A Garden of Idiots

It is axiomatic that the political class of a society is a reflection of the culture. That culture is what grows out of the biology of the people, but there is an interplay between culture and biology. The ethnic differences between Swedes and Danes, or even Swedes and Prussians, are trivial, at least in the purely biological sense, but, the culture of Swedes, Danes and Prussians are different in important ways. For that matter, the culture that produced The Lion of the North was very different from that of modern Sweden.

Another way of looking at this is that the type of men in leadership of a society are a reflection of the political culture. At the Founding, the political class of the American colonies was fertile ground. Even adjusting for two plus centuries of propaganda, the men that birthed America were extraordinary in quality and quantity. One or two great minds makes for a special generation of men. The 18th century colonial political class produced many great minds, indicating an amazingly fertile political soil at the time.

On the other side of this, during the same period, is the French aristocracy. One of the remarkable things about that period is that the political class had no able men. The history of the French Revolution is the story of one missed opportunity after another to reform and respond to the changes sweeping the country. All the famous names from that period are from well outside the political elite. The only reason anyone remembers Marie Antoinette is she lost her head over remarks attributed to her that she most likely never said.

Anyway, this comes to mind when seeing a story like this one.

Conservatives should “fight back” against the alt-right and white nationalists, and do a better job reclaiming classic terms to stamp out identity politics, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on Thursday.

“We have to go back and fight for our ground and re-win these ideas and marginalize these guys the best we can to the corners,” Ryan said. “Do everything you can to defeat it.”

Ryan made the comments in conversation with National Review senior editor Jonah Goldberg. The two conservatives spoke at an event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute. Ryan had harsh words for the alt-right, an umbrella term for extreme right-wing individuals who reject mainstream conservatism and often embrace racism and white supremacy.

“That is not conservatism. That is racism. That is nationalism. That is not what we believe in. That is not the founding vision, that is not the founders’ creed,” Ryan said.

That goes beyond stupid. It is offensively stupid. Even today, grammar school civics lessons make clear that the Founders were crafting a new nation. The entirely of the founding myth is based on “creating a new nation in the wildness.” The Founders were so nationalistic, they even wrote it into the preamble of the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That is the very essence of nationalism. Now, Paul Ryan is entering that phase that reminds everyone why it is best to make a change as soon as it is clear a change must be made. When the employee puts in their notice, pay them their two weeks and send them home. Ryan is now unburdened from the need to lie about his true opinions, so he is speaking his mind, what little there is of it. That just underscores the fact that this feckless airhead is the best the current political class has been able to produce.

Ryan is not an isolated example. His predecessor was a raging alcoholic who would burst into tears at public events. Before him we had Nancy Pelosi, a women on so many psychiatric drugs she rattles when she walks. Look around at the elected officials and it is hard to find someone you would trust to run the second shift at a convenience store. Our political culture is not just a garden overrun with weeds. The weeds took over a long time ago and now there is nothing but weeds. It produces no men of merit.

It is not just a consequence of democracy. Take a look at the conspirators involved in the sedition scandal. Former CIA Director John Brennan, who helped form the conspiracy, is a former communist. He supported the Communist Party candidate in the 1976 election and it was not an act of protest. He was an actual communist. Today he is an unhinged fanatic who goes on social media demanding a military coup against the President. Again, this man was the head of the CIA under Obama. The CIA. How is this even possible?

It does not just stop there. Look at the “intellectual” side of the ruling culture. Paul Ryan gave that interview to Jonah Goldberg, who is waddling around with the title “Senior Fellow” at what is supposed to be a prestigious think tank. Probably the most famous public intellectual in the academy right now is Steven Pinker, who is prone to the most basic logical fallacies. The American college campus is a doctrinaire breeding ground for narrow minded fanatics hellbent on pulling the roof down on Western Civilization.

The political culture of a society can break off from the general culture or even start as an alien over class, as in the case of invasion. The French political class in the 18th century was so divorced from the rest of the kingdom, they as well have been foreigners. The Russian political class, what little there was of of it at the end of the 19th century, was wholly disconnected from the culture of the Russian Empire. There’s certainly a strong whiff of that in present day America. Our rulers are nothing like us now.

Even so, whatever the source material for the current ruling elite, what it is producing is of such poor quality, it suggest a very bad end. Donald Trump is our guy, but let’s face it, he should not be President. If he is what is necessary to prevent the country’s political class from strangling the rest of us through staggering idiocy, it is past time to think weeding the garden is enough. This garden of idiots is beyond the point where a good dose of weed killer will work. It’s time to plow it under and salt the earth, starting fresh elsewhere.

