

That was a long time ago. Today, no one in the political class talks about free speech or the market place of ideas. Instead they rant and rave about hate speech. The “artsy” types are considered rebels because they repeat verbatim from the official catechism and demand greater restrictions on speech. It’s truly bizarre, when you step back and look at what is happening in the context of the last few decades. The man from 1985, transported to this age, would assume some lunacy has suddenly gripped everyone.

Of course, that same time traveler would be puzzled as to how it was possible for a handful of companies to have seized control of the public space. That’s the part no one could imagine thirty years ago. In 1985, a bookstore refusing to sell a book was no big deal, because there were plenty of bookstores that would sell it. The FCC regulated television and radio, but only for smut. The notion of corporations controlling the public space and un-personing dissidents was beyond fantasy in 1985.

Just think about that for a second. The people in charge will go to the mat to defend pornography freely available on-line, but scream bloody murder if Facebook lets someone talk about biology on their platform. Scientist are losing their careers, while pornographers are celebrated. It’s close to a 180 degree change from thirty years ago. In 1985, retailers were still keeping smut in the back room, away from the general public. Video rental places had a secret room for porn. Today, porn is so ubiquitous no one notices.

That’s the truly bizarre thing about this time, relative to not so long ago. The man in 1985 worried about the IRS and maybe the FBI abusing their power. The only worry about corporations abusing their power was the environmental stuff or maybe screwing their employees in some way. Today, you have much more to fear from the banks and tech giants than the government. If the state becomes aware of you, so what? If Google suddenly takes an interest in you, it might be time to go into hiding.

What makes this age even stranger is that it just sort of happened. In fact, it happened so quickly, most people have yet to upgrade their thinking. Conservatives think they are fighting for liberty and opportunity by defending global corporations. Libertarians are literally writing love letters to global business. Progressives continue to think of themselves as the defenders of the middle-class, despite making war on it. Antifa, an anarchist operation, is entirely funded by billionaires and corporate donors.

Again, that time traveler would be completely baffled by the uniformity of opinion among these corporate HR departments that now control society. In his time, there was variety of opinion on the Left. In fact, the main Left used to complain about its fringe screwing things up for them by making crazy demands. The Right was also quarrelsome, with paleos, neos and various libertarians fighting with one another. Today, conservative means lectures on racism and Israel and liberal means more lectures on racism and trannies.

What would really baffle our time traveler is the fact that we ban books now. In America, that has always been the hallmark of authoritarianism and intolerance. It was always the thing that no free person could tolerate. It’s not so much the books themselves, but the motivation behind it. The person who wanted to ban books wanted to control the most private of private spaces, the mind. Today, the idea of having any privacy, even private thoughts, is considered immoral by the people in American HR.

The scary part of this age is that the book burning is the least odious thing being normalized by American HR. Banks are now cancelling accounts, because they have deemed the client to be in violation of their HR polices. Visa and MasterCard are making private war on the gun industry. How long before someone like Jared Taylor finds he cannot get a credit card or bank account? How long before his bank calls his mortgage or his insurance company cancels his policy, because he is a blasphemer?

That was always the scary part of the Soviet Union. The book banning and speech laws were easy to mock. You could not mock the idea of men being sent to camps or facing internal exile. Imagine being in a state where your friends and family fear being associated with you, because the state has declared you an enemy. Now, imagine losing your phone service because someone working in the Bangalore office of Apple does not like your browsing habits. Imagine American HR becoming aware of you.

Probably the strangest thing for our time traveler would be the reality that people and ideas he considered on his side would now suddenly be enemies. To be a defender of a free society means sounding like a Bolshevik, with regards to big business. To oppose tyranny now means demanding the government crack down on the excesses of the corporate HR department. In order to defend your life and your posterity means secretly hoping for an American Pinochet to use the state to crush the enemies of the West.

How To Be A Bad Writer

The other day, someone asked me what makes for a good writer. We were discussing Jonah Goldberg’s new venture and I pointed out that the big challenge they will face is finding writers that are any good. It’s not so much that their opinions are banal and lacking in authenticity. It’s that the people writing for these sites are dull writers. The whole space is full of people, who should be writing technical manuals. Almost everyone with writing chops has been chased off by the loathsome carbuncles of Conservative Inc..

The question though, is why are some writers more interesting than others? Mark Steyn is not offering many unique insights, but he makes general commentary about the political scene fun and interesting. He is a great wordsmith. Steve Sailer is not a great wordsmith, but he often makes great observations about the world. In other words, you can be an interesting writer without being brilliant or a great wordsmith, but you better do something that gives the reader a payoff for having read your stuff.

