Alternative Authority

Starting in the 1990’s the neocons started to talk about conservatism as a process, a means justifies the ends approach to politics. This was not a change in how conservatism defined itself but it was a change in how it sold itself. You were supposed to support conservatives in order to achieve certain ends, like rolling back abortion laws and curtailing the welfare state. By the Bush years, this means justifies the end claim was front and center in the pitch from neoconservatives.

The reason for this, of course, is millions of conservatives had voted for Bush and the Republicans thinking they would do what they promised. The GOP had both house of Congress and the White House. They expected conservative governance. Instead, they got Lyndon Johnson. They had to accept this result, you see, because conservatism is a process, not a set of end results. As long as conservatives were defending the process, people needed to shut up and be happy.

The main reason for this rhetorical sleight of hand was to trick rank and file conservatives into supporting a president that was the opposite of what conservatives expected from a conservative president. The neocons wanted to continue their bloody war against Islam and they needed a second term from Bush. In the 2000’s, they had started to infest the other side of the political class but the take over of the foreign policy establishment was not complete.

This was possible because of a flaw within conservatism. From the beginning, the Buckley people focused on defending the constitutional order. They were the guys talking about interpreting the Constitution as written. They were defending the system against both distortions and changes from the Left. They magnanimously accepted adverse results as long as the constitutional order was followed. This fetish for defending process is what the neocons exploited.

This points to a much larger problem with conservatism. They were never willing to appeal to authority to justify their claims. The closest they got was originalism in the law, which claimed the written constitution as authority. This has two problems. One was that the Left rejected this claim in favor of a living constitution. The other is the Left kept tinkering with document through judicial rulings which became precedents. The result of originalism was a defense of left-wing gains in court.

This is why conservatism is in collapse. In fact, it is fair to say that conservatism is dead as hardly anyone bothers with the term. The only people using the term are those still working the hustle on their aging donor class. Otherwise, the only people considered to be on the Right use the term is when criticizing the old conservative movement for not having conserved anything. It turns out that winning the process war meant nothing to those conservative constituencies.

The elephant in the room is authority. Fundamental to any human organization is a clear understanding as to who decides. Iran is an Islamic state with laws based in the sect of the ruling class. It is the religious elite that is the ultimate decider. The Russian people are the leaders of the Russian Federation and Vladimir Putin is the leader of the Russian people, so he is the final authority in the Russian Federation. This is clear to everyone who lives within the Russian Federation.

In the case of Iran, authority for this arrangement, the thing that legitimizes it in the minds of the people, is the Koran and their religious traditions. The text of their holy book, the traditions of their people and the moral hierarchy is the authority for their political arrangements. In the Russian Federation, it is the long history of these people and their relationship to one another that forms the basis of authority. Its perseverance through communism is proof of this natural order.

This is where we see “common good conservatism” trying to fill the void left by the collapse of Buckley conservatism and the departure of neoconservatism. They want to move away from individual rights as the center piece of conservatism toward a vague sense of collective interests. Instead of focusing on what provides the individual with the least amount of government coercion, they want to focus on what provides the most amount of common good.

In simple terms, disputes over rights will be decided in favor of the interests of society as a whole, rather than abstract principles about individual liberty. If someone complains about prayer in school, the courts should ignore their complaint because prayer in school provides more social benefit than that one person’s desire to be free of the religious sentiments of the community. Homosexual marriage would be banned, because it harms marriage, which harms society.

This may sound good and feel like a step in the dissident direction, but it suffers from the same defect as Buckley conservatism. That is, there is little mention of who decides and upon what authority they make these decisions. Some talk about the Church providing authority and others mention the administrative state. Mostly this is just a way to avoid speaking directly to the issue of authority. It is just assumed that once people think in terms of the common good, everything falls into place.

This is the same error conservatives have always made. Their chanting of the phrase “ideas have consequences” was mostly about the belief that all they had to do was win the argument and the rest would take care of itself. History makes clear that force and determination can conquer the soundest logic. The Bolshevik program was nonsensical and dangerous, but they wanted it more so they carried the day and controlled Russia for three quarters of a century.

Human society is based around a series of questions. Who we are? What are the rules that define us? Who decides? What is the process for enforcing the rules? It is only the last question that conservatives bothered to answer, which left the other questions to whoever wanted to answer them. This is why conservatism failed and any alternative will fail if it refuses to address the questions that come before debating the process by which rules are enforced.

The great trick of liberal democracy is in convincing people it exists. The narrow elite that controls Western societies decides because they control the managerial class, which in turn controls the administrative state. Their authority rests on their will to power and the delusions of the people, who steadfastly insist they decide public policy through the ballot box. It is a devilish trick by a devilish people, but until an alternative questions this arrangement directly, it will persist.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.

The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at

149 thoughts on “Alternative Authority

  1. The fundamental problem for American conservatism originates with the nation’s founding.

    And by founding I mean the reason that people immigrated here, not the theory behind the constitution. People came here for two reasons. First to get rich and quick. Secondly to build or later live in a godly community. The latter impulse has been completely subverted by progressives.

    So the only things for American conservatives to conserve are material prosperity and progressive advances.

  2. Totally off topic Zman, and I know this isn’t really your purview, but: There have been about a dozen highly suspicious fires at US food producers/warehouses over the past 4-6 weeks. There have been some in Europe as well, and some on fertilizer plants both there and in America, but the majority of the fires have been in the US. Potato processing plants in Maine and Oregon, Taylor and Azure Farms, etc.

    Just added tonight (and reported on by Tucker Carlson – my husband was watching him online) – plane crashed into General Mills warehouse in Georgia. Highly coordinated coincidences directly impacting an already shaky food supply.

  3. Speaking of process fetishism: Is the 22nd Amendment long for this world? I could see some kind of “foreign policy” emergency that puts Obama back in there in 2024. During his reign there were those who commented on his diffidence i.e. laziness when it came to the “work” part of the POTUS job description, which mainly consists of cajoling Senators on the phone (Bill Clinton was a famously “hard worker” by this metric). But running as the outside-the-box “black FDR” might be the kindling of motivation this guy needs to light a fire under his Hawaiian keister. The project of running the “senile JFK” again announced last week is nonsensical unless it is merely to tee up Barry’s threepeat after some last-minute nuclear war switcheroo.

  4. Talking of needing to develop alternative authorities and the lying liars from yesterday.

    Here is a clip of the Aussie PM and Health minister saying any side effects from the jabs are ultimately the person’s own fault as there was informed consent.

    This in a country where no jab no job was an official policy.

    Seems this will be the official line as the side effect numbers become larger and larger.

    How are these cocksuckers not strung up?

    • My gut told me they were going to do this precise flip-flop as the true nature of the jabs was revealed.

      Similar statements are being made by some sort of German corporation.

      • But of course. I’m surprised they went for this get out clause so quickly. I expected a few more years at least of “young athletes have always died of heart attacks” or “rising sea levels lead to myocarditis”. I still have a sneaky feeling that no excuse will save these people from the noose.

      • They’ll wind up blaming the side effects on “long Covid”…

        Oh, you had a heart attack jogging at the age of 27 with no prior health problems or family history? Two days after the shot? Must be “long Covid”…

    • Give it time.

