The war on Christian pizza makers has the professional Right sorely vexed. I think most of their outrage is legitimate. They truly are offended by this latest assault on normal Americans. The fund raising by the pizza joint in Indiana suggests normal Americans are growing weary of the lunatics and their causes. Still, I think a part of what vexes the professional Right is their fear of stating the obvious conclusion.

That conclusion is you cannot have freedom of any sort without freedom of association. If you must get permission from the state to associate or disassociate from others, you have no freedom. The state may allow you some options, but everything you do must come with a permission slip. Otherwise, putting two people who hate one another in the same room ends up with blood on the walls.

Here’s a recent screed from National Review struggling to avoid stating the obvious.

Policies come to us with principles attached to them, and when debating public policy we should consider the principles not only of legislation that has passed but also of legislation that has been rejected. No one to my knowledge is discussing where the principles implied in the Left’s rejection of the RFRA lead. Responsible statecraft entails an examination of a principle’s logical conclusion. In the case of liberalism, the conclusions to which its principles lead help us see just how deeply opposed those principles are to the constitutional order we’ve inherited.

When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites compelled speech. When photographers are forced under threat of fines to shoot weddings or religious services that they believe are immoral, the assumption is that we are sometimes legally bound to participate in certain kinds of speech, and the state becomes the arbiter of what that speech is in specific instances.

Well, no. Forcing someone to work for someone else is not forcing them speak. It is forcing them to participate. Put another way, it is compulsory association. The state is saying to the photographer, “We really don’t care about your opinions of these people. You must do what we say, act as we say or else.”

Of course, the reason Andrew Walker of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the guy who wrote the piece in question, must fetishize speech is he cannot mention association. To do so, to draw the obvious conclusion from the events in Indiana and elsewhere, would risk his job and career. Rand Paul almost saw his career come to end in 2012 because he dared utter this conclusion.

The reason, ostensibly, is that letting stores refuse service to homos would lead to stores not serving blacks. That has things exactly backwards. Separate public accommodations in the South were falling apart on their own. Basic economics makes such practices self-limiting and self-destructive. The reason Progressives pushed through laws against private discrimination was to eliminate private association.

It’s rather amazing how easily Americans were willing to surrender their liberty, but there it is. Now, there’s no reason to think things like Christianity, private clubs, fraternities, etc will hold up much longer. After all, if you cannot deny admissions based on your own peculiar criteria, why have an organization at all?

The thing I think is vexing to the professional Right is the mounting proof that they were wrong about the Left. They were convinced that the “other side” (as if there are only two sides) was acting in good faith, but just need convincing. Recent events show that to be nonsense, but Conservative Inc. can’t bring itself to admit it.

There’s no evidence from Progressives that they see any of this as a flaw or even unintentional. Yes, they fully expect to impose their morality – at gunpoint if necessary – on the rest of us. That’s how political cults operate. Hell, it’s how Christianity operated for over 1,000 years. But, admitting this is the case would point out that Conservative Inc has been wrong for thirty years now.

On occasion, I like to read old books about taboo subjects. I developed the habit as a student, when assigned the task of writing an essay on the 1948 presidential election. We were permitted to use one source and that was the NYTimes archive at our library. That meant staring through a device, resembling a peep show machine, at film on which the archives of the paper were stored.

What I found fascinating were the horribly taboo things written in the Old Gray Lady about blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, etc. The want ads were hilarious. “Two Irishman wanted for painting crew.” Or, “Negros wanted for ditch digging.” Newspapers used the language of the man on the street and reading those old papers gave me a sense of what it was like to live in that age.

The thing is, mass media must respect the sensibilities of the buying public, even if those sensibilities are insane. American newspapers in the 40’s, for example, could not criticize America’s conduct of the war, even in cases where it was warranted. The people simply would not tolerate it. A decade later when passions had cooled, papers could indulge in revisionist history.