Thinking about it, what often makes a writer good, is that they avoid the things that all bad writers seem to share. In this sense, “good” is not a state in itself, but simply not being in the state we call “bad.” A great wordsmith is further away from the state of bad writing than someone who is just an average writer. That average writer can appear to be much better, by offering keen insights and clever observations. The path to becoming a good writer, therefore, starts with avoiding the things that define a bad writer.

The most common trait of bad writers, it seems, is they write about themselves. Unless you are an international man of mystery, you’re not that interesting. No one is. Bad writers, always seem to think they are the most interesting people they know. This is what made former President Obama such a boring speaker. No matter the subject, his speech was going to be a meditation on his thoughts and feelings about the subject. It became a game of sorts to count how many times he referenced himself in a speech.

That’s the hallmark of bad writing. Instead of focusing on the subject, the writer focuses on himself, which suggests he does not know the material. Even when relating an experience or conversation, the good writer makes himself a secondary character in the story, not the focus. Bad writers are always the hero of everything they write, as if they are trying to convince the reader of something about themselves. Good writers avoid this and focus on the subject of their writing.

Now, in fairness, there is a division between the sexes on this one. Female writers only write about themselves. It’s why autoethnography is wildly popular with the Xirl science types on campus. They finally have a complicated sounding name for what comes natural to them. Presumably, female readers like reading this stuff, so there may be a Xirl exception to this rule. The fairer sex is wired to understand the world, particularly human relations, by observing the reactions of other women to that person or thing.

Another common habit of the bad writer is to use five paragraphs when one paragraph will do the trick. One of the first rules they used to teach children about writing is the rule of women’s swimsuits. Good writing is like a woman’s swimsuit, in that it is big enough to cover the important parts, but small enough to make things interesting. This is a rule that applies to all writing and one bad writers tend to violate. They will belabor a point with unnecessary examples or unnecessary explication.

Bad writers are also prone to logical fallacies and misnomers. There’s really no excuse for this, as there are lists of common logical fallacies and, of course, searchable on-line dictionaries in every language. In casual writing, like blogging or internet commentary, this is tolerable. When it shows up in a professional publication, it suggest the writer and the editor are not good at their jobs. A brilliantly worded comparison between two unrelated things is still a false comparison. It suggests dishonesty on the part of the writer.

Certain words seem to be popular with bad writers. The word “dialectic” has become an acid test for sloppy reasoning and bad writing. The word “elide” is another one that is popular with bad writers for some reason. “Epistemology” is another example, popular with the legacy conservative writers. Bad writers seem to think cool sounding words or complex grammar will make their ideas cleverer. Orwell’s second rule is “Never use a long word where a short one will do.” It’s the commonly abused by bad writers.

Finally, another common feature of bad writing is the disconnect between the seriousness of subject and how the writer approaches the subject. Bad writers, like Jonah Goldberg, write about serious topics, using pop culture references and vaudeville jokes. On the other hand, feminists write about petty nonsense as if the fate of the world hinges on their opinion. The tone should always match the subject. Bad writers never respect the subject they are addressing or their reader’s interest in the subject.

No doubt there are more complete and concise descriptions of bad writing than this quick list of observations. The pedants reading this sees all writing as bad writing, as everything they read violates at least one picayune rule they cherish. To normal people, though, good writing is mostly the absence of bad writing and bad writing is the violation of some basic rules of written communication. Therefore, if you want to be a good writer, you should first avoid being a bad writer. That gets you at least halfway home.

Tanking It

Note: No podcast this week. The day job has consumed almost all of my time, so I was unable to put anything together. I’ll be back next week.

While burning the midnight oil on a project, I put on a documentary about the evolution of the battle tank in World War II. It was free on Amazon and it looks like it was done by the Brits, as all of the experts were British. Most of it was archival footage, so maybe it was made by an American company. Most of these things are just bits from prior shows cobbled together with a new narrator. As documentaries go, it was mediocre, but it made noise and it was free, so it was good company while I was working on other things.

One interesting thing about tank evolution that never gets mentioned in America is just how good the Soviets were at making tanks. The Germans are always assumed to have been the great tank builders, followed by the Americans, but it was the Russians who dominated the field in the tank game. Russian tanks were fast, powerful and easy to operate by their crews. Most important, they were reliable in all weather. The Russians assumed they would be fighting in horrible conditions and built a tank for it.

The Germans, in contrast, made one error after another when it came to tank design and tank building. They were obsessed with coming up with the biggest, most powerful tank, rather than making lots of good enough tanks. The result was lots of innovative designs, but most were failures and there was never enough of them. The Panzer IV was a very good tank with a platform that was flexible, but the Germans kept trying to come up with a super tank, rather than make lots of these. That was a costly error.