      As I’ve said before, when you give people nothing to lose, they act like they have nothing to lose.

  5. Currently in a Pennsylvania public school, an afternoon Satan Club is trying to get approval. The school board has voted it down, but the Satanists are considering legal action and with the processes that exist, it is hard to see how the Satanists’ argument can be contested:

    “Members from the Satanic Temple said the debate is far from over and said they’re considering legal action.

    “The Satanic Temple’s co-founder says the school board does not have the authority to decide which religious organizations can hold after-school clubs.”

    This is just the same thing decades down the line from cases such as Engel v. Vitale.

    As the Zman says, the right of the time tied its own hands. Everyone but a few crazies and malcontents knew that stripping prayer from the public schools was a terrible idea, but they set up processes that left them defenseless against the attack.

    Today, everyone except a few crazies and malcontents knows that a “Satan Club” is a terrible idea, but they are still operating under the same legal system that has left them defenseless.

    The left has always understood “Who, whom.” The right’s failure to understand that is why it loses.

    • I just read that the local foot soldier for Satan parent that is proposing the club is named Samantha Groome.

      Can you get any more on-the-nose?

    • We’ve been through this before. I’ve always suspected that these attempts to equate religious freedom with, say, the opposite—Satan worship—was not an attempt for equality, but rather an elimination of choice for either! At least that’s how it has worked out in the past as the schools have simply banned all such organizations from use of campus facilities. Can’t take “sides” now can we, but also can’t allow such use of public facilities for Satanists—not yet anyway.

      • When you ban traditional religion from a sphere, you don’t get no religion, you get secular religion.

    • Yep. All the East coast snots with bow ties who called them conservatives ever did was set up some inconsequential debate clubs. Meanwhile, the Evil Left were actually DOING things like getting their people in place, indoctrinating our kids and passing laws to allow perverts to marry each other. And nothing has changed. We still love announcing what we are going to do, rather than actually doing it. We won’t win until we fight by the same rules as the psychopaths.

    • It may not do much to assuage the concerns of fundamental Christians here, but allow me to speak as a former teenager, if not a practicing Satanist. It is almost certain that the kids are doing it to test the limits. I suppose it’s possible that there really are Satanists (Anton Levey’s for instance) but they should be no more feared than, say, a local Wicca (Witch) coven. I would bet good money that the kids in the supposed “Satanist” club don’t know the first thing about the real thing.

      A more interesting, but alas purely theoretical question should be more along these lines: If people are free to practice the religion of their choice, no matter how odd, what business is it of mine or yours? I agree that there are valid concerns about what is done in public schools, but in my “dissident” opinion, that’s more an argument against the existence of public schools. I’ll bet that a private school can teach any flavor of religion it desires, with little interference from the government.

        • He isn’t wrong on any factual level. Orthodox LaVeyan Satanism is just Ayn Rand Objectivism mixed with Crowley with imagery lifted from Gothic Witchcraft

          Temple of Set adds more snakes basically.

          Actual Satanist do come in scary evil guy mode too. I’ve met them . Yikes.

          That said if you want to enforce Christianity at gun point , be honest about it . Just understand that a lot of people who are Right Wing these days aren’t Christian and some of those consider to be a little hat import that we no longer need.

          In the eyes of many its obsolete code that we built a now dead society around.

          That isn’t everyone and it isn’t even me but just as the Left likes to sneer this really isn’t a White Christian Country at least for now.

          Wait a century or two ? Well maybe. Amish Paradise awaits.

          • Sure Ostei . People who actually worship Satan as a deity are typically Christians themselves .

            Most though do not and most are not religious at all. I don’t frankly care about it, there aren’t enough out there to make a difference though its quite concerning the elite seemed to glomed onto it or at least the trappings c.f Marina Abramović

            but again why should you care what people think or do.

            Jefferson didn’t

            “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.” to the Constitution—is the foundation on which our religious freedom is based. Some say it is the basis for all other freedoms.

            On top of that Franklin belonged the Hellfire Club

            Our countries foundation is deist , not Christian despite what the Puritans think

            Also yes I am aware of Adam’s Moral and Religious people quote, use it all the time and while Satanism even Luciferian variation would not suit it actually matters little what people think

            We’d be far better off with the more primitive public practice aspect like the Old Roman religion It doesn’t matter what you believe so long as the public rituals are followed.Don’t do it where it scares the horses.

            I understand everyone wants the social capital from religion but we are scores of years from that and so must make do.

      • “If people are free to practice the religion of their choice…”

        That’s the problem right there. Freedom, while good, is not the highest good.

        “Freedom” is too vague a concept to base a society on. Thomas Jefferson thought “freedom” meant being a self-sufficient agrarian. NPR listeners, for example, thinks “freedom” is encouraging children to be
        mutilated trannies.

        We want to live in homogeneous societies. In such so communities, freedom is a secondary good.

        • Its a sound view but trying to make it may prove pretty challenging.

          Again its a scaling problem. You are not getting CONUS as there are too many grillers and non complainants

          You are going to have to take by force a piece of the US, ethnically cleanse it and keep it.

          It might be possible but to black pill a bit, it won’t be the West do to the drought so choose wisely.

      • Didn’t you get the point Z was making? Process (or principle) kills. If freedom of religion produces Satanism in the schools, what good is the principle?

        In Whiteopia, Satanism will be expressly forbidden, and freedom of religion will be circumscribed.

      • 1. It isn’t the kids doing this, it’s parent-sponsored.

        2. If it had been sponsored by kids, it should be made clear they’ve gone past the limits they’re testing.

        3. “If people are free to practice the religion of their choice, no matter how odd, what business is it of mine or yours?” It’s my business because you’re chiseling cracks in my homogenous society. “I don’t have to let Satanists set up shop in my kids’ school” is a fundamental principle of mine. I feel no need to explain it or moderate it.

        • How about no religion in public schools ? That is how we did it before and it worked OK

          Now sure if you want a new Constitution/ If you can take the power and land go for it.

          To be clear I’m not pro Satanist but I am also not pro New Christendom either . Given a Hobbesian Choice, Christianity is the only sound one but the alternatives of “no religion in public schools” or even “no public schools” are both viable.

  6. As I see it, authority doesn’t rest on “will to power” or some amorphous “managerial class.” Instead, it springs from individual human beings, “experts” whose accomplishments justify quasi-worship.

    Experts gain their authority through their position in society (professor, general, CEO, prelate, artist, author, etc.), their accomplishments (books published, honorary doctorates, wealth, etc.), and their putative intelligence. The New Left rallied around authorities such as Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Barthes, etc., conquered society’s institutions, constituted themselves as the new authorities, and wielded that authority as a cudgel to browbeat the masses into bowing to their authority.

    The Right, on the other hand, never really appealed to expert authority. Instead, authority, such as it was, was rooted in tradition, and the wisdom of the folk and the common man.

    Unfortunately, the Right’s authority was abstract and difficult to understand, while the Left’s authorities were concrete. Do people follow “tradition,” or do they follow other people? The answer is clear, and it lies in the fact that the Left routed the Right from the field utterly over the course of the last 55 years.

