Posted on

On Disunion

Illustration courtesy of Roman Genn, National Review.

Will we have a disunion? Yes, maybe, or somewhere in-between, with plenty of caveats. Sounds indefinite, as most sober projections of this nature should be.

Well, I’ll have to admit that some sort of disunion is taking place. All the evidence is pointing that way. Will it be a hard or soft disunion? A “hard” one would be some kind of constitutional restructure, or a complete break like the old Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics. The “soft” variety entails some kind of unofficial consensual agreement to live and let live. I’m of a mind to reject the former, but the latter raises some interesting possibilities.

Even more, is the talk of disunion part of a passing phase? All of this could be meaningless chatter. That’s an even more interesting possibility.

Evidence of disunion is all about, though. Some saw it coming at the dawn of the new millennium. Terry Teachout and Gertrude Himmelfarb back then wrote of it as “Republican Nation, Democratic Nation” (Teachout) or “one nation, two cultures” (Himmelfarb). Then, Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing crowned the idea four years later in their book, The Big Sort. Bishop and Cushing noticed that in-migration data showed like-minded people seek to live around other like-minded people. Are you paying attention New York and California?

The hard left turn of the Democratic Party is driving the talk. No, it’s not because the right has suddenly resuscitated Mussolini’s Black Shirts. Policies, laws, and actions in deep blue urban areas and states are forcing many people to make a choice between the comfort of their place of birth and desire to escape the one-party cultural revolution of the chic cliques that dominate their state or municipality.

At root in these havens of the ruling revolutionary thought is a set of prejudices about others not so willing to adopt the hedonism and its concomitant authoritarian rule, people who are loosely defined as traditionally inclined. The libertinism shows as a rejection of standards: traditional morality, the physical determinants of nature (DNA, chromosomes, biological limits, etc.), the elements of merit, etc. Oxymoronically, lying next to this idea of the free-floating individual is the ready submission to the aristocracy of sheepskin-wielding “experts”. Not all “experts”, mind you, just those who feed the libertines’ prejudices. It’s a terribly selective cadre of gurus.

It’s not as if the cool exponents of the philosophy actually live what they preach. The urban professional types, and the uber-rich that rose from their ranks, that dominate the ruling pack, get married and instill self-discipline in their young as Charles Murray so clearly observed in his research. They carry on like Horatio Alger even as they denounce the guy, which proves that consistency is not a readily observable human quality.

When they’re spouting “It’s good for thee but not for me”, they may be onto something. That something is the intuition that at least they and their children can’t prosper under anything goes. The public schools must keep their monopoly at all costs, as their votes and campaign donations proclaim, as long as elite prep schools are open for their young scions. The result is a descent into chaos for many inner-city schools, which matches the chaos in the surrounding neighborhoods that was engineered by bountiful entitlements and a pervasive ridicule of law and order.

It’s starting to ooze out: neither they, nor can anyone live this way. Yet, their indulged offspring fill the ranks of BLM and Antifa to make everyone else’s life a living hell. Their political activism produces permissive DA’s who won’t enforce quality-of-life crimes so the quality-of-life rots. Simple things like roads and the electrical grid crumble as their leaders pursue crusades against the chimerical “systemic racism” and for a greenie utopia. Urban landscapes each day look more like something out of Mad Max or John Carpenter’s “Escape from New York”. Indeed, many New Yorkers have already joined Snake Plissken (Russell) in the flight from hell. Florida, here we come! Life imitates art.

Where are they heading? It’s to more than Florida. The refugees are going to places where gun ownership isn’t treated as a mental illness, where churches have tendency to be full on Sunday, and where taxes are low, housing is cheap, and jobs aplenty. Sure, some may regret not having a beach nearby, but those boardwalks are beginning to take on the look of the rest of the dystopia anyway. The escapees won’t be missing much.