The American tank, which was used by the British, was not a great tank, but they were cheap and reliable, which meant there were loads of them. It was also a flexible platform for all sorts of other uses. The Sherman tank was about using the two advantages the Americans had over the Germans. One was more industry and the other was more soldiers. The plan was to beat the Germans with volume. While it would take five Sherman tanks to take out a German tank, that was math that worked in favor of the Americans.

This conflict between the perfect and the good enough showed up in many places during the war. The Germans seemed to look at the whole thing as an engineering project. The first step was to accept the restraints and then solve for the variables. The Russian and American view was always to limit the constraints and thereby increase the number of possible right answers. The Germans had much better human capital, but their opponents always had many more choices. They also had numbers, which counts for a lot.

When you apply this conflict between the perfect and the good enough to modern warfare, the American military looks a lot like the Germans. The quest for the perfect fighter jet has led to the F-35 boondoggle. Instead of pouring billions into these white elephants, the money could be used to build swarms of cheap drones, but no one is getting rich from making cheap and useful military gear. The same thing is true with sea power. American warships are technical masterpieces, but probably useless in a real war.

This comparison raises the question that perhaps there is a parallel between the state of human capital in the American elite and the German elite during the war. The German soldiers were the best in the world, but the people further up the line were not the best tacticians. At the upper reaches, the strategist were terrible in all sorts of ways, starting with Hitler, who was laughably inept at running a war. Winning was never an option, but the Germans could have avoided total obliteration if they had better leaders.

The blame for this is always put on Hitler and that’s a good place to start, but the Germans had a brain power problem throughout the planning layer. This is obvious in how they went about making tanks. Instead of going for a tank that was cheap and easy to produce by a civilian workforce, they tried to build tanks that were complex and required specialists to produce. The effects of allied bombing raids were amplified by this strategic blunder in production planning. This is a very basic error in planning and execution.

One possible cause of this was that the middle-aged men who would have been sorting these production and design problems had died during the Great War. The German army tended to “use up” their units, rather than cycle them in and out of lines. That meant that a lot of experience with supply and logistics was lost in the trenches. The British and the Americans rotated units in an out of the lines, thus they came out of the war with a vast number of people with experience in the nuts and bolts of war fighting.

The current ruling class needs the Germans to be seen as the ultimate in super villains, but the truth is the Germans were dumb about a lot of important things. The Russians came up with slopped armor, for example, and the Germans never bothered to steal the idea, even after Kursk. The Germans got their hands on the Churchill tank, but never bothered to learn anything from it. They never learned from the Americans how to use communications to coordinate their artillery and their armor.

In many respects, the story of the tank in the war is a great proxy for the story of human capital and cultural intelligence. The Germans had the best trained military on earth, but they lacked human capital in the strategy and tactics layer. Either the culture was unable to produce it or there was simply not enough smart people to create the necessary smart fraction. That was ultimately why the Germany was wiped from the map. It’s probably why no new culture has arisen from that place on the map either.

The Case For Reparations Talk

Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris has tried to stir things up by coming out with a plan for reparations. Her scheme is short on details, but it is basically an as yet undefined special tax break for qualified people. She’s not the only left-wing candidate supporting the idea, but she is the first to talk about it in any specifics. It is an idea the radicals all think is a winning idea. For now, most are content to offer lip service, while making references to Ta-Nahisi Coates and his 2014 essay The Case For Reparations.

There’s an assumption among white radicals that all blacks have committed that essay to memory. In reality, 90% of blacks have never heard of Coates or his essay. That’s because Coates is the sort of boutique black that is only popular with the sorts of bourgeois radicals you see on the college campus or the Acela. He is the sort of black that only Progressives can love, in that he confirms all of their deepest held beliefs about their righteousness and never dares ask the wrong questions.

The amusing thing about their love for Coates is that he tends to make the case you often hear on this side of the great divide. His essay is so poorly written and constructed, it’s nearly impossible to critique, as that would require taking it seriously. It veers between conspiracy theory and emotive gibberish. There’s a paranormal quality to much of it, as he works from the assumption that racism is this spirit force that manipulates whites into doing bad things to blacks, without them ever noticing it.

Of course, the usual suspects are in a panic over this sudden burst of honesty from the radicals leading the anti-white coalition. They will never say it, but they know Hillary lost because she was unable to fool enough white voters. If whites wake up from their hallucinations and suddenly see things as they are, the coalition of the ascendant is in a lot of trouble. Telling Baby Boomers that they plan to take their loot and give it to blacks is the fastest way to get them off the golf course and into activism.

That is, of course, part of the plan. The Democrats always run far Left in their primary and then come back to less insane positions in the general. They can rely on the media to memory hole their nuttier comments and positions. They can also count on Republicans to never bring this stuff up. More important, they will never have to explain their plan or defend it against a thoughtful response. Instead, they will rely on the usual suspects in Conservative Inc. to play their role as the racist bigot opposed to reparations.