    The solution for the future is for the Right to create its own canon of authorities. The individual authorities certainly exist: Aristotle, Augustin, Eliot, Burke, A. Smith, de Maistre, Eliot, Dostoevsky, de Tocqueville, Nietzsche, Mencken, Solzhenitsyn, Pascal, Kipling, Schopenhauer, Hoffer, Santayana, Quine, Lovecraft, Gadamer, Powell, Schmitt, Spengler, Nabokov, Chesterton, Lawrence, Losev, Lewis, Weaver, Pound, Nisbet and Scruton, among others. But if Rightists do not appeal to these authorities in a systematic fashion, they might as well have never existed. It is time we drop our aversion to elitism, and begin vaunting our own elites.

    • This is spot-on. The post-modernists did not have to fight too hard to dominate the institutions since they had been largely abandoned about the time they arrived; the Long March really wasn’t much of a march or all that long. We are now watching the mop-up operation in the realm the Right foolishly believed mattered the most, the corporate sector. Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge should have known true authority is vested in the intellectual class. Like politics, business also is downstream of the culture.

      • The two best, most recent examples of business existing downstream from culture are the Floydian insurrection and the Coof-o-caust.

    • Ostei: I’d go back even further, to the ultimate moral authority. When the West abandoned every shred and echo of its Christian heritage, it fell to evil. This was prompted by those same people who demanded tolerance and acceptance and special exemptions and then provided a template for every successive group of “exceptions” to follow. These special rules and holidays trace back to the American revolution – a uncle can still marry his niece legally in Rhode Island, Washington’s nod to the Sephardic money-lenders who helped him in time of need.

      Anyone can challenge a human authority and prove him wrong. As one of your cited experts Dostoevsky famously wrote, if there is no God then everything is permitted. With all due respect to the specifically non-hostile atheists, agnostics, and pagans here (and the others know who they are), average Joe and Jane and society in general need an absolute moral authority to follow. Take away that lodestar, and they will . . . and have . . . believed in anything.

      • It also just how civilizations go. They start off strong and vibrant, then start to rot internally as the people who create them die off. As for Christianity, it has failed miserably. Look at how churches have behaved these last two years. They rewrote Jesus’s call to grant to Caesar only what belongs to him as “Give Caesar the whole darned thing”! I’m no fan of Islam, but the muslims I know showed far more backbone in all this than 99% of Christians. Their attitude was “force me to do things against my beliefs and I’m going to have to kill you.” And of course, no-one dared touch them.

        • When the pomos conquered the institutions, they conquered the churches as well. And insofar as all of the institutions and the churches fell with equal ease to pomo transgressivism, I have to believe the weakness and vulnerability were societal rather than Christian-specific.

      • Christian recrudescence and the creation of the Right canon are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are complimentary inasmuch as the vast majority of right intellectuals were also, at least notionally, Christian. Nietzsche, obviously, is the great counter-example.

      • According to Wikipedia, “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed” is a legal maxim. So I see the point with your Dostoevsky quote.

        I first heard a variation of the term applied to the sciences (apparently Quantum Mechanics).

        If it’s any consolation, the laws of Nature will not be abrogated, no matter how powerful a man may be. 🙂

    • The priest-like aspect of modern experts who were more often than not thought of as dweebs and pinheads (-D. Letterman) is something to behold. I just met a street beggar today, pretty well-dressed, approaching to ask for gas money who described himself as an OB/GYN (his car got broken into; he has no office; something something). It was a throwback imposture because I think the smart set hates children now, esp. the masked & gagged younger ones, so if he wanted to keep with the times he’d have to pitch himself as a data scientist or disinformation counter-strategist. Hayek used to complain a bit about worship of expertise but it’s a fair bet no current Hayekians have read Hayek.

    • Ostei said: “The Right, on the other hand, never really appealed to expert authority. Instead, authority, such as it was, was rooted in tradition, and the wisdom of the folk and the common man.”
      Never in my life had this been true. It might have been true back before the Vietnam war. At best, conservatives appealed to a Burkean legalism of slowing down change and following stare decisis. George Will et al did not bother to hide their disdain for the “common man” or his traditions. “Creative destruction” and “learn to code” came from the center-right in the 1990’s. By the late 1990s it was pure filthy lucre that drove the conservatives, worship of the Almighty Dollar, as meted out by the Holy Profit The Chairman of the Federal Reserve and his oracle, muh GDP. The working man and his silly “sky spirit” and shamanistic “traditions” we’re actively subverted by the establishment right, from Rand to Milton Friedman to Greenspan to Chaney and Bernanke. The conservatives have never been rightwing, at least since Reagan.

      • Burke himself was the preeminent modern philosophical exponent of reliance upon grass-roots tradition and eschewing top-down nostrums for governing and shaping society. Burke believed that millions of tiny decisions made by common folk over the course of centuries produced better outcomes than eggheads coming up with “solutions” to problems in their symposia and imposing them on the common man.

        What’s more, Burke, along with Adam Smith, was probably the most popular conservative intellectual for the American right during the 20th century. Even many neocons made bows toward Burkean traditionalism. The neglect of Burke only occurred after the conclusion of the Cold War when the “Right” decided that the only things worth arguing–not fighting–for were low taxes, gun rights, and opposition to abortion.

        Traditionalism died when the Right ceased to exist.

        • … the “Right” decided that the only things worth arguing–not fighting–for were low taxes, gun rights, and opposition to abortion.

          Especially opposition to abortion. Self-styled conservatives acted (and continue to act) as if abortion was the worst thing in the world, an evil without parallel. The analogy with the Holocaust industry is glaring.

          So no discourse or moderate position was possible toward with those who believed differently. Nobody’s making “the conservative case for abortion rights” (although they legitimately could if they weren’t blinded by ideology).

          Maybe even militant pro-choicers took their cue from the conservatives: if these people are so fanatical then we have to be equally fanatical in upholding abortion rights!

          It’s pretty obvious by now that neither side will ever score a complete “victory” considering the division is so fundamental and emotional. And thus there is no constituency on either side for a compromise in which both sides could get something, but not everything, they want — supposedly one of the basic principles of American politics.

          The laser-like focus on abortion is one important reason that normie conservatives are their own worst enemies.

    • Conceptually fine but what a bizarre haphazard list. Its like you picked a bunch of random things you liked and expect everyone to respect them.

  7. Re authority, “(Intellectuals are) easier to dupe with propaganda because it only had to include some reference to authority.”

    How are the smarties duped?

    Older than written speech, or speech itself, is another language: status.

    No matter how much capacity to correlate data sets one has, human social needs- gaining praise or standing, avoiding anger or contempt- come first. The intellect can be merely what tools one possesses to achieve the more primal social desires.

    The difference between conservatives and wokies is the milieu in which they compete in and display for status.

    Conservatives prefer a more masculine milieu, asking, “did it work?”
    Honest measurement- “facts”- provide a standard by which they can display their mastery.

    Wokies prefer a more feminine milieu of morals- “feels”- in which they can display, emphasizing how caring, how inclusive, how safe, warm, and fed.

    This difference between managers and politicians gives the advantage to politicians. The impact of social smarts will outweigh any specialized skillset in a liberal democracy.

    So the question becomes, how do dissidents become the higher status winning horse that leads the race?