Some commentators have devoted much ink on extremists at the fringe of both sides. In their reading of the political landscape, the left has its Antifa/BLM to go along with the dynamic duo of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi with their critical-race-theory/systemic racism sermonizing. The right has the ill-defined QAnon and Arian Nation look-alikes. But the two fringes aren’t anywhere near equivalent; the right deserves a 10-handicap. The DiAngelo/Kendi crowd and their Antifa and BLM militias are much more deeply entrenched in our critical institutions than the QAnon devotees and Proud Boys ever were. The lefty militias are perfumed into respectability, DiAngleo and Kendi get rich, and nearly every other large and powerful organization has their own offshoot of the ministry of propaganda. It’s an egregious false equivalence and an affront to sound reason to pretend otherwise.

No other words describe our current divide than revolution (left) and counterrevolution (right), a classic civil war. The two stances are deeply divided into mutually exclusive sets of values. A commissariat-driven holy war to impose equality of result for fashionable identities versus a legal regime of equal opportunity is only part of the story. Another angle is the vague spirituality of my “personal truth” versus the certainties of altar and hearth. Still another one is the exaltation of two n’s – narcissism and nihilism – versus self-restraint and our heritage of compassion. Still another one is the impulse to tear it all down and build anew according to someone’s fanciful conception of heaven on earth versus the inclination to build upon the glories of the past. These approaches are mutually exclusive. Where is there room for compromise if one side, the Left, is hell-bent on forcibly foisting their worldview on the other?

Don’t take solace in the natural live-and-let-live of federalism. The Left from its perch on the cultural commanding heights is feverishly trying to centralize power in DC. Centralization will bury subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity embraces the value of local and regional control as the most efficacious form of governance. It holds that on most matters the more local, the better. Well, that’s on the chopping block in a host of ways.

The US capitol and surrounding buildings in DC.

Will sufficient numbers of people push back? That’ll be hard to achieve once the Left’s dream of legitimizing vote fraud is rigidly imposed on the entire country. At this point, elections as the corrective will be effectively neutered. Opposition will be forced into submission or the various lanes of disobedience, civil or violent. When elections seem to have no meaning, eruptions of less palatable methods of opposition will be more frequent. History is littered with examples.

Watch that space on HR1, the Left’s grab bag of “reforms” making its way through Congress to remove vote fraud from the category of a crime and reconfigure it as a legitimate get-out-the-vote strategy. If it passes, those storm clouds from Mordor will have reached your home.

RogerG

Posted on

A Cancelled Cat

Ted Geisel, “Dr. Seuss”

The “systemic racism” witch hunt knows no bounds. The airbrushing out of memory isn’t limited to long dead white guys on horseback. Ensnared are old lefties like Ted Geisel, “Dr. Seuss”. We are living in a very dangerous time. It’s beginning to look like the frenzy of the Reign of Terror that engulfed France in 1793. Nothing was spared: the Church, nuns and monks, anyone who dressed fancy, the calendar, and even the entombed remains of kings in the crypt underneath the Basilica of Saint-Denis. Our time’s vicious Jacobins are let loose.

RogerG

Posted on

Another Failure of Our “Experts”

*Today’s short comment is mostly based on the work of Nicholas Eberstadt, the Henry Wendt Chair of Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute.

Our “experts”, the ones that grab the attention of the mathematically and scientifically illiterate in Big Media, are essentially bureaucrats in Big Government’s agencies of public health, corporate Big Pharma, and the university schools of public health. And all of them were asleep at the switch, the switch to throw the alarm on the catastrophic jump in working class “deaths of despair”: drug overdoses, cirrhosis of the liver, and suicides. Putting a number on it would be over 300,000 premature deaths from 1999 to 2015. And these are our gurus on all matters public health. With friends like these, do we need any enemies?

The disaster occurred under the noses of Clinton, Dubya, and the first term-and-a-half of Obama. Obama didn’t notice it, and maybe didn’t care. The alarm was tripped by Princeton’s Anne Case and Angus Deacon during Obama’s second term. Don’t forget that at this time, Obama was too busy lambasting the blue collars of western Pennsylvania as “bitter clingers” to their sky god and guns.