Rome And Us

I decided to try something a bit different this week. I like the single topic format, because it appeals to my natural sense of form and it makes organizing the material a little easier. On the blog, I like using history as a jumping off point for commentary about the current age, so I though it could work for the podcast. This is the first effort and I’m not entirely pleased with the result, but I figured it might be a struggle initially. I probably should have narrowed the focus and used just one period of Roman history, but you learn through struggle.

That’s the challenge with this idea. Even small events have lots of angles to them and lots of interesting people. The time constraints of a podcast mean skipping stuff in order to make a point. That’s what I don’t like about this week’s episode. I found I had to be way to breezy with the material. That’s a warning to the Roman scholars. Don’t bust my balls on my very superficial use of Roman history. While I’m at it, the Latin scholars should know my Latin was never good, despite the best efforts of my Jesuit teachers.

Part of the inspiration for this week is the old BBC series Connections presented by James Burke. Instead of a multidimensional analysis of history, I’m thinking something similar for an analysis of the present. Historical analogies are never perfect or even very precise, but they can be fun and useful. It is one of those idea that sounds good in your head, but it may be much harder to make work than I realize, so I started with something easy like Rome. The history of Rome covers just about every possible human condition.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below. I’m now on Spotify, so the millennials can tune in when not sobbing over white privilege and toxic masculinity.

This Week’s Show

Contents

  • 00:00: Opening
  • 02:00: Marius and Sulla
  • 12:00: Slavery After Carthage
  • 22:00: The Praetorian Guard
  • 32:00: Crisis of Third Century
  • 42:00: The Cost of Citizenship
  • 47:00: Völkerwanderung
  • 52:00: The Death of Empire
  • 57:00: Closing

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Spotify

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

Vae Victis

The FTN guys posted a special podcast on the American Revolution and the process that resulted in the Constitution. Instead of reciting the standard mythology about the Founders and their alleged love of liberty, they get into the economic motivations of the men who met in Philadelphia to restructure post-colonial America. They also talk about the men who were excluded, as well as the interests they represented. It’s a well done episode that gets into the forgotten parts of the founding story, as well as the economic motivations.

The basis of their analysis is the historian Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Beard argued that the structure of the Constitution and the process that produced it, was the result of the personal financial interests of the Founders. For example, George Washington had provided significant financing for the revolution, so the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts, worked out pretty well for people like Washington and the other bond holders.

Beard built on earlier Progressive interpretations of American history and can probably be described as a proto-Marxist historian. His analysis of the Founding is that it was first a revolt against the monarchy and then a counter revolution against democracy by the mercantile class located in the cities. It was not just the issue of repaying war debts. The financial class also saw the Articles of Confederation as a hindrance to trade, because there was no central authority to strike trade agreements with foreign governments.

Beard is an interesting guy, who was very popular with the Left into the Cold War, but then fell out of favor in the 1960’s. This seems like an odd thing, given that his reading of American history is based in class conflict. The New Left historians, however, rejected that interpretation in favor of  racial and sexual conflict, which meant abandoning facts and standards in favor of emotion and vengeance. Neo-conservative historians rejected all of that in favor of selling the narrative of Americanism as a vehicle for present policy.

One of Beard’s insights was that the people located in cities not only have a different set of economic interests, but they also have a different relationship with government. In the 19th century, that meant the city dweller was much more receptive to socialism than the citizens in the country. The main reason was that the city dweller gets used to bumping up against government on a daily basis. It feels natural to them. Citizens in the country, particularly in the 19th century, had little contact with the state, so it seemed alien to them.

This suggests something about the nature of socialism, as throughout history urban populations have supported authoritarians, while rural populations have not. In the ancient world, a savvy tyrant like Peisistratus could appeal to the masses of urban poor, to challenge the power of the aristocrats. On the other hand, authoritarian appeals work much better in high density environments. Still, daily familiarity with the power of the state makes people more trusting and comfortable with it. Socialism relies on that trust.

Of course, the defect of class-conflict historiography is that it tries to jam all facts into a model of society. Instead of the theory explaining history, history is used to explain the theory. There’s no question that the men who met in Philadelphia had direct financial interest in the outcome. They were also motivated by all the usual stuff like patriotism, regional loyalty and petty stupidity. That stuff is every bit as interesting as the economics and just as important. In other words, history is both particles and waves.

More important and related to the podcast, is the fact that the people who drive history have personal interests. The men who revolted against the king, did so because they saw an advantage in it. Once they gained control of the country, they were not about to give it away or arrange things to their disadvantage. After all, the whole point of the revolution was to get a better deal. The Articles of Confederation were simply an interregnum, while the new elite figured how they were going to lock in their position after evicting the old elite.