Similarly, the mass media of every society must live within the constraints of the ruling classes. They must promote and support the legitimizing ideology of the day. A newspaper man in Nazi Germany could not celebrate diversity. A cable news talker today cannot question the joys of diversity. To do so puts your job and career in jeopardy.

Just as those public sensibilities can be insane, the legitimizing ideology can belch forth its own brand of crazy. Homosexual marriage, for example, is nonsense, but sacred nonsense. Go against it and you reap the whirlwind. Point out the suicidal nature of diversity and cultural Marxism and you will be condemned to a life of penury or worse. Unlike the public, the people in charge can throw you in gaol so you’re wise to tread lightly.

I was thinking about this the other day reading Steve Sailer’s latest Taki column. Sailer is a very smart and a very well trained person. There are maybe a handful of people who possess his social science skills. He also possess the sorts of credentials that lead to riches in modern America. An MBA from UCLA is no small thing.

Sailer also writes and says things that violate the taboos of the ruling class so he is unwelcome in the places run by those serving the ruling class. He maintains a blog and lives off donations. Maybe his wife has a job, I don’t know. Instead of selling books, getting paid by a think tank and doing TV, he begs for donations.

Sailer thinks he is right. So much so he has condemned himself to a life of penury, despite possessing the credentials and intellect to be highly successful. Presumably, he has chosen this path because he values being right over making money. Malcolm Gladwell is wrong about most everything and probably knows it, but he likes money so he has gotten rich uttering nonsense in public.

Sailer is certainly not a martyr or even unique. He made his choices for his own reasons and was surely aware of the consequences. The dissident right is littered with guys and some gals who write interesting things about interesting topics, but do so on the fringe, banned from the respectable salons that dominate public life.

It’s not a new phenomenon. Galileo got himself in trouble not because he challenged dogma, but he refused to play along with the rules and customs of the ruling classes. Copernicus first laid out the heliocentric view long before Galileo, but he played by the rules and avoided challenging the established order. You can say anything you want as long as you don’t threaten the established order.

That’s what you see with a guy like Kevin Williamson at National Review. He’s smart enough to know that Charles Murray is right, for example, but he knows it takes credentials and talent he lacks to walk up to that same line. Instead, he lets Robert Putnam draw the lines and is willing to live within them. Williams has a habit of describing cultural issues precisely, only to avoid drawing the only logical conclusion.

This column from a few months back is a great example. Without freedom of association, you cannot have any freedoms at all. Williams clearly gets that, but also knows that it is a lethal point to make if you earn your living from a legitimate publication. So, when faced with the reality of his observations, he springs for the safety of equivocation. It’s left to commenters to fill in the blanks.

Many on the fringe take comfort in the belief that reality does not go away when you stop believing in it. Eventually, the lunacies of our day will have to give way to math and science. That assumes there will be anyone left capable of sorting fact from fiction. It is axiomatic that you get less of what you punish. Another generation of punishing heretics and who will be left, capable of recognizing reality, much less articulating it?

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times.

-Lincoln at Lyceum

In their ongoing obsession with destroying the Pale Penis People, the Cult has been tub thumping about domestic violence. I keep seeing these bizarre commercials featuring athletes warning that at any minute, you could be a wife beater. Of course, every sports team and college now races to get ahead of the mob when they have an incident.

Like the proliferation of rape hoaxes, these mob frenzies encourage the worst behavior. Young women have been stalking famous men since Grog got famous for besting Trog in the poo flinging contest. In modern times, every hotel hosting a team is littered with girls trying to bag an athlete. Giving them the right to cry rape with impunity is just asking for trouble. Giving them the right to cry “domestic violence” is even worse.

The Tuscaloosa (Ala.) Police Department announced Wednesday that the 24-year-old woman who told police she had been assaulted Saturday by now-former Alabama defensive tackle Jonathan Taylor has recanted her statements and subsequently been arrested herself.

The woman initially told police an argument with Taylor had become physical with officers observing “minor injuries” to her neck that the woman said were a result of the altercation. Taylor was arrested and charged with domestic violence third-degree assault and domestic violence third-degree criminal mischief. Nick Saban later announced that Taylor, who had already been dismissed from Georgia following still-pending domestic violence charges, was removed from the Alabama football program.