    You see, me and my bestie had a bit of a tiff. What made him apoplectic was the the slightest chance that he might in any way be associated with those racist, Confederate, Qanon Trumpian dupes.

    It’s not identity.
    Not ideology.
    Not ability.
    What it is, is a possible threat as he competes…for what he accepts as status.

    For which bed he’s chosen to lay in, because that’s the one that looks like it will deliver the goods.

  8. Whilst laws are quite good for handling the transfer of a property, or dealing with murder and other serious crimes, those who follow the law to the letter are always teeing themselves up to be manipulated by wokists. As you say, they want to ‘lose magnanimously’ even as their daughter has been forced to swallow tranny agendae because of ‘following the law’.

    Some laws are good. But for the preservation of the healthy morals of a society, we ought to appeal not to law, but to “Because I say so.” (mark you, this requires wielding power, or convincing others you wield it).

    Why can’t trannies compete with members of their ‘new’ sex?
    Because I said so.

    Why can’t we have more immigrants to ‘enrich’ us?
    Because I said so.

    Why do white have privilege?
    Because I said so.

    Why can’t we teach acceptance and equality of all?
    Because I said so.

    Why does our society have to consume meat?
    Because I said so.

    I’m getting quite tired of law followers. And every dissident needs to come to terms with the fact that at some point, he’ll become a law breaker. Or else he’s just a progressive. There must be a line, otherwise we just slowly acquiesce. At some point (think mandatory vaxx), TPTB will cross a line and a man must just say “Fuck you.”.

    • “Because I said so”… (with a tag line) “and sit down and stfu”.
      On the day those words can be uttered and actually have the intended effect – that’s when I’d know the wind has changed direction.

    • The science fiction writer Larry Niven is credited with saying that some things “are illegal, but not immoral, like forgetting to feed the parking meter.”
      The Boy Scouts, before they became extra fake and gay, were encouraged to follow the law and work within the system to change those laws which were unjust.

      Unfortunately, we no longer live in a world of law.

      In the post-Covid / post-Trump regime, I see all attempts by our rulers to “enforce” “recommendations” “guidelines” and “mandates” (sorry, but my computer does not have enough ” “) as nothing but tyranny.

      My response to all government authority which I don’t choose to comply with is now “make me”.

      • There is also the concept [from where? Multiple traditions?] that an unjust law need not be obeyed.

        The Jews have a version of that: It is not a sin to refuse to pay an “unjust tax.” (I recall that from a class.)

        It bears repeating: All (human created) laws, morals, ethics, and so on are based upon some standard (feel free to decorate it with adjectives like “absolute” or “God’s law” if you please). But if you examine the matter honestly, you will have to agree that the standard was based at some point, upon one human being (or a large group) arbitrarily setting it as the standard. Human laws should be called “rules.” A rule is followable — which means it can be followed or not. A moral system, a set of laws, rules, customs even if not necessary, are very helpful if we want anything worthy of the term “society.” The problem has always been getting a consensus, if not unanimity, of what those rules shall be.

        Contrast Laws of Nature (Physics, Science, etc.) Man has no choice but to “obey” them. You could even call them God’s laws, I suppose. But free will doesn’t much enter into how the law of gravity will affect you. As Dad liked to say humorously, “The best traffic attorney in the world won’t get you off the hook if you violate the law of centrifugal force.”

      • Reality 101 — Power is truth.

        Reality 202 — You have only the rights that either everyone agrees on, powerful people permit or you can force people to respect

        Reality 303 If you won’t take power and use it for you ends, someone else will. Power abhors a vacuum

    • A willingness to break or ignore the law when necessary, is a sign of manhood. Georges Bataille, of all people, said as much. In breaking the law, one actuates the self. He is no longer limpwristedly beholden to whatever arrangements society has erected to constrain him. He crashes through the barriers and lives as a truly autonomous and whole man. Put another way, he ceases being a supine pussy. And this is why I feel a raging contempt for grown men who continue wearing the face diaper. These are not men. They are ignominious examples of how to be pathetic sheep.

  9. I remember the common refrain from many of the usual “conservative” champions:

    “That’s not who we are!”

    Its a shame no one actually responded, “It should be!”

    A knowledge of history shows that this was not a “melting pot” or a “great experiment” when this country was founded. The federal Constitution never specified who was a citizen because people were citizens of their States, not the united (notice lower case u) States. The State Constitutions provided the definition of their own citizens, which was usually White. The First Immigration and Naturalization Act also specified that only Whites could immigrate and be citizens. This ended after the War of Northern Aggression, and federal citizenship became an actuality. It allowed for black citizens (note that at the time, it didn’t allow for Indian citizens). The furthest racial entity removed from Whites. Now, if you make it over the border, you may not be a “citizen” but you will every right (not responsibilities, though) a citizen does.

    We will not restore this country as long as we allow anyone to be a citizen. It is as simple as that. “Its not who we are!” Any “solution” that doesn’t seek an homogenous people will fail.

    • +1. Libertarian-ish science fiction writer Kurt Vonnegut in (I think) “Starship Troopers” posited a nation where one was a Legal Resident but did not gain full rights of citizenship unless meeting certain standards (military service, maybe?) I would fully support such a world. Details to be worked out of course. For example, perhaps an acid test would be “Did this person pay significant taxes in the past year?” That might be a necessary, but not sufficient, qualification to be a Citizen who’d enjoy full rights — and responsibilities — thereof.

      • Starship Troopers was Robert Heinlein and his politics went from Social Democrat to Republican but always sexually libertine.

        How our founding fathers restricted the franchise was sound, men only , must own property 21+

        Also letting states select senators helped

        We could try that but our society has grown too complex and diverse to make such a system designed for an Anglo-Saxon Yeomanry work

  10. During each Supreme Court hearing stare decisis usually comes up as a major issue. The Senators in the room gauge the level of respect the candidate has for it.

    The definition of stare decisis should be – “when judges make sh t up out of thin air to please the rapacious ruling elite, which has been going on for a hundred years, and the newest judge on the bench signs on to protect the hundred year old three card monte game.”

    If you think about it, on the Supreme Court level, stare decisis is the antithesis of their jobs, as they are a constitutional court. So when brazenly unconstitutional issues come up year after year, they just say “sorry this is settled in Wickard vs. Filburn…stare decisis mutha f ucka.”

    Speaking of that, “conservatives” loved Anton Scalia. Can anyone point to one decision of his that sided with the mom and pop shop against giant conglomerate or giant government agency?

    • So stare decisis is the judicial way of saying, “No you can’t…because I said so.”

      Here’s hoping the citizens of the free states of Whiteland and Honky use stare decisis repeatedly, with armed force.

    • That’s not exactly the co center of stare decisis. Like any other legal concept it has its uses and limits. Stability and predictability are not to be cast aside lightly, but that does not mean they can never be cast aside. Our current problem is the installation of dullards and cowards at all levels of government, SCROTUS included.

  11. “Who decides?”

    Slightly amusing story: Many, many years ago, while in college behind the “Redwood Curtain”, I was sitting with my then-girlfriend and a few others having deep conversation. We were talking about actions and consequences and how there ought to be some, when one of us, with that haughtiness of a college student asks, “Well, who will make those decisions?”