That’s an important thing to get here. The Left is all about morality. Whatever details they offer are just the minimum to complete the stage set. What they are doing here is carving out two roles, one for themselves and one for the Boomer right-winger, who seems to only care about his money, rather than justice. The role for Lefty in this play is to be seen as heroically defending the helpless non-whites, who are endlessly under assault from the institutional white privilege. The right-wing Boomer always falls for this gag.

There is a better response, one that the media and palace guards from Conservative Inc. will fight to make sure never happens. That answer is to agree, in principle, with the concept of reparations for the descendants of slaves. The one condition is that it has to be a good faith effort to arrive at a number that pays the debt in full. Since we’re mostly talking about cash payments, whatever that number is and whatever the degree of vengeance required, the final number has to stamp the debt “paid in full.”

That is, after all, the point of reparations. The person claiming to have been harmed, seeks to be made whole, by the person causing the harm. After a war, the winner will impose reparations on the loser, in order to facilitate peace. The cost of winning and imposing peace is imposed on the loser as both punishment and restitution. Once the debt is paid, that’s the end of it. If payments are supposed to continue into forever, without end, then that’s not reparations. That’s tribute and that’s what needs to be established.

That’s why a thoughtful person should always respond to this issue with a willingness to discuss the issue. The first question to Harris should be, “Is this a good faith effort to reach a final settlement, where the debt to blacks is fully paid?” Most likely, she would not know how to answer the question. The reason for that is she does not understand the definition of the word reparations. It just resonates with her target audience. What she and they, however, have in mind is tribute, a browngeld to be paid forever.

This is why responding to this stuff on-line with nutty demands like “Well, I’ll give them reparations once they return to Africa” is as dumb as blacks thinking they will be getting an extra check on top of what they get now. It just reinforces the moral argument made by the radicals, while blinding the intended victims to what’s happening. White people need to understand that they will pay. That’s written in stone. The question is, what do we get for those payments? When is this debt finally stamped “paid in full?”

Inevitably, the radicals representing the coalition of the ascendant cannot put a number on it and they cannot agree that there is a number. That’s because they are talking about tribute, rather than reparations. The question that must always follow a demand for tribute is, “If we refuse, then what?” Tribute must always include the threat of force and that’s what has been true about the Left for a long time. It’s why they avoid facts and logic. They make the demands with the assumption everyone knows what “or else” means.

Another angle to this approach is it would inevitably reveal another truth to what’s happening in this age. The radicals would not be able to limit the scope to the descendants of former slaves. Look at the language all of them are using. They never specifically say descendants of slaves. Harris simply says “qualified people of all races.” The reason for this is they are not championing the cause of American blacks, they are leading a coalition of non-whites, many of whom just got here, against white people.

For example, most whites are unaware that South Asians are in on this. Spend time in the Imperial Capital and you’ll notice most of the IT work is done by Indians. Africans, as in people from Africa, can go through special doors to get into colleges and graduate schools, simply because they are black. Latinos have their free pass too. None of these people have plausible grievance against American whites, but they get the handout because they are not white. That’s a reality white people need to face.

Seriously discussing this helps break the conditioning that seems to keep the older generations in a daze, as if they are drugged. The ascendant will never embrace the culture of American whites. They seek to drain the resources and power from whites, so they can dictate terms. This is not a competition they seek to win and then be generous to the vanquished. There is no generosity in their heart. We know this because there is no gratitude there ether. For them, reparations are vengeance with a dollar sign.

The point of our project is to raise awareness and wake up as many whites as possible to the new reality of this age. This is an opportunity to do just that. To allow mindless civic nationalists to lapse into their programmed responses is a mistake. These normie whites need to be slapped across the face and one way to do that is to embrace the issue of reparations seriously and dispassionately. Ask the question, “What is the number that pays the debt in full?” The answer is another red pill.

We have A Word For That

One thing you cannot help but notice, if you travel, is that English is just about everyone’s second language. In many parts of the world, their second language is almost as common as their first. In Iceland, for example, you hear as much English in the streets as Icelandic. The locals just seem to assume that people they don’t know are going to prefer English, while people they know will prefer Icelandic. In effect, they have a public language and private language. This is something you see in many places.

It used to be that French was the language of diplomacy. It is where we get the expression lingua franca. Of course, long before that, Latin was the official language of global affairs. In the case of French, it was simply a matter of France being the dominant power on the Continent, so French was the language of diplomacy among Europeans, but not the rest of the world. Latin was the language of the Church, so while the whole of Europe was Catholic, it was a useful common tongue for diplomacy.

