By our way, I mean the into the race realism camp.The answer is most certainly no, as he likes his pay check, but he flirting with dangerous ideas of late. Unsaid in the this post is that he obviously read and probably still reads Steve Sailer, who made some unfortunate observations about New Orleans once. This essay by Williamson has some observations that are the sorts of things that got Sailer hurled into the void. First he gives the standard lines conservatives are allowed to say about economics.

Economists have many different models explaining how economic growth happens. And though the relative merits of those models are hotly contested among economists, as are the relative weights that should be assigned to many variables, a few factors keep turning up: productivity, capital accumulation, population growth, and technological progress. (Those are the basis of the Solow-Swan model of growth.) While government policy certainly has an effect on those factors, they generally operate at some remove from it: You cannot simply pass a law mandating greater productivity or technological innovation. You can encourage your population growth by (for example) liberalizing your immigration rules, which will probably work if you are New Zealand or the United States but not for Rwanda or Haiti, or a sparsely populated rural community in the United States. Policy can encourage capital accumulation, but it cannot ensure it. We have invigorating political fights about the tax code and stimulus spending, and those are important fights to have, but many of the most important factors driving economic growth are beyond direct political control.

That’s the standard product from Conservative Inc. Their’s is a fight lost long ago, but they are still allowed to wear their uniforms and have parades once in while so they wave the flags of free market capitalism. Then we have this:

But there is a critical variable that is at least partly within the direct control of government: the quality of government. The quality of government — its honesty, competence, reliability, and predictability — has an effect on most of the important economic variables. And not just government itself, but other institutions with the power to shape public life, such as unions and large firms. Quality is something outside of and different from policy specifics, which is why similar policies often produce wildly different outcomes in different polities: Single-payer health care in Bahrain turns out to be very different from single-payer health care in Canada. A high level of government-enforced union involvement has been catastrophic for the U.S. automotive industry but not for the German automotive industry, which is a lot less of a mystery than it seems when you account for the fact that the UAW is not IG Metall, GM is not Audi, and the U.S. government is not the German government.

Guess what else is different? That’s right. Ingolstadt is full of Germans while Detroit is full of non-Germans. It is a lot easier to have a sane government when your smart fraction invented large chunks of Western Civilization. When your smart fraction is barely capable of running a small-time drug den without killing one another, you’re probably getting a government that reflects that fact.

There is no way to put a happy face on this fact: Critical American institutions are of shockingly low quality. Corruption is a part of that: At No. 19 on the Transparency International rankings, the United States is tied with Uruguay. Its transparency score of 73 is far behind where you want to be, among such category leaders as Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden, and Finland (91, 91, 89, and 89, respectively). We lag well behind our Canadian neighbors and such important international competitors as Germany. Our overall standing is not terrible, but it does not place us among global leaders, either. Moderation in the pursuit of honesty is no virtue.

There’s an elephant in the room here. Kevin is a bright guy and he must surely know it, but he likes living an easy life so he avoids stating it directly. Further, he surely knows his readership knows it too. Perhaps Kevin Williamson is deliberately doing the dog whistle thing. On the other hand, the blinkered way these guys see the world can never be discounted. it’s possible he has described the elephant in the room without actually noticing it. Some people never notice what’s going on around them.

Every society goes through periods when its ruling class can no longer police itself. The Founders of America recognized this problem and designed a political system that would turnover a little more frequently than what they saw in Europe. For example, the typical king was on the throne for a couple of decades. According to this site, which seems authoritative, the typical British monarch hung around for 21 years.

Even when you drop out long serving monarchs and the short timers, you’re looking at a two decade reign. Most likely, Britain has had fewer violent changes of power than other countries, but that could be wrong. The French had a long run of peaceful transition. The Germans were at the other end as far as length of reign. Even so, most subjects could expect to serve maybe two monarchs in their lifetime.

Hereditary rule has some obvious problems. No matter how well the ruling elites police their own, you can still end up with a lunatic on the throne. Charles VI reigned for 42 years, despite thinking he was a wolf and made of glass. Christian VII of Denmark stuck around for over four decades, despite having an obsession with his penis. He jerked off so much it effected his health. He also would slap people for no reason and insisted on playing leap frog with visiting dignitaries.