    After a moment of silence I finally said, “Fine, I’ll do it.” It got a few laughs.

    Flash forward about 10-15 years. My former girlfriend is a full-professor of neuroscience at a different university. We happen to meet up for lunch after not seeing each other for a long time. She tells me about a similar conversation she had had recently with some of her colleagues, when some professor asks the same haughty question, “Yeah, but who makes that decision?”

    She spoke up, “I know a guy.”

    Always loved that story.

  12. In the long run, authority rests on legitimacy. Raw power can only take you so far. As some point, the people need to accept that you deserve your role as ruler.

    A king’s authority was based on his power, but his legitimacy was based on his ability to protect the peasants from even worse people than him and his henchmen.

    A liberal democracy’s legitimacy is based on the willingness of individuals to submit the majority rule. But a liberal democracy runs into serious problems in a multi-racial society. If groups within the democracy don’t feel enough connection to other groups, the legitimacy of the 50%+1 disappears.

    If I lived in a majority black city that votes to tax only white people, I’m not going to accept the legitimacy of that law and thus will fight back against the authorities who attempt to impose it. The fact that a majority of the people in the city voted in favor of the law means nothing to me because they’re not my people. They have no legitimacy in my eyes and thus the liberal democracy has no authority.

    The Left truly is insane. Tribalism is poison to a liberal democracy and, yet, the Left promotes identity politics endlessly. Non-whites already dismiss the legitimacy of laws and institutions created by whites. The question is what happens when enough whites reject the legitimacy of non-whites to rule over them.

    • A successful Elite needs to be both feared and loved. Ours hasn’t been loved for a long time and the fear factor is diminishing. Legitimacy rests of both broad support and the fear of a new Elite shooting and missing the king.

      • Our elites are relying on conservative whites’ nostalgia and patriotism for a country that no longer exists. So long as flyover whites still feel love in their heart instead of anger at the playing of the national anthem, our elites are probably safe.

        What gives our elites legitimacy is the country’s past and its institutions. But that past isn’t remembered by young people and the institutions are quickly burning through their capital.

        • “So long as flyover whites still feel love in their heart instead of anger at the playing of the national anthem, our elites are probably safe.”

          If that’s the case–and I think it probably is–the rebellion is still a long ways off. Where I live, you’d run the risk of getting beaten for refusing to stand for the national anthem. And these are the same people who wouldn’t dream of dropping the N-bomb to describe a Hutu who raped his daughter.

          • Agree. Flyover whites are still incredibly patriotic. They can’t break the link between the country that they loved and the system that hates them.

            It’s going to take a lot to make them realize that the United States of America in their mind is dead.

        • Burning through the Capital….hmmmm…..has a nice ring to it. 😈

          Or if you missed the pun, let me try it like this: when our national and personal moral, ethical, legal and financial capital has been burnt through, it is quite possible that Capitals and much else will be put to the torch as well.

      • Integrity and honor is the foundation of leadership. As Americans we have to go back to JFK for any semblance of that. Schlomo shot him in the head, in broad daylight. This is who we’re dealing with, pure Evil.

    • “A liberal democracy’s legitimacy is based on the willingness of individuals to submit the majority rule.” Absolutely, but you don’t have to live in a multi-racial society to have problems with liberal democracy. I live in Switzerland, where we are used to have referendums 4x a year on any issue we deem fit to vote on. In November 62% of my countrymen voted to deprive the unvaxxed (like me) of our rights and give the feds unlimited crisis powers till 2032. Our society is quite cohesive despite an interesting racial mix, but to me this vote was unacceptable. The Swiss also voted recently to allow something called “gay marriage” and to include the rights of cyclists in the constitution. Of course, I will not comply with the Covid diktats – just as I haven’t done these last 2 years – but please convince me how liberal democracy is not two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for breakfast!

      • Steve: From outside observations, it appears Switzerland began to fall when it gave women the vote. Then follow gimmigrants, safety, compromise, group think, etc.

        • It may have been due to women voting. Immigration has been controlled pretty well. There are black people here but they aren’t allowed to stay apart and become ghetto-ised. Racially, things work pretty well. The problem more is that we still think in terms of national “character”. You know, those hardy Swiss William Tell types who value their referendums, etc. Unfortunately, the Swiss are no longer really Swiss; they are like every other nation. They are MODERN. That means that, whatever their culture, history and ethnic background, they have been seduced and corrupted by consumerism and leftism. Red America still has a lot of independent individuals, but most Europeans are too far gone.

      • Quite true. It’s not just other races that make liberal democracy difficult, if not impossible. We see that in the US as well. Liberal whites and conservative whites have grown further and further apart culturally and religiously.

        Plenty of civil wars between peoples of the same race and even ethnicity. Ireland, anyone? American Civil War? Etc.

        But there’s still something especially angering about being told what to do by a guy who doesn’t look like you.

        • Ireland’s quarrels were not over high theology; ethnicity and class were much more powerful. The “Irish Protestants” are for the most part descended from Presbyterians hailing from the Scottish Lowlands. Most of the rest are of Anglo-Irish descent, who tend to belong to the Church of Ireland (Anglican). There are also some Welsh-Irish Methodists to complete the roster. In Northern Ireland, there are two clashing nationalisms in (two-thirds of) the province of Ulster. Irish (Catholic) Republicanism, whose adherents are split into constitutional and revolutionary factions, and the Ulster Unionists, which have their splits, but are united in their desire for maintaining the alignment with the UK and with it, the Crown.I have no idea if things can be resolved. Both antagonists seem to have resigned themselves to a wait-and-see attitude, neither of them conceding defeat nor claiming victory. It’s a smoldering volcano, not an extinct one.

  13. Hobbes said, “The power of the mighty hath no foundation, but in the opinion and belief of the people.” Ultimately ALL government is coercion, either voluntary or involuntary. The voluntary kind is voluntary because it’s hallowed by tradition, which is why guys like Sir Robert Filmer (an exact contemporary of Hobbes who wrestled with the same issues) tried to base the government on the family. But even Hobbes and Locke assumed a baseline of hallowed tradition — their version of voluntary coercion is the “social contract,” and as we’ve learned so painfully here in the Current Year, contracts (and, indeed, society) are cultural constructions. Without hundreds of years of common tradition, a “contract” is just an “end user license agreement,” and we all know how those work.

    Our current Elite have asked themselves why they bother with voluntary coercion. But because they are stupid, they don’t realize that involuntary coercion doesn’t scale past a certain point, because “Who guards the guardians?” isn’t a rhetorical question. Eventually the guards become class-aware, and the old Elite gets liquidated by the former guards, who find themselves hiring a new group of guards, who etc.

    tl;dr: It’s the culture, stupids. It’s always the culture. Because they’re evil, they’re betting that they, personally, can beat the clock — that they can live long, “happy” lives in the fulness of power before the guardians become self-aware. But because they’re stupid, they’re doing everything in their power to make sure it happens sooner, by encouraging planet-wide emotional incontinence via social media.

  14. All this talk of constitutional originalism is sort of like watching a match where the two contenders are playing under different rules, with the ref brazenly taking the side of one of the contenders. It would be like two people coming into the ring, one with the thought it’s a boxing match and the other thinking it’s an MMA fight. The boxer is going to be quickly confused why the kicks and submission attempts of his opponent are not causing a disqualification, but the boxer quickly gets routed and the MMA fighter wins.