These same bureaucrats were the ones who fed the prejudices of the Big Government Left in the Democratic Party and the Party’s allies in Big Media during COVID. Fauci and company were elevated to sainthood. Behind the scenes, as our social and economic lives were castrated on the advice of these very same desk-jockeys, the death toll in “deaths of despair” accelerated.

Ryan Halligan, age 13, committed suicide by hanging on Oct. 7, 2013.
Picture of Jo’Vianni. age 15, in the hand of her mother. She committed suicide in April of 2020.
Bethany Palmer, age 17, of Greater Manchester, UK, committed suicide in April of 2020.
Rally to raise awareness of deaths of despair in 2017.

These “experts” are said to be public servants. But which public are they serving? I can’t avoid the insights of James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock in their famous work in public choice theory. They start with the simple premise of self-interest: it applies to everyone. It’s true every bit as much among GS-level employees and their politicized head honchos as it does for any budding entrepreneur. The cloistered ecosystem of the bureau, combined with occupational self-absorption, make for a unique animal who misses a whole lot.

Just think, with the Green New Deal and the jihads against “systemic racism” and for genderism, these same fools will be put in charge of nearly every aspect of our lives. If that doesn’t startle you, I don’t know what will.

RogerG

Posted on

College Requires a Warning Label

Michael Bloomberg as mayor of New York City was famous for his finger-waving nanny bans on Big Gulps, super-sized fast food, and decrees on salt levels in restaurant foods. He wasn’t content with warning labels. He should have been content with warning labels. In contrast to Hizzoner, I’m suggesting only a warning label be placed on every college application – not in 2-point font in a footnote at the bottom of the page – to caution every parent and student of the danger in going to college in America. It might read something this:

“Warning: Any student matriculating to this college or university may procure revolutionary beliefs and a record of convictions for assault, murder, destruction of public and private property, threats to the rights of others, and other acts of disorder in furtherance of a historically proven dystopia.”

The connection between college and malignant left-wing radicalism is at least as strong as the relationship between tobacco smoking and lung cancer.

There are many historical instances of crass and brutal left-wing radicalism coming from the ranks of the college-educated with disastrous results. Take Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov – aka Lenin – for instance. His dad (Illya) was a college professor at the Penza Institute for the Nobility, and his sons were college students: Lenin at Kazan University and his older brother, Alexander, at College of Simbirsk and the University of Saint Petersburg. Later, Alexander would be executed in the unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Czar Alexander III. The radical bona fides of the siblings were insinuated in the college culture of the time. Aleksander Solzhenitsyn amply described the setting in many of his writings. Sound familiar?

Lenin as a university student

If it sounds familiar, it should . . . because it is! Let’s take a look at what happened to Michael Brase, a second-year dental student at the University of Iowa. David Johnsen, the dean of the University of Iowa’s College of Dentistry, mass-distributed an email condemning Pres. Trump for withdrawing federal funding for the propaganda and Maoist struggle sessions known as “diversity training” – in the words of the executive order, “race/sex stereotyping” and “scapegoating”.

Brase responded in a logical reply to Prof. Johnsen’s opinionated missive: “By condemning Executive Order 13950, does the [College of Dentistry] support using federal funds to promote trainings that include race/sex stereotyping and/or race/sex scapegoating?”

For Mr. Brase, the sh#! hit the fan. Brase was quickly ordered to appear before a disciplinary hearing for “unprofessional behavior”. Rather than prostrate himself before his accusers, he went to the press and his elected representatives in the Iowa state legislature whose House Oversight Committee launched an investigation. Facts were made clear and the lefty cabal in the professoriate was exposed. Under the glaring spotlight of public scrutiny, the professorial lynch mob scattered like cockroaches who were startled by the light. The professorial ring leader, Prof. Johnsen, ended up delivering a mea culpa.