The rise of English is a slightly different matter. For sure, the Pax Americana has a lot to do with English becoming the diplomatic language of the West, but it does not explain it becoming the public language. That’s probably due to the rise of global corporations in the last fifty years. Many European countries started teaching English in schools, because it would be useful in the work place. American companies would be more inclined to hire a German who spoke some English than an Italian with no English.

Power and money are always good answers to most questions, because they are easy to understand and confirm things we like to believe about the world. We want to think that there are great benefits to being rich or powerful, like imposing your language and religion on those over whom you rule. There’s certainly some truth to it, but it does not explain everything. For example, the prevalence of English in the Nordic countries is much higher than in France or Italy. The Germans have a lot of English speakers too.

Another possibility for why English has becomes the universal language is the rise of science and technology as cultural forces. English is extremely useful in science, because of its precision and flexibility. English is a not a language with a lot of words that have two very different meanings. For example, study and studio mean entirely different things. In French you would use the same word and the context would make the distinction. Few words in English need context to have a full meaning.

The other thing about English is it adopts new words, either from other languages or out of the blue, with great speed. This post by paleontologist John Hawks is an amusing example of how the flexibility of language works with science and technology. Most languages don’t adopt loan words very well. Instead, they have to take existing words and combine them together to get something like the meaning of the new word. German is hilarious with this. Lots of Zungenbrechers in German with new words.

It is possible that English is a better language for science and technology, where new abstract concepts are common. It is easier to invent a new word or borrow a word, like synergy for example, and imbue it with a definition that captures the new idea, rather than force the new idea into the old grammar. The word synergy was kicking around psychology for a century, before it was picked up by tech companies and turned into a catchy word to describe involuntary cooperation through the use of technology.

Of course, the implication here is that English evolved with people who were better at science and technology. It’s certainly true that the Industrial Revolution started in England and first spread to northern Europe. It’s certainly true that northern Europeans remain the most inventive people on earth. This is probably just a coincidence or perhaps something to do with ecology, as everyone knows there are no differences between people anywhere at any time under any conditions. To suggest otherwise is bad.

Even so, the rapid adoption of English as the official second language in European countries with a common heritage is suggestive. These countries have also always had a high and low version of their languages as well. High German is thought to derive from the Suebi people. Low German, the various German dialects in central Europe, come from the other tribes. Perhaps having a public language and private language, a public custom and private custom, is the real root of this phenomenon, rather than modern technology.

Regardless of the cause, English is becoming the official language of the planet, even as the ratio of Europeans to everyone else rapidly shrinks. Communicating in English is more efficient and more accurate across the wide swath of humanity. There are exceptions at the fringes, but there always are. In the main, English is becoming the public language of the world. That means the elite of the future will be plucked from those with the cognitive skills best suited for mastering the complexity of English thought.

That’s the part you can see in your daily life. There are South Asians, for example, who have a delicate mastery of English. There are others who are comical eruptions of misnomers and butchered grammar. No matter how hard they try, they just can’t think in English or even pretend to think in English. As a result, their mastery of the language is limited to mimicry. Since language is about communicating abstract concepts, these people will never be able to rise to the upper reaches of the cognitive class.

This is usually where the bad people bring up the phrase Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which then results in the usual suspects leaping from the bushes yelling “That had been debunked!” In truth, the strong version has simply been dismissed, because it does not fit in with the blank slate argument. Spend time around people, who speak English as a second language, You will notice that some are thinking in English, while others are just interpreting their native thoughts into English sounds.

It’s pleasant to think that the dominance of English portends good things for native English speakers and their cousins in Europe, but the Suebi may be the better example. They left a lot of their culture, but none of their people. There are claims by some to be the decedents of the Subei, but there is no proof as of yet. Most likely, the Subei were wiped out by strangers who flowed over the borders.

Public-Private Propaganda

Propaganda works on the assumption that most people yield to the authority of the state and most people yield to the opinions of their fellow subjects. Propaganda does not have to convince everyone or even a majority of everyone. It just has to work on that third that are ready and willing to believe. That group will be enthusiastic enough to convince the third that tends to follow the strong horse, even when in doubt. The third prone to skepticism is then outnumbered and less inclined to speak up.

In the modern age, liberal democracies are not going to have ministries of truth or official propagandists. That was the flaw of various forms of communism. They eliminated the private sphere entirely, so even the official religion of communism could not circulate freely among the people. The commies could not rely on the “right” position to spring forth on its own and circulate among the people, because the mechanisms for birthing it and spreading it were destroyed, along with the rest of the private property.

Joseph de Maistre observed that “false opinions are like false money, struck first of all by guilty men and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate the crime without knowing what they are doing.” The best propaganda is therefore struck by the believers in the private realm and circulated by honest people, who have their desire for truth perverted into a vehicle for spreading falsehoods. This story from last fall in the Daily Mail is a great example of how propaganda spreads in a liberal democracy.