Per al.com, a TPD statement says the woman contacted police Monday to recant her earlier statements, telling officers Taylor had not harmed her. She was interviewed by officers Tuesday and again said she had lied about being injured by Taylor. The woman was arrested and charged with false reporting to law enforcement before posting bond and being released.

The TPD statement indicates the charges against Taylor will be reviewed. An Alabama spokesperson told al.com Wednesday he was “unsure” if the development might allow Taylor a chance to rejoin the Crimson Tide.

Look, we can’t know what happened here. What we do know is you should not be punishing people before you know if they are guilty. Mobs don’t accept that and that’s how you end up with the wrong guy swinging from the tree. It’s worse than that, of course. It threatens the very idea of civilization.

When men take it in their heads to day, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil.–By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained.–Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed–I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their friendship effectual. At such a time and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric, which for the last half century, has been the fondest hope, of the lovers of freedom, throughout the world.

I’m not a huge fan of Lincoln, but he knew the risks of letting fanatics gain the upper hand.

Here’s the difference between America and Europe. In the States, a TV tax would never fly. Instead, the government taxes the TV makers, the cable guys, the content providers, etc. Then they force the providers into including channels no one would ever watch like PBS or CNN. All of this shows up in the monthly bill. We like our taxes hidden so we can pretend to be free.

In Europe, they prefer their authoritarianism straight. In the UK, the man taxes you for TV service, regardless of your type of service. That tax goes to fund government agit-prop pumped out by the BBC. If you don’t pay the tax, they throw you in prison. That’s right. They don’t cut off the service. They throw you in jail. Over 10% of criminal cases are for failure to pay the TV tax.

The BBC is responsible for more than one in 10 criminal prosecutions. Culture Secretary Sajid Javid reports that 10% of magistrate court cases are for non-payment of the BBC licence fee. Non-payment is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. Every week about 3,000 people are fined for non-payment, and about one person a week is jailed for non-payment of the fine.

Women make up about 70% of those prosecuted and convicted, and half of those jailed for not paying the fine. When people fail to pay other utilities, such as energy companies, they are guilty of a civil offence, not a criminal one, and they cannot be prosecuted and fined for falling behind with their payments. Civil action can be taken for recovery, but without fines and jail terms.

Several newspapers have had reporters visit magistrate’s court to describe what goes on. They all tell harrowing stories of frightened, distressed people, mostly women, facing fines they cannot pay under threat of imprisonment if they do not. Many are single mothers, many on benefits. They have not paid the licence fee because they cannot afford to. The sum of £145.50 per year is huge for a young mother struggling to feed and clothe children. Many weep in court, unable to pay the fine for the same reason they couldn’t afford the licence fee; they don’t have the money.

Everyone with a TV, except the over 75s, has to pay, whether or not they watch BBC programmes. If people fail to pay for other services, such as a Sky subscription, for example, the service is withdrawn without them being taken to court and fined.

The reason for this, of course, is to make sure every citizen is getting their instructions. The BBC is about crowd control. TV serves the same purpose in the US, it’s just funded indirectly. Still, I can cut the cord and not pay anything. As an American, I will not be thrown in jail for not watching the agit-prop beamed over TV.

America! Yeah! We’re number one!

I was a big fan of the BBC show Top Gear. I’m not much of a car guy, but it was never really a car show. It was a comedy show based around cars. Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond make a fun team. They are a Mr. Bean version of the Three Musketeers. Their humor is refreshingly un-PC, which is why some think Clarkson was sacked last week.