    Sure, the boxer can win some fights against a pathetic opponent playing by different rules, enough to think he’s making progress, but it’s a fool’s errand.

    In the same way, many of the right still thinks the 1776, or even reconstruction Constitution, has any real meaning. Everyone else knows we are following the higher “constitution” of the Civil Rights Act.

    • Originalism was doomed because of the Reconstruction Amendments, specifically the 14th Amendment. The bad guys used the due process clause to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Worse yet, it allowed for “selective incorporation” which enshrined arbitrary rule by the courts. The heart of federalist, which is what animated the original constitution, was ripped out and replaced by arbitrary and capricious application of evolving standards rooted in the evolving morality of the Left. America was turned into a weird secular theocracy.

      • So the Reconstruction Acts, then, were the original Civil Rights Act.

        The black tax strikes again.
        Africa always wins.

      • Yep.

        “Constitutional conservatives” who think the Constitution will protect their “rights” need to remember that this is the country that BANNED BEER. By constitutional amendment. 100% by the book… the “supreme law of the land.”

        • For whatever reason, “Constitutional Conservatives” remind me of the Bette Davis character in WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE.

        • And our overlords need to remember that 70% of people ignored prohibition and drank alcohol anyway.

    • I asked a Japanese JJ/BJJ instructor who would win in a fight at their prime- Mike Tyson or Rickson Gracie. He said Gracie. I respect JJ very much and train in it, but, IMO, Tyson wins.

      • You have to understand that boxing and JJ/BJJ have different rules. And given that in a competition, whoever takes down the other usually wins. There are no takedowns in boxing. There is also no kicking, joint locks, or choke holds. While the boxer could knock out his opponent, he is not trained to fight in an environment that is not punch oriented. I would have to go with the grapplers. But, in real life, if you takedown your opponent, you have to hope he doesn’t have a posse that will then begin to pummel you.

        • Jiu-jitsu, boxing jiu-jitsu (karate)?

          Anta wa watashi wa Nihongo wakarimaska ne.

          (“I don’t understand jack-sh*t in Japanese.”)

          • I would suggest there is a reason in MMA why you do not see simple “boxers”: they would get destroyed. BJJ absolutely trains to avoid punches, and then use that strike against the striker. I am not a BJJ practitioner, but I know some legitimate people involved in the discipline. It would not be even remotely close if the size of the combatants was roughly equal.

          • Watashi wa nihongo wakarimasen.

            “Anata wa” means “you. “Watashi” means “me”, but men often say “boku” or lower class people (equivalent context of redneck) might use “ora”; “ore” if you want to sound a little badass.

        • if tyson manages to land a clean punch before being taken down, he might win. but he might miss and end up with a gracie wrapped around his arm…

          • If Mike Tyson in his prime, without boxing gloves, lands a punch on another type of fighter, he probably kills him. You also have to factor in Iron Mike could revert to “Brooklyn street fighter” pretty damn quick. He, of all boxers, was mean enough and crazy enough to take on another style and win.

  15. First Question: Who are we?

    The problem is that there is no “we.” Americans are a notoriously diverse bunch with no unifying culture or set of values. Somebody will have to carve out a “we” to even make that question answerable. The only way that such a “we” will be meaningful is if it excludes any and all who threaten the lasting cohesion of the group. And in the secular theocracy that is today’s America, EXCLUSION qualifies as one of the worst mortal sins that one can commit (unless, of course, you’re excluding White people — which is somehow perfectly acceptable). America’s obsession with all-inclusiveness guarantees that the national experiment will not work in the long run.

    • Looking at old school textbooks, you can see a successive diluting of what an American is. It used to be white, strictly protestant, with several different flavors of localism depending on where you lived. It slowly turned to white, deistic, with a much more monolithic culture. It then went full-on to “America is an idea” before going to it’s modern form “America is about diversity hating bad white people”

      What’s interesting is America used to have a positive identity, but now has fallen to almost exclusively negative identity. Note diversity is not a positive identity, but an anti-identity.

      • As the former WH resident was wont to say: that’s not who we are.
        Never cared much about anything he said, let alone that specific statement, but always wondered if ‘that’s not who we are’, then just who are we?

    • I agree with your assessment. Any movement needs to be based on a regional/ethnic/ religious line, which was the heart of the early American identity: regionalism with a loose confederacy between them. However, the problem with regionalism as a current model is the federal system is specifically designed to impede any regional quirk and any (white) ethnic identity as criminal.

      • Two years ago, I would have agreed that who we are depends on our ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. However, since Covid, I’ve seen people identical to me in all of these 3 areas become total Covid Nazis. By contrast, the handful of black people I know also refused to participate in the Covid hysteria, and the only doc I know who had the balls to speak out against the madness was a muslim. So today, sharing a religion, ethnic origin or culture with someone means nothing. My fellow “countrymen” are those who think in a similar way to me and who value freedom more than anything else.

        • Steve: One can find exceptions in every group. Pretending those unicorns represent the potential mean in a group is extremely unwise; making decisions and rules based on those unicorns is fatal.
          Insisting that one’s ‘tribe’ is those who share beliefs/principles is what conservatards do. Ideas and principles are ever changing; race is forever.

          • 3g, the last two years have taught me to put all theory aside and live or die by what I experience. I’ve learnt that my government hates me and that most people in my country want people like me in camps. The result of that painfully gained knowledge is that I trust only those people who think reasonably like me: they are against the death shots, they are against big government, they value liberty and they just what to be left alone by the crazies. I don’t care what those people’s skin colours are, what their ancestors did or where they came from. Those are the only people I will ever trust again.

        • But that would be my point – we do not share a culture or religious or ethnic background. To be clear, when I use those terms, I mean deep roots founded in a sense of “first family, then wider network.” I share no culture with the average white cellphone addict. They exist in a different region as well – they have no ties to the land; they are tied to the online world.

        • There’s a bit more to this world than one’s response to Covid. As much as I loathe white Karens and Keegans, I still have much more in common with them than the Hutu who says, “Fuk dat sheet!” when told to wear the face diaper.

          • I’m not so sure, Kostei. A person’s response to the Covid hysteria is a key indicator of their personality. Rather like if they support homosexuals marrying or think Neil Young is a patriot. If their answers differ from mine, sure, we can make small talk about the weather, but we can never trust each other when another Covid type situation comes up again.

    • Who are we?

      Great question. As I currently sit in a healthcare office waiting room, the stark reality is that I have no connection to 99% of the people in this building. Not a common language, culture or ancestry shared between us.

      The facility accepts Medi-Cal (California medical welfare) but does not accept Veteran medical insurance. Serving the “country” has less status than the noble act of procreation with abandon I guess.

      This country is simply a global economic zone.

      • ArthurinCali: Patel motel. Third-world shopping mall/flophouse. Plenty of similar appellations.

    • i was born in ’56. things were very straight forward culturally until about ’68. then all hell broke loose.

  16. “The narrow elite that controls Western societies decides because they control the managerial class, which in turn controls the administrative state. Their authority rests on their will to power and the delusions of the people, who steadfastly insist they decide public policy through the ballot box.”