That was the point of the Constitution and the point of all subsequent changes to it, including the Civil War. Similarly, the mythology of the founding, as well as the “second founding” as neoconservative historians call the Civil War, is part of locking in that position via the miracle of propaganda. All of the soupy romanticism of American history is intended to convince the rest of us that the current arrangements are the result of Providence. Political arrangements are not about ideals. they are about power.

This is an important lesson for anyone in dissident politics. The first goal, that which everything bends toward, is to gain power. This is why the New Left has rolled through the culture. They first seized power and then cooked up timeless principles to justify their position. It’s also why the legacy Right’s appeal to principle must be rejected. Limiting your options by self-imposed rules and inviolable principles is a recipe for failure.  The truth of life is that politics is about power. First you seize power and then vae victis.

No Ideas

The other day, I was looking around for ideas and stumbled across this article at the ironically named American Conservative. I mock the name of that site because there’s not much about it that is conservative. Even their anti-war positions are reflexive and not very well thought out. Rod Dreher has been the main guy for a while and he has lurched from one fad to the next, looking for a cult he can join that will give meaning to his life. The new editor appears to be trying to make the site more like other legacy right operations.

That article got my attention, because at the top was this note, “Editor’s Note: This is the first in a collaborative series with the R Street Institute exploring conservative approaches to criminal justice reform.” I had never heard of the R Street Institute. There are so many of these rackets around Washington, it is hard to keep up. I looked up their financial and saw right away that it was the usual cast of subversives. Any operation with David Frum must be working against the interests of white American. That’s axiomatic now.

If you look at the R Street website, they pitch themselves as a generic libertarian sort of operation. The word “free market” has become an abracadabra word to the donor class that subsidize these outfits. It basically means these guys are OK with the cultural strip mining that passes for capitalism these days. Just as over-class jargon about “diversity” always signals a war on white people, the use of “free market” means a war on the middle class by the globalists that see America as nothing more than a pirate’s cove.

Ironically, these R Street guys have landed on prison reform as an issue they will champion as conservative. Anyone over the age of 45 knows that “prison reform” is code for “throw open the prison doors so the blacks can run wild.” There’s never been a prison reform effort with the goal of making the streets safe. Instead, it’s either a libertarian fetish for anarchy and free weed or a Progressive assault on order. The effort to make this a conservative principle is just another example of the death of conservatism.

Now, the Right was always just the dancing partner for American Progressivism. A great way of putting it is from Robert Louis Dabney, “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.” You’ll note that he wrote that over a century ago. What tends to lead people into dissident politics is the realization that the so-called conservatives are just body men for the people they claim to oppose. Their ideas are intended to enhance, rather than reject, the morality of the Left.

The reason the modern Right seems like a barren field with tumbleweed bouncing across it is that their dancing partner is now just a shuffling zombie. The Left has not generated a serious insight about modern society in over a generation. Their last big public policy idea was ObamaCare. Otherwise, it has been a series of bizarre gestures toward increasingly narrow fringe groups. They are the dog that caught the car. The Left has a free hand to do what they please in America and they have no idea what to do.

The result of this lack of ideas is that politics is now just a combination of money grubbing and hysterical public tantrums. The hilariously over-the-top reactions in the media to Trump’s meeting with Putin is a good example. None of these people can tell us why Putin is suddenly the devil. They don’t even try. Instead, they carry on like teenagers in a slasher film. They took turns trying to outdo the previous loon’s contrived outrage. It’s as if they are trying to scream the devil into existence, so they can have a reason to scream.

Much gets written about the impact of cosmopolitan globalism on the middle class and the cultural identity of western nations. It is assumed that the people doing this to us have a purpose, but in reality they are working on inertia. They don’t move forward toward a goal, rather, they just move forward because that’s what they do. The politicians are feckless airheads and their advisers are craven ninnies. Everything is a bust-out now, not because they are crooks, but because they can’t think of another reason to get up in the morning.

That’s the other consequence of cosmopolitan globalism. It hollows out the intellectual elite, just as it kills the middle-class. This was evident a century ago, the last time the world was sure globalism was the cure. The great powers staggered into the abyss, because they lacked the ability to question their own policies. A war that should have never started, went on for years, because both sides kept doing the same things over and over, hoping for a different result. They murdered themselves for lack of a new idea.