When there is no system to prevent a lunatic from gaining power, you’re pretty much guaranteed to get a few lunatics in power. When you have no way to remove them you either get some long serving lunatics or you get a lot of assignations. A system that requires the occasional assassination of the ruler invites all sorts of intrigue and paranoia. Every king has to assume he is surrounded by potential assassins. It is just a terrible way to police the ruling class.

Representative democracy is a cure for that. Even if you cannot prevent a lunatic from gaining office, his term will end soon enough. In theory, the churn of office holders will allow the ruling elite to sideline a nut before they get into office. If one slips by, then he can be removed in the next election. It’s not perfect, as the fickleness of voter’s means a good ruler could be turned out over something silly. But, everything is trade-offs, so not having a lunatic in charge comes with the risk of losing a good ruler on occasion.

Up until the 20th century the system worked pretty well in America. There was no way to be a career politician, unless you were wealthy. Most office holders either got rich first or inherited their money. Getting office without having got rich was extremely difficult. It was a pretty good system until socialism came along. The Founders could not imagine a sprawling welfare state with highly paid, semi-permanent office holders in charge of it. But, that’s what Progressives gave us.

Reading this bit of nonsense from Lamar Alexander, who is still alive and still in office, suggests we have entered one of those times when the elites can no longer police their ranks. He is a senator from a sensible state, which means he can be a pest on a national scale. Such an important job should be filled by someone with a stake in the success of the state and its people. Instead it is filled with a lifetime seat warmer who probably lives in Northern Virginia. He takes his vacation to the state he theoretically represents.

It is not a handful of wackos here and there. If some states or regions were struggling to find competent men to staff the elected posts, it would be self-correcting. That’s not the case. It appears to be a problem almost everywhere. Florida has a career criminal in the House. They also have a paranoid schizophrenic. Massachusetts has a sociopath with an imaginary family tree as one of their Senators. You could spend all day listing Congressmen and Senators who are completely nuts or just plain grifters.

The nuts appear to be a minority, but the grifters and sociopaths are probably a majority all elected officials at this point. It is not just the legislature. The ruling class of America has very little in common with Americans. These people look sort of like the people they claim to represent, but they may as well be space aliens. They live in a different world from their citizens and they have alien ideas about the nation.

I think a good starting point of any reform program is to accept the rule that if you have never had a job, you are not an American. That disqualifies you from office. Term limits has been discussed for a long time and it sounds good until you take a look at how the elites operate. The office holders are the tip of the iceberg. The important bit is under the waterline. That’s the vast bureaucracy that ruthlessly enforces the rules, the administrative and managerial class that formulates the rules and the vast army of lobbyists and think tanks who provide the elected officials with marketing material.

So, how is it that Americans have allowed things to degrade to this point? Part of it is fanatics wake up every morning with a plan to advance the cause. Normal people wake up every morning with more pedestrian thoughts in their heads. Another is the natural evolution of a ruling class is to tend to the walls of the castle. They are always looking to secure their position. Over time, they tinker with the rules, change the laws, alter the contract so they face less pressure. Their position becomes unassailable.

The solution, of course, is for the public to revolt and hang all of these people. It’s not that the next group will be better quality. It’s that they will operate with the knowledge they could be hanged at any moment. Perhaps installing a gallows outside the door of the House. Every poll has to pass through the shadow of it on the way in and out of the building. They say the prospect if imminent death focuses the mind.

Wendy Davis the adventuress from Texas that is the Left’s new hero. She came to fame when she filibustered a bill in the legislature that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. It was a publicity stunt that allowed her to catch lightning in a bottle with the national media. Like all modern politicians, she has little in the way of qualifications, other than a dogged determination to remain in public view. That means creating a fantasy biography that attempts to turn a parasitic life into heroic tale of struggle.

Davis is trying to parlay her 15 minutes of fame into a national political career, but even politics has some standards. A mediocrity with a good personality can go places in politics. A mediocrity that reminds you of your first ex-wife better have another skill. Like the music business, politics is full of one-hit wonders, who have that summer of success, but can never follow it up with a second hit. That appears to be the story arc of Wendy Davis, as she struggles to find a way to remain in the media.

Interestingly, Progressives remain committed to her, even though her ridiculous backstory has been revealed to be less than authentic. They are trying to carry on as if that truth has not been revealed. This piece in the NY Times on her reads like it was written by Hollywood. The writer carefully weaves Davis’s thin resume into the conventional narrative about the modern super woman so popular with feminists. By the end, though, the writer is forced to confess the obvious.