    The problem is worse than that, because their power also rests upon the same Constitution that conservatives held in such high regard. The 14th Amendment gave the managerial class the ability to determine what is, or is not, “equal protection of the law.” A close reading of the 14th Amendment shows us that only the states are prohibited from denying equal protection — not the federal government.

    The 16th Amendment completed the destruction of the Constitution by empowering the managerial class to take as much of your money as they deemed necessary, and give it to favored constituencies while exempting many of those favored constituencies from paying anything at all.

    It’s hard to make the case for small-government constitutional conservatism when the government has already made war on half the country and then subjugated it under military occupation, then amended the Constitution to give favorable treatment to a specific race and further amended it to take as much of your money as they want.

  17. In Federalist 2, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and later Governor of New York, wrote, “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…”

    That “Who We Are” definition ended long ago. The comparison to Iran and Russia is a bit faulty as America, evolving into Amexica, is slowly but persistently changing so that, while there’s a common language and there are common traditions, they’re waning and don’t “define the rules” any longer. Rules becoming ad hoc and raw power, exercised by a ruling class of various interests backed up by military force, are to be expected in the final days of a crumbling nation/culture/ way of life. Two appropriate, if inexact analogies, would be fourth century Rome and the eclipse of the golden age of Imperial Spain in the late sixteenth century.

  18. All true, as usual. Now connect the dots.

    Conservatives will keep losing the real battles until reality forces them to wake up. For example, most Normies are still circle jerking in anticipation of the upcoming elections because that is easier than rolling up your sleeves and getting serious (and your fat ass off the couch). When the new RINOs get into office early next year, there will be mass orgasms in the burbs as the posturing backstabbers start crowing about all the “investigations” they will be doing. This will, once again, become a drawn-out head fake that fools the normiecons into a false sense of accomplishment. All the while, runaway inflation will exact a hidden tax that feeds the Beast in DC and represents the real victory of the Progressives that occurred in plain sight while Normie was having his election orgasm. Bongino might even light his ass hair of fire again.

    Nothing will change until the environment changes, and that means a hard economic collapse or world war. Normie cannot wake up until 2×4 meets forehead. Until then, the best we can do as DR is 4S & focus. Its the only way to be sure.

  19. It’s going to have to take a couple more election cycles of republicans winning and then doing little or nothing to turn the mind of the civic nationalist. I myself was disillusioned after the 2004 elections and the Bush years but the normal conservative has hung on to the ideas that voting will change the managerial system at the national level.
    Voting can help us especially at the local and state level, the national level on the other hand is going to become increasingly hopeless in my opinion.
    As for who we are?
    That’s another very difficult question in a multicultural and multiracial society to define.
    Christianity is not the glue that can hold it all together at this point in history, nor is it race, nor as we will see with time civic nationalism.
    I don’t see that answer.

    • >It’s going to have to take a couple more election cycles of republicans winning and then doing little or nothing to turn the mind of the civic nationalist.

      Most likely “That’s it, from now on I am voting Democrat!”

      • The Dominion machines hated Trump so much, he lost the House, Senate, and White House. They all voted for that other guy.

    • I’m with TomA and similar baleful opinions: It is far too late to vote our way out of the hole Puritanism/Neoconism/Choose Your Favorite has brought us to. The good news is there are solutions. The bad news is there are probably no ethical, moral or legal solutions. Plan accordingly.

      • “The bad news is there are probably no ethical, moral or legal solutions.”

        Oh, there are always legal solutions. And guess who determines that? As a matter of fact, there are always ethical (unethical) and moral (immoral) solutions.

      • I just finished a very well written fictional account of what happens after the economic collapse (hat tip John Derbyshire).

        A new free state is established in Nevada, after much poverty and suffering.

        The Mandibles, by Lionel Shiver. Her timetable looks pretty accurate too.

        • I hope one of their first acts was to stanch the flow of any and all water passing through their territory on its way to enemy land.

        • BeAprepper: That was a good read (no h/t on my part to Derbyshire; found it on my own). Can suggest a few others if you’re interested (good example is John Michael Greer’s “Retropia”).

          • Dan Simmons, “Flashback”

            Still not sure if the book had a happy ending or not, but an excellent read.

    • G Lordon Giddy: History repeatedly demonstrates that nothing will hold together a multicultural, multiracial entity. Empires, nations, pacts – they all fall to the same thing. I don’t believe any of us here want to live in a multiracial society; I certainly don’t support anything that’s supposed to help it hold together. And, as I’ve commented frequently, I don’t believe even local voting is worthwhile.

      If you first narrow it down by race (White only) and then regionally by culture and religion, there could easily exist a White federation of some sort. You will always need to restrain the extremists of all kinds, who want to make war on those who don’t agree with their religious beliefs or cultural habits, but as long as the prime racial directive remains ingrained, groups can peacefully separate and even peacefully coexist living with their own people and under their own rules.

  20. people of a certain stripe create a system. the system changes the nature of the people, over multiple generations. the changed people adapt the system to their wishes – creating a different kind of people in turn. the system, and its people, form a yin/yang relationship. it is pointless to try and thwart this process; not known for sure if there is any point in trying to guide it. just recognizing true reality might be the optimal personal plan.

    interesting point about russian people enduring through communism’s reign due to ethno-unity. AINO looks to have multiple such cultural nuclei; perhaps each will find a place, a region, to blossom within.

  21. “The great trick of liberal democracy is in convincing people it exists.”

    This cannot be overemphasized. Someone here once commented that Western liberal democracy is neither Western, liberal nor democratic. To a large extent, that is true. People will tolerate autocracy as long as it seems to benefit them (Russia is a good current example). America and the remainder of the West always were an oligarchy–that’s hardly new, but it was tolerated and mostly embraced as long as the arrangement actually benefitted those not within the dominant class. Now that a hostile elite oppresses a dispossessed majority and seeks to transform it into a hated plurality, the system no longer is tenable.

    What’s the answer? I certainly don’t know, but we begin with acknowledging we have a problem.

    • *I eschew the term “populism.” There is nothing wrong with populism, to be clear, but the term is employed in a derisivie way that can be summarized as follows:

      1. When the oligarchy approves of a majority sentiment, that is labeled “democracy.”

      2. When the oligarchy disapproves of a majority sentiment, that is labeled “populism.”

      Those always align perfectly.

    • we used to have regional oligarchies, keeping each other in check at the national level. now we have one set of national oligarchs, and that is crashing the system.

      • On Elites… yeah that.

        I’m sure someone here must’ve mentioned the amazing and weird interview between Tucker Carlson and Mendacious Moldbug. Yarvin quickly lays out their class lineage, Brahmin children of the Techno/Managerial class.

        You can see the wonderment on Carlson’s face as he realizes and accepts without dissent that these two are of a kind. The tall pale intelligent quintessentially American WASP and the small mouthy quickwitted narcissistic product of turn of the century immigrant socialist jews.

        For some reason, this pair are not only similar in their paternal governmental lineages but also that they are both from the Land of Broken Toys. For some reason neither man wants to fit into what would have been an easily lucrative and high powered careers within the System.