Of course, I could have the cause and effect backwards. Maybe the cultural collapse of the West naturally makes one-world utopianism appealing. The Left ran out of ideas fifty years ago and the Right has been on fumes since the 1980’s. Europe has not had a new idea since Marxism. Without a reason to argue and debate, maybe it is natural to assume there is nothing left to debate. All the big problems have been solved and it is time to step into the glorious future. The lack of competition has made our ruling class dull.

To Kill A People

Youth participation in soccer continues to decline, despite the best efforts of the cultural elite to promote it.

Over the past three years, the percentage of 6- to 12-year-olds playing soccer regularly has dropped nearly 14 percent, to 2.3 million players, according to a study by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, which has analyzed youth athletic trends for 40 years. The number of children who touched a soccer ball even once during the year, in organized play or otherwise, also has fallen significantly.

In general, participation in youth sports nationwide has declined in the past decade, as children gravitate to electronic diversions and other distractions.

Yet in recent years, while soccer continued declining, baseball and basketball experienced upticks, buoyed by developmental programs begun by Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association.

This was always predictable, as soccer never had strong appeal. Youth soccer leagues were middle-class suburban creations, designed as safe spaces for white kids. No one says it that way, but that’s the reality of youth soccer in America. As a result, the soccer infrastructure is labor intensive. It requires lots of parents volunteering to make it work. It also requires a lot of cash. Maintaining a segregated anything in modern America is expensive, which is why real estate in a place like San Francisco is so pricey.

In fairness, all sports have seen a decline in youth participation. People like to blame video games and social media, but those are symptoms. Youth sports require a high degree of parental support and involvement. They also require infrastructure. That local ball field exists because the city, town or county makes it a priority. That happens when you have a society of strong families adhering to traditional roles. When those families are not there to volunteer and agitate for youth sports leagues, inevitably those leagues atrophy.

Most people struggle to understand long term trends, so it is not surprising that it is easy to peddle the idea that video games are the cause of this. Parents today see the decline and just assume it is a new thing. The fact is, kids vegetating in front of a video screen is just another symptom of the same main cause. When most kids grew up in normal homes, there was more organic structure to their lives, so they were less likely to indulge in whatever strikes the fancy of a child. There was a parent around to provide guidance.

It is the hidden cost of ripping women from their homes and putting them to work. Those mothers and grandmothers, staying home to raise their kids, provided a hidden infrastructure to American life. In stable, healthy societies, women maintain the social organizations and the social life of the community. When women are working ten hours a day at an office, that social work does not get done, so something fills the void. That has been the sewage of popular culture, along with state provided stand-ins for the parents.

Traditional sex roles also work as a bulwark against mischief. Fifty years ago, even public schools in poor areas could expect plenty of mothers volunteering to help with various school projects. They would also be the main labor pool at the church and other voluntary community organizations. It’s hard to corrupt these organization when mothers and grandmothers, people with skin in the game, are there to make sure those organizations serve their interests. Take away the mothers and the degenerates run wild.

The fact is, if you were looking to exterminate a people, by that I mean destroy their culture and identity, the first thing you would do is put the women to work. It’s not an accident that invaders who kill off the men and marry the women almost always adapt to the culture they conquered. That’s because the culture of a people is their women. Men have a role, but primarily as the guardians of the engine of their culture. Women are the ovens that bake the bread. Take away the oven and there can be no bread.

By ripping women out of their homes and putting them to work like field slaves, modernity has destroyed the natural framework of society. The state has tried to fill the void, which is why per capita, inflation adjusted government spending has quadrupled as women moved from the home to the workplace. All that government supervision of children and maintenance of synthetic community organizations comes with a direct cost, which shows up in paychecks and the cost of goods. It’s one reason the middle class is broke.

On a more esoteric note, what the modern age has been is an elaborate strip mining operation, where the hidden capital is monetized and carried away. Another example is what we see with Amazon destroying retail. The price of cheap stuff delivered to your office is the harvesting of the social value of local business. Instead of Johnny’s Appliance Warehouse sponsoring your kid’s baseball team, it is a government run program paid for by your property taxes. Without local business, there are no local sponsors.

Again, if the point is to kill a people, the first step is to put their women to work, turning them into economic units, like farm animals. From there,. it is easy to strip out the rest of their organic infrastructure that maintains their culture. Before long you have a collection of people with no identity of their own, wholly dependent upon their masters. That’s where we are headed as a society. It’s also why fertility rates are falling in the West. Why would anyone bring a child into the world when life is just pointless work and consumption?