The claim, for those uninterested in reading the story, is that women are becoming less faithful in their relationships. The story is based on a book by someone calling herself Wednesday Martin. Her claim, based on her qualitative research into the subject, is that modern women are more adulterous than in the past. For those unfamiliar with Xirl science, that’s a nice way of saying she sat around local coffee shops, talking to hens about their sex lives. There is no data in the book or the story.

Given the demographic of the people featured in the story, this book is a bodice ripper of sorts for the middle-aged white women. The standard model for the romance novel is the dashing stranger with money, they always have money and status, ravishing the heroine, in some exotic location or time period. The new model is to have “real life” women talk about their fantasies. In this case, it is middle-aged hens talking about their steamy affair with Roger from accounting, while her husband was on a business trip.

Of course, a good chunk of females want to believe this stuff. Those romance novels don’t fly off the shelves by accident. The soft-core porn book Fifty Shades of Grey sold 125 million copies and spawned a series of movies. It has been known since the ancients that women fall for the steamy romance, because women like to be flattered. The romance novel allows the reader to think she too could be caught up in a great adventure, the object of the desire, fought over by exciting high status males.

In our age, where the people in charge want women to work in the fields and refuse to have children with white men, promoting the idea of female adultery is useful. It’s not that they want women to be adulterous. It’s that they like the idea to gain currency, because it confirms the themes of feminism. It also anathematizes the sensibilities of normal women who are happy to be wives and mothers. The fact that it sells books and movies is a bonus, as it encourages even more of it from other corners.

Now, the fact is there is no data suggesting women are more adulterous today than at any time in history. In fact, the data we have reveals that women were less adulterous in the past than previously believed. Science can now use DNA to figure out if famous person X was in fact the child of his famous father. It’s one of the unexpected byproducts of ancient DNA studies. Similarly, what’s being revealed by the proliferation of ancestry services is that the number of birth outside of the marriage is quite low.

The natural counter to this observation is that modern birth control is probably obscuring this alleged growth in female infidelity. That argument is from another bit of propaganda used to peddle birth control. In the West, the promotion of birth control was based on the argument that ignorance results in unwanted pregnancy, so the solution is to put this into the children’s school curriculum. The claim is absurd. People have always known how babies are made and how to avoid making them. Look up Silphium, if you’re curious.

Regardless, this story about the alleged rise in female infidelity shows how the privatization of propaganda is vastly more effective than what you see from authoritarian regimes. The people in charge merely have to favor certain information over others and the media bullhorns magnify these preferences. For example, on Amazon you can buy The Unabomber’s Manifesto, but you cannot buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto. The people in charge are indifferent to the former, but not the latter.

The volunteer army of box wine aunties that stalks social media looking for blasphemers is another example. You’ll note that the overwhelming majority of left-wing agitators on-line are unattached females looking for attention. The propaganda machine has weaponized unattached females, turning them into enforcers of the orthodoxy. Once again, the heavy lifting is not done at the agency or propaganda. It is done in corporate boardrooms. The Soviets never had such an effective and dedicated army of spies.

This system that rewards the counterfeiters of truth and punishes the skeptics is not something created by design. It is a natural byproduct of liberal democracy. When the only authority is the general will, the fifty percent plus one, controlling public opinion became the point of everything. Once one ideological camp gains an edge, they leverage that by supporting their fellow ideologues and punishing their opponents. It’s why institutions move from a normal status into a deranged one, like we see with the Boy Scouts.

It’s also why the ratio of lies to truth in the public sphere seems to be increasing geometrically. The quantity of truth in the world is always fixed. The math of existence is the denominator of life. The numerator, however, is the falsehoods. Systems like communism and liberal democracy require greater amounts of propaganda in order to survive, so before long the numerator dwarfs the denominator. It’s why we live in a sea of fake news and nonsense studies about human behavior, written by morons.

The New Narrative

Spend time in a small business that has stood the test of time and you will learn the origin myths of the company and the founders. These myths will have plenty of truth content, but a lot will be fanciful or exaggerated. One reason is the story is inevitably told by the founder or his heirs, so it is self-serving. Another reason is the story is intended to give meaning and purpose to the people in the company. For an origin myth to work, it has to be inspirational and reflect well on the people in the organization.

People always have origin myths, of course. The most famous of which is the story of the Jews. The whole chosen people business is obvious nonsense. The flight from Egypt is at least plausible in some areas, but unless you’re willing to accept that God is an indiscriminate child killer, it’s a story that only Jews can believe. Still, the origin myth of the Jews has served them well for a very long time. These stories are central to Jewish identity and it is that strong identity that has allowed Jews to prosper.