        For Yarvin maybe its that ever present hebrew self-destruct gene wrapped in its narcissism slow fuse… for Tucker, my guess is he is either a little immature or a little to good natured and swallowed those Yankee lessons about fairness and right over might. I am still a little stuck in surreal mode at exchange between these two men.

        Anyway one thing that Moldbug repeatedly hammers home is that the real power lies with the technocrats, the middle managers, the government’s Brahmins. He essentially lays out that the decay is inevitable unless you can eliminate these elites.

        I think he is on something. What to do about the elites? How to depose them without them intentionally crashing the world, or us unintentionally doing so by cutting them loose too quickly.

        • I found Yarvin’s rosy picture of the managerial/technocratic elite appallingly rosy. Anyone who have brushed against these types knows they have severe issues themselves and their spawn…well, look at them.

          That out of the way, the bottom line to what Yarvin said actually is a good point. People burrowed into the system do have to be bought out (there are other methods, to be clear, but those should be avoided at all costs). That was my biggest take away from the interview, which was every bit as surreal as you wrote, and something that stuck with me. The price and mechanics are to be determined.

        • Carlson already has a lucrative career. He is making $10 million a year and has one of the most popular shows on TV.

          Yarvin, having released a large flood of verbal diarrhea containing some truths and interesting ideas and becoming popular in certain circles got to his head.

          I saw that interview between them. Yarvin’s “class lineage” suggestion seemed a little desperate to me. Not sure if Tucker truly accepted it or just “accepted” it for the sake of the show.

    • As a marginalized, underprivileged, oppressed minority, I wonder if we can get representation.

  22. The best analogy is that government forms are just tools in a toolbox, including the constitution. The project they are meant to build, the meaning behind the tools, is “for ourselves and our posterity”.

    Founding Freemasons being what they were, they never mentioned Christendom and tolerance for the pagans and inquisition for demon worshipers, but they never said otherwise no matter what some homosexual judge thinks. But we can.

    Actual process, if neocons were honest, is controlled by elite law schools, not politicians. Their philosophy was bad and they were even failures with their own bad philosophy.

  23. Sounds like we need a good, old fashioned king (DR of course) at the top to render final decisions. Our entire government has become nothing but a hyper ideological, minoritarian, money grubbing enterprise. The collective good means nothing anymore.

    The population is so deracinated and getting more so by the day, we’re much closer to an “every man for himself” kind of culture. I’m not sure if, or how that ship can be righted.

    • I’m just getting into a book about life in England during 1066, written almost 50 years ago. The author is strikingly DR in tone, concluding that the political and religious hierarchies, along with the lifestyle of the people, created a society that was ideal for most people. Men and women, the intelligent and incapable, all tended to find their proper station and were respected accordingly.

      • KGB: David Howarth’s “1066 Year of the Conquest”? Bought and read it when it came out in 1977. Still on my bookshelf. Excellent read.

        • read it when it came out. later, down the road, lived in Kent (near the place the normans came ashore); also a short drive to Dicken’s home town (Rochester) and Nelson’s home port (Cheltham). had a definite Wicker Man vibe to the place 😛

        • Yes ma’am. Checked it out of the library yesterday. One of the perks of living in a back water, Rust Belt city is that the library’s stock has been mostly frozen in place for decades.

          Glad you liked it, that tells me it’s going to be worth it in the end.

          • KGB: Thank you for the lovely compliment! And, fwiw, although I generally prefer fiction and social history and my husband prefers nonfiction and military history, he enjoyed the book too when he started reading some of my collection after we married.

        • Great book. How things in England would have been different if Harold and the Saxons had prevailed.

  24. Andy McCarthy right on cue at National Review arguing the judge who struck down the mask requirement on planes overstepped her legal authority. I didn’t make anywhere near the end of this piece, but did get far enough to see he admits the left does it all the time, especially on immigration enforcement, but the right shouldn’t do it back to uphold the sacred Constitution or something.
    Between this and Charlie Cooke begging Florida not to punish Disney yesterday word must have gone out at National Review it was time to defend their corporate donors.

    • The primary goal of (now degraded) institutions such as National Review is to maintain the status quo. It is in part why they have become irrelevant to political discourse.

    • It’s fun to watch Ace violently part ways with the squishes on the right. He had a long post on this yesterday and pointed out that what’s happening in Florida is exactly what the left would do, so why not the right?

      Over at The Market Ticker, Karl was even more strident, saying that when you inflict damage on your opponent you have to administer a death blow or else you’ll continue fighting the same battle over and over. “Nope; you make them pay exactly as they intended to make you pay had they won.”

      • Karl’s a shy guy, ain’t he? I wish sometimes he’d just come and say exactly what he thinks! 🙂

  25. “Their authority rests on their will to power and the delusions of the people, who steadfastly insist they decide public policy through the ballot box.”

    This is absolutely true. I can’t tell you how many “conservatives” I know who insist that “we” are taking back the house and senate. Not realizing you’re simply making a blood transfusion with more contaminated blood.

    Leftists pull a gun, conservatives extend a handshake.

    • All this talk about the GOP winning back the house and senate reminds me of Newt Gingrich and the 1994 “Contract with America” and their huge midterm win which resulted in…….not much.

      • Now, now, don’t you remember when the Republicans in 1994 eliminated the Departments of Energy and Education, just like they promised? At least they had the excuse of Bill Clinton vetoing bills.

        But why go that far back? Remember when the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate during Cheeto Hitler’s reign? …and then they did…stuff, you know…

        • Our guys forget, but that election was when the national media switched, on command from the first lady’s “spin” office, from partisan Democrat to anti-“angry white men.”

          All else follows? Much else.

          Of course Republicans give us nothing—but its *us* they give it to. That’s viscerally offensive.

        • Rep’s have way too many “RINO’s”. At a State level we see this here all the time. You need a great majority to pass anything abhorrent to the Dem’s. If the vote is along straight party lines—what isn’t there days—there are always a few Rep’s who cross over and vote with the Dem’s. The reverse, on close votes, never happens.

          Hell, we could not pass a State budget this year which was the exact same one as passed last year (inflation adjusted) due to several Rep’s voting against (they voted for last year).

          Politics is a dirty business. It can not survive in its present form among decent people.

        • The ‘94 election was similar to 2016 because of how the media was really upset about it, but the Democrats back then didn’t adopt the upper-class suicide-bomber/jihadi attitude that we have seen in the past 5 years. It was kind of assumed that Clinton and the “Blue Dog” DLC types would by trial and error figure out a way to adapt to and co-opt it. Thus we had Dole and Clinton engaging issues like school uniforms and “urban enterprise zones” (this latter was an old Jack Kemp theme IIRC). I might have missed it, but I don’t remember the 2016-2020 elite ever seriously examining if there was an avenue for making America leftishly great again. They were just distracted by their usual suicide-bomber preoccupations about net-zero carbon alchemy and killing all the cops. It is not just the Republicans who are Gordon Gekko-style asset-strippers now. The faith in democracy is inversely proportional to how hard and opportunistically they thump it. The influence of Silicon Valley “disruption” theology on modern Dem grandees should not be underlooked.

    • Leftists pull a gun, conservatives offer a reach-around

      there i fixed it for you.

Comments are closed.