The Great Undoing

One reading of the 20th century is that it was the concluding chapter of the great battle between aristocracy and liberal democracy that began with the English Civil War. The Great War started when the  Austro-Hungarian Empire delivered a set of demands on Serbia, knowing it would provoke a wider war in Europe. At the start of the war, three major European empires governed most of Europe. By the end, all three empires were gone and the victors were the republics, who imposed their political system on the losers.

American involvement in the Great War is usually characterized as the great coming out event for the country. The hesitant Woodrow Wilson, goaded into joining the fight by the bellicose Teddy Roosevelt, moved the country from its traditional isolationist position into a fully engaged world power. That fits the the preferred narrative of our elites, as it makes it sound like they rule the world reluctantly. The Europeans could not manage their affairs, so noble America had to step in, defeat the bad guys and impose order on the West.

Another part of America’s decision to enter the war was the deep hatred Wilson and his advisers had for the European empires. Wilson thought the Kaiser was deeply immoral, but he really hated the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Wilson was influenced by Giuseppe Mazzini, who was a zealous nationalist and republican. He not only rejected the concept of empire, he lived it as an Italian nationalist. Mazzini also rejected materialism and class struggle, which had a natural appeal to the moralizing idealists in charge of America.

The American entry into the Great War, tipped the balance in favor of Britain and France, but it came with a price. Wilson played a prominent role in the post-war diplomacy and that meant the dismembering of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the imposition of draconian punishments on Germany. The fact that Hitler came from Austria suggests history has a sense of humor. The point though is that the extreme expression of liberal democracy conquered and destroyed the last empires of Europe and imposed its will on the West.

This conflict between democracy and monarchy is the launching pad for Hans-Herman Hoppe’s critique of democracy. Hoppe is a libertarian, so his critique is aimed at elevating his preferred social arrangements, which he calls the natural order. As a libertarian, his concern is purely on the material, but others have picked up on the idea and extended it into the cultural realm. Whatever the defects of monarchy, it provides a much more robust cultural framework than democracy, which tends to reward the worst instincts of citizens.

Another angle to this way of thinking of the 20th century is that the West struck a bargain of sorts. In exchange for accepting American imposition of liberal democracy, the West got peace and prosperity. That worked fine as long as the American ruling class accepted the fundamentals of the nation state. That is, a nation was the geographic boundary of a single people, who were ruled by people chosen from their own ranks, by the people themselves. Stable borders and stable cultures defined the modern political entity.

Like doing business with the mafia, accepting the American hegemony meant going along with the rules set by America. That was fine when America was ruled by white men with a strong attachment to the West and Western traditions. That changed toward the end of 20th century as the complexion of the American population slowly changed and the attitudes of the American ruling class began to change. America no longer believes in the nation state and has tried hard impose that belief on the ruling classes of Europe.

Up until the last few years, it appeared that this abandonment of the old order was going to go on without much resistance. But the revolts we are seeing in Europe, with the rise of nationalist parties and growing resistance to immigration, suggests the American hegemony is beginning to unravel. More important, the rise of Trump and his push to make the Europeans stand on their own feet suggests the American retreat is not without some support in the ruling class. The Wilsonian order may finally be about to unravel.

This does not mean we will see the return of monarchy. Hoppe’s critique of democracy has merit, but his error is the same made by the Western ruling class over the last half century. That is, the assumption that political economy is the the horse that pulls the cart of human society. What Muslim immigration is teaching Europe is that biology is what drives society. Get the biology right and you can make any political system work, but the only way social democracy can work is in a homogeneous population.

In a way, the unraveling of the American hegemony is the retreat of the universalism that has always animated American Progressivism. It’s not so much that democracy failed, as Hoppe claims, but that universalism has failed. The reason Europeans have reacted so strongly to a relatively small influx of foreigners, is universalism has never been a part of continental culture. Tossing it off will be much easier for them than for Americans, but the realities of the demographic age will force the issue everywhere. Universalism is dead.

Fighting Back

One of the basic errors the so-called conservatives made when dealing with their Progressive betters is to assume the Left has a rational plan. The Buckleyites always started from the assumption that there was some logical plan behind the liberal schemes, so they spent a lot of time to trying to abductively arrive at the motivation. The Right spent most of their time making well reasoned arguments against what they assumed was the true motivation of the Left. The result was the Left won every battle in the culture war.

This post from an English professor at Emory University about the logical ends of diversity is a rare example of someone noticing the flaw in this approach. He starts by doing what no one on the conventional Right dares, and that is admit defeat.