If a strong set of origin myths correlates to a strong sense of identity and a strong people, then the reverse is probably true. The lack of origin myths, or a declining interest in the origin myths, probably suggests a weak identity. Perhaps the people have yet to come to identify themselves as a people or they are going through some sort of transition in terms of how they see themselves. The old myths no longer work, because they don’t fit the emerging narrative to explain how it is this people came to be.

This longish post in Foreign Affairs by popular historian Jill Lepore is an interesting read for a number of reason, not related to this post. The endless name dropping that torments writing in the humanities is a topic of its own. That’s mingled with self-promotion, in the form of references to the author’s books. Of course, anything to do with American history has to have a few paragraphs of the usual blather about slavery and Jim Crow. That said, it is worth the time to read it and the related posts on the site.

Lepore is one of those useful bellwethers in that she tends to write what the intellectual side of the ruling class is thinking. A big part of being a popular academic is to be in good standing with the ruling elite. They like being told about their wonderfulness from academics, so flattery is a big part of the game. That offers a window into the minds of the people who rule over us. What posts like this suggest is the people in charge are concerned with the fracturing they see from their position in the clouds.

That fracturing is predictable. Peter Brimelow predicted it two decades ago. Import tens of millions of strangers with strange customs into America and you’re going to get conflicts between the locals and the newcomers. The fact that these strangers were imported to replace the natives, who were not consuming and reproducing at levels satisfactory to the rulers, certainly did not help. Add in the rise of identity politics as a way to control the population and the result was predictable. Pat Buchanan predicted this.

Lepore is correct that people need a narrative that binds them together and explains why it is they are a people. America had an obvious one until the Civil War. When New England conquered the rest of the nation, the national story ended and was replaced by that new story that put New England at the top, as the ruler of the rest. That held together into the middle of last century, when Jews updated the tale to insinuate themselves into the story and explain their new dominance in the ruling class.

That American narrative worked until the people in charge decided they needed a new people and flung open the gates to unlimited immigration. A fascinating bit in that Lepore article is that she starts her essay in 1986 with the historian Carl Degler and his warning about the abandonment of nationalism. That talk would have happened around the time the ruling class was opening the borders. The implication that Mx. Lepore does not seem to grasp is that the hostility to nationalism preceded wholesale immigration.

On the other hand, she is a clever woman, so she could very well have done this on purpose, as a way of injecting the idea into the bloodstream of her peers. The academy is so narrow now, it is looking like a singularity from our perspective, but inside there is some room to maneuver. It requires a heavy dose of esoteric language and triple bank shot references to avoid detection. Perhaps that’s what she is up to by starting with that Degler speech and then ending with a piquant quote from that same talk.

That said, if the intellectual class in the West, but particularly in America, had not drawn all of the wrong lessons from the two great industrial wars of the 20th century, the ruling class would not have set about destroying the fabric of their countries. Perhaps the Frankfurt School notions were a bad idea after all. There’s no mention of this in the Lepore essay, but that an obvious implication once you read to the end. The finishing paragraph is a quote from Degler’s talk at that 19856 conference.

“The history of the United States at the present time does not seek to answer any significant questions,” Degler told his audience some three decades ago. If American historians don’t start asking and answering those sorts of questions, other people will, he warned. They’ll echo Calhoun and Douglas and Father Coughlin. They’ll lament “American carnage.” They’ll call immigrants “animals” and other states “shithole countries.” They’ll adopt the slogan “America first.” They’ll say they can “make America great again.” They’ll call themselves “nationalists.” Their history will be a fiction. They will say that they alone love this country. They will be wrong.

Again, there is no mention of open borders and the unprecedented levels of immigration in this essay, as those things cannot be discussed openly or rationally in the intellectual class. Still, the essay suggests that there is some interest by cloud people in what is happening among the dirt people. They can’t bring themselves to address the fact that you cannot have a common story when everyone is a stranger. Instead, they keep talking about Hitler and the other wrong lessons they drew from the events of last century.

There’s also the strange sense that these origin myths can simply be conjured and then imposed upon a people. The implication of this essay is that America needs a new one, so the people in charge better get busy creating one. The trouble is that white people are not allowed to have an identity and the non-white ascendancy does not have much to point to, as far as their contributions to the national story. Lepore offers something from Frederick Douglas as a starting point for this new national narrative.

A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming no higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, than nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family, is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.

That is no doubt inspiring to the cloud people, but it says more about how they see themselves than with the facts on the ground. It’s also a negative identity, based on victories over demons that exist only in the imaginations of the rulers. It also suggests she or her masters would like to see whites written out of this new national story. In case it is not clear, “bigoted people among ourselves” is you paleface. Perhaps that can be a useful cri de guerre in the war with the dirt people, but it is not binding narrative.