I labour the point, chippily, sure – the BBC is still run by the white, liberal, upper middle classes. Not that Clarkson is a horny-handed son of toil, of course, either. But it did occur to me that the BBC has pretty much nothing left which could be considered, uh, Right. Clarkson was an exceptionally brilliant presenter (and will continue to be so elsewhere, one suspects), but whatever the rights or wrongs of this latest ‘fracas’, the BBC was uncomfortable with him. It wanted him out. It was torn a little by the fact that – again almost uniquely for a BBC star – he was genuinely popular, and popular with a section of the audience the BBC normally fails to reach – ie British people who are not PC neurotics. Yes, millions and millions and millions of people. But collectively it loathed his politics. And that is really why he has gone. And so who is left at the BBC who isn’t left?

That’s surely true, but you can’t go around punching subordinates. It is a failing of any man who cannot treat his inferiors with respect. I think big shots can be forgiven for being rude and difficult with the help, but there’s a responsibility to set a proper example. Still, I wish they could have found a way to work it out so the show could continue.

The whining about Clarksons dismissal, however, is a bit much. He punched a guy in the face for no reason. The other guy should have knocked Clarkson on his ass and Clarkson should have been man enough to accept it. It’s how men are supposed to settle these things. But, the star-subordinate thing does cloud the issue.

The relevant facts are these. Clarkson turned on his producer because there wasn’t a hot dinner waiting for him at the crew’s hotel. (Today’s celebrities, like yesterday’s aristocrats, expect their servants to anticipate their every appetite.)

He called Oisin Tymon a “lazy, Irish c***”. The abuse went on for 20 minutes, according to witnesses. Clarkson couldn’t stop, couldn’t leave Tymon alone. Finally he attacked him, and split his lip with a punch that left the 36-year-old with blood running down his face and needing treatment in A&E. The BBC inquiry suggested that Clarkson would have kept on hitting him, if onlookers had not intervened.

Most people – well, most men anyway – would have let the matter rest if Tymon had smacked Clarkson back. They would have been square, and that would have been that. However strong my impulse would have been to hold his coat, how could Tymon throw a punch? He was the subordinate and Clarkson was the aristocratic star. Tymon was too low down the light entertainment hierarchy to think about defending himself. According to the BBC report, Clarkson left Tymon thinking his career was over and he had “lost his job,” as if it was he who had been at fault.

Forgive me. I realise I shouldn’t go on about mere facts. The last thing the right-on PC Right wants you to do is concentrate on what happened. Instead, its propagandists say you should dismiss the evidence and head off into conspiracy theory.

I think the right answer here was for Clarkson to have apologized that the time and for the other man to have accepted it. That would have been the proper way to handle it. The fact that Clarkson preferred to let the BBC management adjudicate the matter suggests he is a man of low character. He was hoping to get away with it, simply because he is a star.

Still, I loved the show and I’ll watch again if it comes back.

By now it should be obvious that TED exists to give me blog material. They scour the earth looking for pseudo-intellectual airheads to prattle on about nonsense to the applause of barking seals in the audience. This time they found a tranny to say insane things for our entertainment.

I was assigned boy at birth based on the appearance of my genitalia. I remember when I was five years old in the Philippines walking around our house, I would always wear this t-shirt on my head. And my mom asked me, “How come you always wear that t-shirt on your head?” I said, “Mom, this is my hair. I’m a girl.” I knew then how to self-identify.

No, you were not “assigned” anything. Biology is not arbitrary. Your genetics make you a boy or a girl. You were born a boy and you remain a boy. You have chosen to mutilate yourself and dress up like a girl or you may have a mental disease. Either way, you are what your DNA says you are.

Gender has always been considered a fact, immutable, but we now know it’s actually more fluid, complex and mysterious. Because of my success, I never had the courage to share my story, not because I thought what I am is wrong, but because of how the world treats those of us who wish to break free. Every day, I am so grateful because I am a woman. I have a mom and dad and family who accepted me for who I am. Many are not so fortunate.

Humans do not have “gender” they have a sex, male or female. There’s never been anything mysterious about it because up until recent, we have not let crazy people rant like this in public.

There are people who swear they are animals or invisible. Are we supposed to pretend they are these things? Are we going to be required to say that Fred down the block is a giant gopher because Fred now identifies as a gopher?