Conservatives, libertarians, traditionalists, and classical liberals need to get clear on something: the ideological contests are fading. What Irving Kristol famously said in his 2001 Bradley Lecture, “We in America fought a culture war, and we [conservatives] lost,” applies well to higher education. Conservatives fought wars over multiculturalism, Western Civilization, affirmative action, the Academic Bill of Rights, and political bias in hiring, and we lost every time. The educators have no reason to debate ideas, much less ideology. None of those old issues are up for discussion.

(It should be said that Kristol noted that conservatives still had some influence in one theater of American life, religion, but that exemption is irrelevant to the 21st-century campus.)

You can tell ideology is a settled matter by the way in which faculty and administrators handle the core terms—diversity, inclusion. No moral or conceptual examination of those terms ever takes place. Liberals and leftists mouth them without even pondering what they mean save for the simple-minded aspiration of “more women in science” or “more blacks among the leadership.” The only rejoinder conservatives have is, “What about the diversity of thought and opinion?” to which the educators respond, “Oh, yes, that’s good, too,” then proceed on what they were thinking before. When it comes to diversity, everyone’s a bureaucrat.

He then points out the inherent irrationality of the diversity rackets, at least on the college campus.

Now, diversity means just that: getting more underrepresented people in place. That’s all. The campus managers don’t think about what will happen then. Diversity among the personnel—that is, more proportionate representation of all “underserved” identities—is an end in itself. If you asked a dean what diversity is for, what purpose it serves, he wouldn’t have an immediate answer. He spends so much time in a habitat of tautology (“diversity is good for . . . diversity”) that the very question stumps him until he remembers blather from the Old Times about diverse perspectives and educational benefits and repeats it like a ventriloquist’s dummy. But don’t try pressing him on it. He doesn’t want to talk about it. The self-evident good of diversity has long been established, and he clings to it like a Catholic does his rosary.

The professor does not have the courage to point out the obvious. Replacing capable white people in college positions with non-whites, reduces the quality of the staff. It is not so obvious in the humanities or social sciences, where much of the work has been nonsense for a long time. In the STEM fields, it is a recipe for disaster. Any effort to scale up the diversity rackets popular on campus, to society as a whole, is a recipe for rolling back a millennium of human progress. Without white men, there is no modern world.

At the end, the professor suggests an answer whites should use when asked by a white interviewer about diversity. It’s good advice, only if you know going in you will not be selected because you are white. It would be fun to point out to the diversity spewing white person that the best thing they can do for diversity is quit their job. It is, however, an example of that old habit of the Right. The professor thinks such a “gotcha” response will result in the great Progressive awakening, when the blindfold will drop from Lefty’s eyes.

It is why the Left in America went from one victory to the next in the culture war. They never faced an adversary willing to fight them on their own terms. The American Left has always been a spiritual movement. Talking a lefty believer out of their beliefs is as rational as talking a Muslim out of his faith. No one ever argues that the solution to violent Islam is a well reasoned argument with facts and examples. Even the dullest American understands that this is not how religions work. By definition, faith is not about facts.

American Progressivism grew out of the Puritanism associated with the founding stock of New England. Reform movements of the 19th century all had their roots in New England Christianity. Just read the writings of abolitionists and the Christian foundation is plainly obvious. Then in the 20th century, as Norman Podhoretz explained, Jewish intellectuals embraced Progressivism as their religion. The Left lost its Christianity, but it remained a spiritual movement that became more intense, more exotic and esoteric.

It is an important lesson to learn from the failure of the American Right, in their 20th century fight with the Left. They lost because they never understood the enemy. They invested all of their time conjuring an enemy they could beat with facts and reason, while the Left went about destroying the enemies they had in their path. It’s not a mistake that a new alternative can afford to make. You don’t beat a moral order with reason. You defeat it by attacking it on moral grounds, while offering an alternative moral framework.

Repost: Why I Hate Soccer

Note: This is a rewrite of a popular post from four years ago, the last time I had a reason to think about international kick-ball. I’ve expanded on the topic a bit and updated the references to make it more timely. This will be the last soccer post for four years.

Way back in the olden thymes, when the World Cup was held in the United States, I went to the games played in Foxboro. I happen to be at the airport when the Greek team arrived, so I got to see them buying Marlboros at the gift shop. Seeing a bunch of swarthy guys chain smoking outside the terminal is my main memory of international soccer. That and how all of them were glaring at every piece of tail in sight. It was as if they just got out of prison. Little dogs and little men have no control of their sex drive.

That said, it was a good time in Boston during the World Cup and I had fun at the games I attended. Soccer is boring, dull and tedious on television. The fake injuries are so absurd and embarrassing it is hard to tolerate. In person, the game is much better. When Raul collapses in a heap, acting like he took a cannonball to the knee, the crowd roars in unison, thus making it more like a stage play than a sporting event. You lose that interplay on TV, so it comes off as absurd. That and the Greek fans I was with knew how to jeer.