Or take the experience of Economics Professor Frank Gunter at Lehigh University. He had the temerity to deliver a talk on poverty in response to the Biden Administration’s request for faculty advice, but his views didn’t jibe with the lefty groupthink on campus (see below). He dared to counter three myths about poverty that are constantly trotted out by lefty faculty and racialized students in furtherance of the revolution. The three falsehoods according to Prof. Gunter are the following: (1) poverty is a matter of race – racial minorities are its chief victims; (2) poverty is a generational curse – once poor, always poor for generations; and (3) the poor have no agency because they are victims of large, impersonal forces (“systemic racism”, articulated in “critical race theory”).

For this, the lefty hive on the U. of Iowa campus erupted into a swarm. Black Lives Matter went to the barricades and the College of Business – Gunter’s teaching assignment – feverishly tried to blunt this exercise in academic free speech and academic freedom. The lesson is clear: stick out your neck for truth and be forever ostracized.

That’s the setting for our young adult freshmen who wish to broaden their minds and opportunities. Parents, they may enter college one way, and may exit completely different. And don’t assume it’ll be an improvement.

The pervasiveness of the above experiences is frightening. It’s also absolutely disgusting. State legislatures get to work and mandate the warning label.

RogerG

Posted on

He Made Conservatism Cool

I was there at the beginning, the birth of a luminary. I was a grad student at California State University, Chico, about 90 miles north of Sacramento, Ca. Not a fan of talk radio, occasionally I’d pick up the AM radio signal of Sacramento’s KFBK for news and information. Serendipitously, I happened to be tuning in when the station was auditioning a guest host after their headliner had been forced to resign after making an ethnic joke. The replacement was funny, entertaining, and the style was light and beckoning. He stayed. He was Rush Limbaugh.

My wife remembers me coming home from the campus one day and laughing. I told her of the funniest radio program that I discovered from just cruising the dial. It was the beginning of Talent on Loan from God.

From where did the star of Rush arise? Limbaugh as the beneficiary of a generational rethink that was taking place in the late 1970’s. He came at the right time.

Men of the radical left raise their fists during the “Days of Rage” anti-Vietnam War demonstrations organized by the militant Weathermen in Chicago. Oct. 11, 1969.

Again, in an earlier incarnation as a grad student, this time at UC Santa Barbara in the late 1970’s – I seemed to be in perpetual grad-student mode at that time in my life – I attended a campus open-air talk in 1977 or ’78 on the state of national affairs. Hyper-inflation, the humiliation of the fall of South Vietnam and Southeast Asia, the attendant slaughters and holocausts, and the sinking mood in a seemingly impotent country were current events, not the third-to-last chapter in a high school History textbook. When questions were allowed at the end of the talk, I remember shouting a rhetorical query on the cause of our malaise, “What about our rampant consumerism?” That shows where my mind was, as it was for many of my age at that time. It was nonsense, absolute nonsense.

Open-air anti-War speeches, UC Santa Barbara, 1970
Anti-War protest, UC Santa Barbara, 1970.
The 1970 Isla Vista riots, adjacent to the UC Santa Barbara campus, with the Bank of America building burning in the background behind the line of Sheriff deputies. The campus had quieted considerably by 1977 when I arrived as a grad student.

The horrifying scenes of the fall of Saigon and the ghoulish totalitarian genocides coming out of the place that we abandoned, Southeast Asia, shocked me. My philosophical transition started. I began to discover a new counterculture, one long in existence and counterpoised to the left/liberal Ivy League hegemony, an older relative of the smothering orthodoxy that dominates our cultural commanding heights today. Milton and Rose Friedman, the Chicago School of Economics, Thomas Sowell, Arthur Laffer, George Gilder, Jean Kirkpatrick, Jean-François Revel, and National Review soon followed. The candidacy of Ronald Reagan politically encapsulated the trend. And for the average lunch-pale man and woman, there was Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh became a cultural event. He was the right’s SNL. His stunts offended the liberals in the newsroom at KFBK. In their stunted minds, conservatives were dour people of mundane prospects. But with this guy, they were parodied and they didn’t like it. Still don’t.