A big theme of mine is how modern capitalism is all about socializing costs and privatizing profits. There’s a bit of that with the various crotch warriors and deviants. The cost of these delusions is forced onto the rest of us. That way Fred get to pretend to be a giant gopher without suffering the consequences for it.

Now matter how far you spread the costs, they never go away. They are always there. Even a rich society like ours can indulge in a limited amount of madness. Forcing the rest of us to go along with this poor persons madness is pushing those limits. Instead of maybe finding a medical solution to these delusions, we are hobbling the normal functioning of society to accommodate them.

The always restrained and sensible Ross Douthat has a restrained and sensible response to the latest moral crisis over the sodomites. The equally sensible and restrained Ed Whelan has a response to that column. From what I can gather, the folks on the Right are racing to get out into the public their very best restrained and sensible opinions about the latest outrages from the Cult of Modern Liberalism.

As is always the case, the comments are where you find the interesting bits. This from the NYTimes is a good example:

Religious views about sexuality are inconsistent with the reality that gay people are human beings who deserve the same rights and privileges as other people. The fact that they are sexually attracted to their own gender is clearly biologically based. Gay people have been abused for centuries because of ignorance of biology, and because the majority of straight people, unable to imagine not being straight, assumed that the gay minority was in diabolical cahoots with the prince of darkness, or some other such theological nonsense.

When the religious view of the world congealed centuries ago, it did so based on many wrong assumptions that were the result of profound ignorance of the true origin and nature of human beings. We now know better, and a tipping point has been reached in which people suddenly realized that gay people were not perversions, but were our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends and our families.

The answer to every question that Mr. Douthat asks is the same. No person, no gay person, no black person, no female person should be treated with disdain because of their biology. Those who might do so are acting out of ignorance. They will now have to experience the social pain and rejection they they’ve inflicted with impunity on others. They will lose their relevance, their dignity and their tax exemptions. They will become what they have abused and hated. I’m a little embarrassed to admit that I will enjoy their pain. But I’ll get over it.

The person who wrote that echoes what was commonly said during the French Revolution about the aristocracy. The person who posted that would be perfectly fine with banning the religions they don’t like even if it meant killing the adherents. That’s always been the point of homosexual marriage, to give moral authority to the wrecking ball smashing through the churches.

You’ll note that “No person, no gay person, no black person, no female person should be treated with disdain because of their biology” explicitly leaves out white males. The person writing that could be male or female, black or white. It really does not matter because they have given themselves over to the cause so thoroughly, they no longer “identify” with their own biology. They are now The Borg.

The restrained and sensible people on the Right who post their replies to people like the commenter I quoted are going to a gun fight with the intent of talking the other side into surrender. It’s why we have gone, in a little over a decade, from “civil unions” to throwing people in jail for “treating the anointed with disdain.”

If you are a church going person, my suggestion to you is this. Disband your church and give up your faith. Run and hide. If you can’t bring yourself to do that, then you better get used to the idea of shooting back – literally. There’s no talking the other side out of their vision of the future, which does not include you.

It’s been obvious for a long time now that the American political elite is undergoing a transformation. In the post-war period, the threat of global thermonuclear war froze things in place for a generation or more. One party was the coalition of novus civis, the newly minted members of American society. They were led, of course, by patricians like Roosevelt, but the foot soldiers were the ethnics who had arrived in the late 19th and early 20th century.

The other party was for the patricians. These were the core Americans who were white, Protestant and identified with the old Anglo-Saxon order. This party was, of course, led by patricians, like Rockefeller. Bush and Lodge. Their foot soldiers were the middle-class burghers who dominated the merchant classes.

The sixties saw that come apart as the ethnics became prosperous enough to join the middle-class. Once the ethnics could afford a house in the burbs and send their kids to college, they started to re-think their membership in the Democrat party. Once it was clear that the Progressive wing of that party was ready to start shooting the ethnics, it was not a long walk to the GOP, which is what happened in the 1970’s. The Archies were chased off by the Meatheads.