Meanwhile, the reality of Davis’s achievements were all around me as I drove back to my hotel, along a route that took me through her old City Council district, where few people probably spent much time wondering about what personal sacrifices went into the building of this bridge or that residential tower. What had once been a languid cow town was now a sleek city where folks still un-self-consciously stroll around in cowboy hats. Davis played a notable role in the integration of what Fort Worth had always been with what it was becoming. It struck me as a pretty good campaign theme. But perhaps it wasn’t good enough: It was impersonal, unrelatable and technocratic, a nice tale for a Texas Democrat to promote on the way to a landslide loss, just as the state’s last Democratic candidate for governor, former Mayor Bill White of Houston, did in 2010.

Instead, Davis had reassured voters with a near-perfect narrative: a portrait of herself as modern-day Supermom, a woman who existed only in our imaginations.

Reality says Wendy Davis could have stayed at Harvard and not a single Texan would have noticed. Her life is inconsequential. Crediting her with the growth of Texas is like crediting my cat with the building of the Pyramids. At least there are pictures of cats in those pyramids. It reveals the hollowness of feminism in particular and Progressivism in general. Modern feminism is just unicorn hunting, as there is not escaping the realities of biology. As a result they are forced to rely on narrative, rather than reality.

That’s why Davis can be looked at as the predecessor of Lizzy Warren. Like Davis, Warren has no real accomplishments. In the case of Warren, she married well and that opened doors in the academy. her fake back story about being an Indian completed the puzzle. Like Davis, Warren is just a story designed to fit into the Progressive narrative, not a real person doing real things. Even her Senate run was just a story manufactured by the local media. Warren was just playing a role.

The American Conservative is a publication that seems like it should be better than it is and have a greater influence that it does. They have always struggled to keep it going, so that’s probably part of the problem, They tried to be a traditional paper journal, but that’s not something with a future. They have a website, but it is the antiquated “webzine” style that does not seem to work very well. The content has often been of the paleo variety, which is becoming a bit of an anachronism these days.

Anyway, this was posted the other day. It hits on why conservatism in general, but paleoconservatism in particular, never seem to work. There was always an effort to superimpose whatever they meant by conservatism onto the culture. That is, they often tried to take something that was obviously not Right and argue that it was actually conservative. often, the result was taking yesterday’s radicalism and making ti today’s right-wing orthodoxy. You see that in the Seeger piece.

Seeger was the authentic voice of the old American left and understood that conservatism, far from being inimical to socialism, was actually an essential component of it. In an interview with the New York Times in 1995 he declared, “I like to say I’m more conservative than [Barry] Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other.”

Seeger’s vision of the ideal society was not some high-tech futuristic metropolis but was rooted firmly in the past. America’s past. “When I was a boy, I read every single book by naturalist Ernest Thompson Seton,” he said in a 1982 interview.

Seeger was an unrepentant communist, long after it was clear Stalin was a murderous psychopath. He actively conspired with foreigners to do harm to his fellow citizens for no other reason than ideological zeal. If mass murder is a conservative principle, the Right may want to have a meeting or something to figure out what went wrong. Just because someone has fond memories of the past, it does not make them Edmund Burke. There is more to being conservative than being a reactionary.

Seeger rejected the egotism of the modern elbow society which neoliberal capitalism has created. “There was no ‘I’ in Seeger’s music, only a big, broad encompassing ‘we’” writes Jody Rosen. Seeger never liked to talk in terms of his career. “I hate the word ‘career’ because it implies one is searching after fame and fortune—two of the silliest things to want,” he said. He abhorred commercialism. When he was given a microphone he used it to forward the causes he believed in—and not push a new album or CD.

As Kathy Shaidle covered last week, Pete Seeger was a money grubbing thief who would screw his mother for a nickel.

He was a better socialist than the Trotskyite ideologues who accused him of being a Stalinist, and he was a better conservative than the McCarthyites who persecuted him. He understood, probably better than any other figure on the American Left, that in order for the human race to go forward we need to go back. Way, way, back.