The fact is, the rise of nationalism, populism and white identity politics is a result of decisions made long ago. The radicals killed the national narrative, because they said nationalism is a dangerous construct. Their solution was to destroy the nations of the West, which has meant destroying the national identities of the West. That has now devolved into a war on the native stock of the West. There can be no unifying narrative that includes the both the destroyers and their victims.

That brings us back to the start. That small business that gets gobbled up by a multinational cannot maintain its origin myths. The people in that firm can no longer identify with that story, because that story has come an end. If they stick around, it is because of new reasons, less inspiring ones than those that bound them to that small business. That’s what we are seeing today in modern America. The old narrative has come to an end. It is time for a new one. The question is, who will do the writing.

Smollett Thoughts

Because I am not insane, I assumed the Jusse Smollett caper was a hoax as soon as it made the news. It ticked all the boxes of a hoax. The alleged victim was a black Jewish homosexual, who makes a living as a drama queen. The alleged incident happened in Chicago, where the last racist redneck was last seen in the 19th century. The incident happened in a part of town that caters to deviants like Smollett, not MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters. Again, only a nut would accept the story at face value.

Similarly, once the hoax was made plain, I knew the believers on the Left, by which I mean everyone on the Left, would go through the usual phases that they always pass through when confronting disconfirmation. Initially they would lash out at doubters, calling them blasphemers. As the truth was slowly revealed, they would search for explanations to excuse Smollett. Finally, once it was confirmed to be a hoax, they would enter the phase where they admit it was a hoax, but claim these crimes are common.

This brilliant post on the topic goes into more detail, but the general explanation is that these people need to be reinforced in their beliefs and they need to reinforce one another in their beliefs. Progressivism is a social system, as well as a set of beliefs. The believer is not just defined by his beliefs, but by his association with others. Much of the signaling we see from them is not intended for us. Like fireflies blinking in the dusk, they are signaling to one another. These hoaxes provide the opportunity for it.

The people in this photo, for example, don’t care about the details of the case or whether it is even true. They play make believe for a living, so facts grounded in observable reality are not important to them. This Smollett thing was like a stage that suddenly popped up in the public square, allowing them to climb aboard and perform. What they will remember and what their coreligionists will remember, is that they were on board early and stood strong for a victim of those terrible white people on the other side of the wall.

It’s why these people not only fall for these hoaxes, but amplify them. You can be sure that many of the people in that photo have fallen for many of these hoaxes. The little Jewish guy, front row, third from the right, is a barking at the moon anti-white. He really believes Hitler is about to pop out from the bushes and carry him off to a camp. The next time whites are libeled in some way, he will be right there showing his support for the anti-white, regardless of how silly the claim. He is consumed with a hatred of white people.

That’s the thing though. Not only do these people keep falling for these hoaxes, these hoaxes are becoming more common and more outlandish. This one is so absurd, it would not pass muster with Hollywood script writers. The University of Virginia rape hoax was also laughably absurd. In other words, instead of these hoaxes leading to greater skepticism, these hoaxes result in greater credulity on the Left. It’s as if each one is an appetizer, wetting the appetite of the believers, who are desperate for the real thing.

The other side of this dynamic is the civic nationalists are close to a frenzy, trying to prove the next hoax false, confident that this time will do the trick. The Left, confronted with the reality of these hoaxes, will throw down their weapons and finally admit, that yeah, these things are fake. The fear of the secret invisible Hitler people is all nonsense. During every one of these, the CivNats start blinking to one another, working the details of the puzzle, confident that their “eureka!” moment is at hand.

It is a good example of the central challenge of this age. Guys like Steve Sailer truly believe they can turn the tide with facts and reason. He probably has 25 posts on this Smollett thing. He has been working the hate-hoax angle for close to two decades now, yet here we are anyway. He is no closer to unriddling the hate hoax puzzle than he was twenty years ago. If anything, the hoaxes have become more outlandish. Even so, he will keep trying to use facts and reason to address a matter of belief.

No doubt, some civic nationalist types would argue that their project is not about convincing the Left. It is about demonstrating to normal people that these people are dishonest, crazy or even dangerous. In other words, using facts and reason is not about countering belief, but about convincing the rational. The trouble is the Left is undefeated against this strategy and it permits them to own the moral high ground. In this case, they were the ones defending the victim against those evil whites.

Culture wars are moral wars. It is about imposing your morality on the other side, no matter what it takes. It’s why radicals have had no qualms about using violence against their perceived enemies. It’s why Antifa exists. They’re not trying to prove their case or win arguments. They are about clubbing the doubters into submission. From the perspective of the Left, this Smollett affair was a big win. They reinforced an important point They control the morality and they will impose it on society.