Watching soccer live is also better than TV, because you get to see the players that are not involved in the play. They are often chatting with one another like they are old friends bumping into one another on a stroll. On TV, the camera follows the ball and the players all look busy. Live, you also get a better sense of what’s really happening. The strategy comes into focus sooner than on TV. Since most of the games are fixed, it all makes more sense when you get to see all of the action and not just the group around the ball.

World Cup soccer and Olympic soccer are fun because so much is at stake. The Little League World Series gets big TV ratings in the U.S. for the same reason. People don’t watch little kids play baseball, unless it’s their kids. Put the same kids in an international tournament and suddenly the nation gets interested. There’s also the fact that the World Cup features the best players in the world. The fact is, Lionel Mesi or Neymar kicking a ball around will always seem more thrilling than two unknown guys.

Now, what has always turned me off about soccer is the cultural angle. When I was a boy, our betters in America were trying to force soccer and the metric system on us. The people doing it were all loathsome snobs. Worse yet, all of them were the children of working class people who should have known better. But, their parents sent them off to the state college and they came back thinking they were sophisticated citizens of the world, so they loved soccer. Yep, soccer was a Boomer fetish.

Even all these year on, I still think of those smug assholes of my youth, whenever soccer comes to my attention. I associate it with the ridiculous poseurs who turn up in every Progressive cultural fad. I’ve probably heard “it is the most popular sport in the world” a million times in my life. That is the sort of thing stupid people say when they want to sound sophisticated. In most of the world, soccer is the sport of the poor and lower classes. That means our bourgeois bohemians are aping the mores of chavs. Good job phonies!

A recent development, one that I find most irritating, is the fake passion of cosmopolitan men for Premiere League teams in Britain. They saw videos of Euro-guy with his hands on his head in agony over a soccer match and now they are pretending to have had a lifelong passion for a soccer club in England. I have a friend who used to call soccer “fag ball” until about a decade ago. He became a vegan and started following soccer. He wears a Man U jersey. He says “footie” now. He went bald and his wife is fat. That’s justice.

It is all a pose, of course. What’s odious about the poseur is he turns his self-loathing into your problem. The poseur apes the styles and attitude of others because he hates himself and cannot stand the sight of himself. His comical pretensions force everyone else to play along, in order to be polite. Everyone knows the poseur is full of crap, but the guy who says what everyone thinks, risks being castigated for being rude. These people turn our morality on its head, by making our virtues into vices. They deserve to be hated.

One other thing that turns me off is the “you don’t understand the complexity of the sport” line from people who probably don’t understand the sport at all. Soccer’s appeal is based on its simplicity. Real fans know this, but poseurs prattle on about the complexity in order to shift the focus from their misplaced and irrational love for a foreign sport, onto the skepticism of their critics. In other words, they don’t really like soccer, they just want to signal their membership in a group they believe is superior. It is Star Bellied Sneetch-ism.

Another thing about soccer is the coverage in the American sporting press. The same people who normalized porn, have tried to use soccer in their war on whites. They have endlessly promoted soccer, despite the fact Americans have limited interest. Whenever there is a big match in Europe, we get coverage of how the foreign fans reacted to the result. A standing head in the sporting press is “Watch Fans React To…” and then the thing that happened in a soccer match. It’s an effort to weaponize the bandwagon effect.

Of course, now that European teams look more like refugee camps than European, the anti-whites love soccer even more. They use the browning of the traditional World Cup powers as “proof” that the great replacement is going to be wonderful. You can almost hear them saying, “See how much better sports will be when the whites are replaced with the non-whites?” Like so much about society, soccer has become another weapon wielded by the anti-whites in the race war. It is a reminder of what they plan for us.

Anyway, that’s my problem with soccer.

The Blumpf Report Card

When I agreed to go on the Luke Ford show, he said the topics would be my background, the alt-right and discussion of the JQ. The show was supposed to be an hour, but turned into three hours, because of loads of political talk. I don’t do a lot of politics, as I don’t think it matters that much. For me, politics has been mostly entertainment. My side has no representation, so the whole thing is foreign to me. Lots of people like it, though, so doing some politics from time to time is good for business, if you’re a blogger or podcaster.