That’s complete nonsense. Seeger was never “persecuted.” He was a proud Stalinist long after Khrushchev revealed the details of Stalin’s crimes.  In fact, he was dissembling about Uncle Joe right up until the end. As Mark Steyn pointed out, Seeger could never bring himself to condemn the man who murdered fifty million people just to prove a point. if being on the Right means anything it means opposing grand social experiments that slaughter tens of millions of people.

That gets back to the weirdness of American Conservative and that whole fringe right-wing world that operates around paleoconservatism. Maybe it is just the nature of fringe politics. As these people were pushed out of the main stream, many went looking for something else they can support. Inevitably, that mean embracing or accepting some crap pot stuff. Of course, everything outside the main looks like crack pottery when you’re standing inside the main. Crack pots are a matter of perspective.

I had an exchange last week with someone about the future of the country. Specifically the future of the country after the Republicans push through another amnesty. His point, one with which I largely agree, is that amnesty pretty much ends the Right as a force in American politics. The Right has very little influence now, but it is an obstacle that causes problems for the Left and their enablers.

Classical Liberalism, the only post-Christian alternative to the the radicalism we typically associate with the Left, will die out in a America with another 30-50 million third world citizens. If these newcomers really wanted western style civil order, they would institute it in their own lands. They don’t, which is why their home countries are something other than orderly. Bringing tens of millions of people who prefer the dynamics of a banana republic means America will become a banana republic.

The argument that these people will l change once they land on the magic soil of America is crazy, given what we know about democracy. Both parties will change in order to appeal to the sensibilities of the new imported peasant class. The political parties will resemble what we see in Europe, one form of socialism versus other forms of socialism, along with some multicultural stuff. Anything resembling the chamber of commerce style conservatism of the GOP will be on the fringe.

No nation is perfect and a “propositional” nation like America is always going to be at odds with itself over the defects. As long as the country is overwhelmingly white, it beats the homogenizing and stifling conformity forced on the citizens of most civilized nations. It certainly beats the barbarism of the uncivilized lands. The key though is for American to remain overwhelmingly white and that’s not going to happen now.

If you are going to love your country, loving one that loves you back is a good choice. That has been the relation for most white people in America, but that will soon be a thing of the past. My “countrymen” will have no more in common with me than a guy living in China. My rulers will see me as just another subject, no different than any of the other entries on the spreadsheet. That’s the reason fertility rates in Europe have collapsed. Why would anyone bring someone into a world of strangers?

The pseudo-intellectual poser is almost always a creature of the Left, but they do turn up on the Right as well. They cultivate a certain look and a superficial knowledge of many subjects, but never enough to really know much about them. It’s not just their pretentiousness, but also their precociousness that defines them. They are too good for the rest of us. One such example is Jamie Bartlett, a blogger at the Telegraph, who is worked up over those of us on the Dissident Right.

Since 2012 a sophisticated but bizarre online neo-fascist movement has been growing fast. It’s called “The Dark Enlightenment”. Its modus operandi is well suited to a digital society. Supporters are dotted all over the world, connected via a handful of blogs and chat rooms. Its adherents are clever, angry white men patiently awaiting the collapse of civilisation, and a return to some kind of futuristic, ethno-centric feudalism.

It started, suitably enough, with two blogs. Mencius Moldbug, a prolific blogger and computer whizz from San Francisco, and Nick Land, an eccentric British philosopher (previously co-founder of Warwick University’s Cybernetic Culture Research Unit) who in 2012 wrote the eponymous “The Dark Enlightenment”, as a series of posts on his site. You can find them all here. 

HBDChick does an excellent job taking the guy apart. It explains the liberal use of the word “fascist” in his rants. Marxism, like all groups on the Left needs bogeymen. The Marxists call their bogeymen fascists, which is a catch-all phrase for the undifferentiated other they fear is on the other side of the door, ready to burst in and snatch them away. It says something about the world when it is OK to be a Marxist, despite the fact that cult has murdered about 100 million people worldwide.

From his blog, it appears he is writing a book about the dark forces he and his fellows are fighting against on-line. In another age, they would be writing hotly worded letters, that were never sent or read. Today, they end up on blogs at the Telegraph or the Times. Of course, they never take on anyone with real power. The so-called Dark Enlightenment types are just people with other opinions. They don’t have spots in mass media or positions of authority. Jamie Bartlett can attack them without fear of retribution.