That’s where things would have stood if not for the end of the Cold War. Fear of a nuclear holocaust forced both parties to police their worst elements. A general agreement in the political class was that dangerous or reckless men must never be in the White House. Kennedy took two in the hat before he could blow up the world and that was as close as anyone was willing to get. The presidents from Kennedy forward may not have been great, but they were not loose cannons or reckless men unwilling to abide by the rules.

That changed when the wall came down. Bill Clinton was and is a vulgar degenerate and quite possibly a sociopath. He was nominated and elected because everyone felt it was safe to indulge in our worst instincts. Similarly, George W Bush was just spite for knocking off his old man eight years prior. Obama was the end of a long Progressive cuckold fantasy about the solution to race problems in America.

This coincides with the changing roles of the parties. The Democrats are now a purely ideological party. They seemed to be wholly disconnected from the normal operations of a political party in a liberal democracy. Obama pushes forward with polices that are not only unpopular, but positively dangerous to the country. For instance, the Middle East is on the brink of a regional war entirely due to his polices, that do nothing to advance American interests.

Coalition parties are the natural home for the religious. That’s why the American model has worked. You could be a Christian and a Democrat or a Jew and Republican. Allegiance to a party was about policy preferences, not group membership. Ideological parties require complete fidelity to the ideology. You can’t be a Progressive, for example, and oppose abortion or sodomy. That’s why Christians have been purged from the Democrat Party over the last two decades.

Jews are about to face the same dilemma, but from a slightly different angle. First there is the issue of Israel. Obama and the Progressives are about to give them the South Africa treatment. You can be sure that the word “apartheid” will be bouncing around the fever swamps and into the liberal press. The Jews are about to be declared the black hats and Netanyahu will be Die Groot Krokodil.

The other issue is the fact they are white, at least from the perspective of the coalition of the dispossessed. The Progressive cult awards piety points based on one’s distance from the evil white man. The typical Jewish male looks like a garden variety white guy to everyone else in the cult. More important, they are closer than the Muslims so the choice is easy, as far as Progressives are concerned.

Its why, ultimately, ideological parties are bad for Jews. There’s simply no getting around the ethnic loyalty problem presented by Jews in an ideological movement. One can stop being a Catholic, a Christian or a Shriner. You’re born a Jew. It’s the only religion that is also an ethnic group. For ideologues, Jews can never be trusted because they can never fully break from being Jewish. As the old Bolshevik saying goes, a man cannot chase two rabbits.

It is tempting to think that the Jews will just follow Archie Bunker over to the GOP. Maybe that will happen. I know a lot of Jews who are repulsed by what they see from the Left. But that assumes the GOP itself is not changing in response to what’s going on with its dance partner. The evidence suggests the GOP is, at the minimum, been destabilized, even as it is the majority party now.

The American system has always worked on the basis of two parties representing competing coalitions. Those coalitions agreed on the big stuff. They disagreed on the small stuff and how best to administer all of it. For the first time we now have a party that explicitly disagrees on the big stuff. In fact, one party appears to be defining itself as explicitly un-American.

The struggles you see with the GOP trying to formulate a response to the behavior of the Democrats is what you would expect from people trying the old tactics only to see them fall flat. The software of the GOP is built for a different age to face a different opponent. That means the GOP will have to change to match the Democrats, but into what?

History does not provide reasons to optimistic.

I saw this posted on on Maggie’s Farm yesterday. What struck me was the images. The future as imagined by our rulers is always the same. Lots of glass and stainless steel. Everything is mechanized and intimidatingly efficient. Most important, it looks better without people.

Imagine those white tile walls and floors marked up by the zig-zag graffiti of the local street gang. Think about the vibrant types lined up in the black hoodies and New York Knicks lids on sideways. The people who imagine these things certainly don’t think about it because in their imagined future, there’s no vibrancy. Everything is monochromatic. It’s Blade Runner after all the bad people have finally been removed from the gene pool.