I’m also liking the thematic episodes. The feedback has been good, so doing a full show on Trump makes a lot of sense. The other benefit of the thematic show is it forces me to think more about the subject. Doing this episode, I was surprised by how much of what Trump has done is good for our side. We tend to focus on the bad stuff, but eighteen months of Trump has been a lot of white pills. It’s not all good, but the bad stuff is mostly just the lack of good stuff. From a political perspective, these are good times for our side.

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

This Week’s Show

Contents

  • 00:00: Opening
  • 02:00: Economics
  • 12:00: Trade
  • 22:00: Immigration
  • 32:00: Foreign Policy
  • 42:00: The Scandals
  • 47:00: Court Picks
  • 52:00: Guns
  • 57:00: Closing

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

The Death of Tinker Bell

The Tinker Bell Effect is an expression for when people want something to be true so deeply, they believe it actually exists. This is commonly used in education reform, where the reformers are so sure their blank slate fantasies are true, they convince themselves their reform efforts are having the desired effect. Head Start is a total sham, but proponents pretend it is wildly successful. It’s a step beyond confirmation bias, in that the believer not only sees the desired result, they make it a core assumption and act on it.

This has been the condition of the America Left since the election. What we call Progressivism has curdled into a feminist cult. Maybe it was always thus, but not always obvious, and the election made it plain. Maybe the election was a triggering event. Either way, the Left is now just angry women who can’t get past the fact Hillary Clinton lost the election. To cope with this, they have concocted a number of fantasies about why it happened. The most obvious one involves Boris and Natasha colluding with Trump.

To most people, the Russian collusion thing has always been absurd, but to the hardcore Hillary supporters, it is an article of faith. The political Left may have piped down about it, but their supporters have never stopped believing that Trump won the election because of nefarious forces out of Moscow rigging the election. For the last 18 months, the Left has been operating on the assumption that this is true and it will be revealed any day. In other words, they have been operating as if the removal of Trump is a forgone conclusion.

Another example of the Tinker Bell Effect is with immigration. The Left has been swallowing the multiculturalism pills for so long, they can’t imagine an alternative view is possible. They as so sure about what happens when bad whites are swamped by noble browns, they have started to assume that it has already happened. As a result, they ran an explicitly anti-white campaign in 2016. They even had the so-called conservatives convinced of this, which is why they have yet to get past their hatred of Trump.

This fantasy has been so powerful, than even some people on our side are sure we are following the path of South Africa. In other words, they have blown past the Argentina or Brazil models and gone straight to white genocide being the future. That’s why they cannot see how Texas is much less likely to become California, despite the demographics. They believe in the vision of white dispossession so strongly, so emotionally, that any facts or arguments to the contrary are treated as insults. This is the reverse Tinker Bell Effect.

Another group still clapping their hands, yelling “we believe!” are the libertarians. They are so sure that Trump prudent economic policies with regards to trade are going to usher in the end times, Goth Fonzi has started to stock up on canned goods. Reason Magazine has at least one post a week working from the assumption that economic devastation is spreading across the country. This one is the latest. Amusingly, they now pretend that Trump voters are locked into some sort of cult, where reality is replaced with fantasy.

Libertarianism, like Progressivism, has always been a cult, so it is not surprising that libertarians are prone to magical thinking. It’s a requirement of cults to hold a set of beliefs that are at odds with reality. This way, the adherent invests their energy into believing and helping their coreligionist believe. It’s why there are no cults built around observable reality. Even so, libertarians are so sure Trump’s policies are going to usher in the end times, they are convinced that displaced Okies are now trundling cross America.

In fairness, it is not unreasonable to think that liberal democracy must rely on the Tinker Bell Effect. Much of the voluntary conduct of American citizens is based on the belief in things like equality before the law and the rightness of our economic model. If people stopped believing in this stuff, they would act differently. Most Americans believe our society is morally good, something to sacrifice for, so lots of people sacrifice to keep the current regime in place. Look at how many young men join the Army each year.

Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it. Patriotism has started to slip, as the younger generation, facing the mess their parents created for them, comes to terms with that reality. Boomers had a great ride in a great country, so they will remain patriotic and optimist. In fact, the rise of national populism and the nascent white identity is driven by the death of Tinker Bell. The younger generation simply does not believe the things the older generation believed and still believes about America.

The interesting thing to watch for is what happens to the feminist scolds when Tinker Bell dies for them. The end of the Mueller probe is coming sooner rather than later. Trump is not going to be impeached and he will most likely win in 2020. Similarly, the great brown future is not just around the corner, so the Left will be confronted with demographic reality at the voting booth. Belief is powerful stuff, but so is disconfirmation. One of the most emotional parts of Peter Pan is the death of Tinker Bell. There’s a reason for that.