That’s the thing about what has happened in these hotbeds of gentrification. Social movements arise in response to some problem, real or imagined. The systematic removal from sight of the unwanted by liberal white people is quickly followed by the creating of living space fit for their kind and not the other kind.

The weird fascination with white and stainless, I suspect, part of the subtext of gentrification. There’s also the Potemkin recreations of the glory days of urban life as imagined by modern Progressives. Central Square in Cambridge Mass has be refitted to look like late 60’s Berkley, the last time and place it was cool to be an urban white person.

As I said the other day, the ruling class is developing a language of their own. They are also creating a new aesthetic. The NYC subways will look like Logan’s Run, while the above ground shops will have an ersatz bohemian grittiness. Looming over all of it will be the glass and steel towers. Maybe that’s where they will mount the Eye of Soros.

Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind

Cannot bear very much reality.

So said Eliot and he was certainly correct. Much of what we take for human culture is an elaborate defense mechanism allowing us to avoid facing the reality of our existence. I suppose there’s nothing wrong with it. Our species has carried on a good while now so there must be something of value to the trait. Still, it is not without its downside.

An example is in this story on US health care.

The Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, the case challenging the Obama administration’s decision to award tax credits for health insurance sold through federally established exchanges, could turn on the question of whether a ruling that ends the tax credits on federal exchanges might cause something known as a “death spiral” in health insurance markets.

The good news is the answer is probably no, but the bad news is that’s only because the death spiral has probably already started.

A death spiral generally occurs when insurers are forced to raise premiums sharply to pay promised benefits. Higher premiums cause many of the healthiest policyholders, who already pay far more in premiums than they receive in benefits, to drop coverage.

When healthy policyholders drop coverage, it leaves the insurer with little choice but to raise premiums again because they now have a risk pool that is less healthy than before. But another premium increase means many of the healthy people who remained now drop their policies, too, and this continues until the only people willing to pay the now-very-high premiums are those with serious medical conditions.

Europeans, to their credit, have accepted the fact that the laws of supply and demand apply to health care, just as they do every other product and service. That means there must be a rationing mechanism. Europeans prefer their authoritarianism straight so they turn the rationing over the to the state. Americans can’t accept that supply and demand applies to health care so we keep inventing new crackpot schemes that promise to suspend the laws of nature.

Health care reached the point of diminishing returns about fifty years ago. 100 years ago America spent 3% of GDP on health care and people lived to about 60. Today we spend about 15% on health care and people live to about 80. A good portion of that increase in life expectancy is due to better food and less violence. It is axiomatic that as things like health care improve, the cost of further improvement escalates. The marginal return on investment declines.

This is true in all areas of human endeavor. The initial burst of productivity from the Internet was cheap. The phone lines existed and most Americans could read and write. As we have gone on, the cost of further productivity gains have escalated as new infrastructure has to be built out and new skills mastered. Again, this is phenomenon that social science has documented for a long time. Marx, while not framing it the same way, was talking about it in the surplus value of labor theory.

The fact is, we have about as much health care as we need. Until genetics begins to offer up solutions that reset the baselines, spending more on current health care is a negative investment. That’s the defect of the central planning model of Europe. There’s no hope for new technologies to reset the baselines and spur new high return investments. It’s why all the heavy lifting is done in the US these days.

This brings me back to the supply and demand aspect. Rationing is best done by price. People want BMW’s more than they want Dodge Darts and that is reflected in the price. No everyone can have a BMW so the clearing price determines who gets a BMW. In the American health care system, this process is retarded by government intervention. The result is rising prices and diminishing services. That’s the real death spiral, the death spiral of the monopolist.

America has the greatest health care system on earth. It is super cheap, with lots of options and a high degree of customer satisfaction. It is called veterinary medicine. American pets get better health care that 95% of the world population for pennies. The reason is there are few barriers to suppliers so there are many options along the price curve. There’s also incentives to innovate. My Vet has world class lab equipment because it helps attract business.

But, we would rather pamper our pets and starve out children than accept the reality of the human condition.