Rush standing before a Sacramento billboard that was paid by someone who obviously disliked Limbaugh. Limbaugh was at KFBK from 1983-88.

From his perch in the studio, for instance, he followed the progress of a coast-to-coast nuclear freeze march that was meant to stymie Reagan’s attempt to counter the Soviet’s buildup of nuclear missiles in Europe. Limbaugh would find their location, call someone in the town at random, and ask them about the marchers. He’d crack jokes with the resident about the lefty marchers traipsing through his or her town. It was great radio, and enough to cause you to stop what you were doing and listen.

Who can forget the Rush dictionary? There were “feminazis”, women that he characterized as not able to get a date with a man, nor wanting one. There was the story of watching a woman “farding” in her car. He took awhile to explain that “farding” meant the application of makeup. The Kennedys were a rich vein of humor, particularly Ted who had a hard time finishing a statement without blubbering. Limbaugh did to liberals what liberals have been doing to the rest of the country from their monopoly perch of their own Versailles that stretched from Manhattan to Hollywood to the Ivy League.

And then there was Dan’s Bake Sale in 1993. It started as a conversation with a caller, Dan, who said he couldn’t afford the Limbaugh Letter because his wife didn’t like Rush. Rush borrowed his idea of a bake sale to pay off the national debt and suggested the idea to Dan. The idea caught fire among “dittoheads” and before anyone knew it, 65,000 people gathered in Ft. Collins, Co. Think of it as Rushstock ’93. Rush was rockin’ fun.

Rush was fun and the Left was exposed as killjoys. The left dished it out but couldn’t take it. There’s been a role reversal: the liberal establishment and their media mandarins have become the “Church Lady” without the church. Snowflakes spitting and fuming and disrupting anyone who can’t countenance their inanities were bound to produce real time material for the lively mind of someone like Rush. In those early days, Rush could take these cranks without any self-awareness and turn them into entertainment, and the object of a little deserving ridicule as well.

The “drive-bys” still harbor resentment for receiving what they have been dishing out for half a century. Nicholas Kristof, New York Times columnist, on today’s Hugh Hewitt show couldn’t bring himself to say anything positive about Rush when given the opportunity. Crickets. Wikipedia devotes an entire section to his personal problems (divorces and addiction to pain killers) and another one trying to impose the opinions of “fact-checkers” over his. This isn’t fact-checking; it’s opinion cancellation. Julia Wick, Los Angeles Times staff writer, came out with this gem, “… he helped bring conspiracy theories and racist, misogynistic vitriol into mainstream political discourse ….” They hate him for laying bare their pretentiousness. The emperors and empresses have no clothes.

Rush, RIP. We’ll miss you.

If you’ve got time, grab a cup of coffee and take a glimpse of Talent on Loan from God: his 2009 speech to CPAC.

RogerG

Posted on

The Era of No Need for Custom

This:

Young woman reading a book at a public library.

Versus this:

Defacing a Confederate monument in Portsmouth, Va.

Thomas Sowell, the noted economist and public intellectual at the Hoover Institution, said in the most recent documentary on his life that his gateway out of his poor neighborhood was books. Yes, books. A friend at an early age introduced him to the New York City public library. From there, his life’s journey coursed its way from the military, through college, a PhD, and from Marxism to a deep skepticism about the whole enterprise. It led to employment at the US Dept. of Labor, the questioning of government’s attempt to elevate mankind through fiat (such as a minimum wage law), and various university teaching gigs, the authorship of many fine books on economics and culture, and his current post at the Hoover Institution.

Thomas Sowell

Why mention Thomas Sowell? His life’s story is an example of the influence of books on a person’s life. Books, combined with the collegiality of the classroom, can strengthen the mind muscle. The setting can instill the desire and mental acuity to ruminate, test, and explore ideas. Books present to us a smorgasbord of what others have thought and did from the ancient past to the present.

Well, and this is most disturbing, we are about to lose it all. That is, we are about to squander the ability to produce seasoned, mature minds. A massive mental erasure is taking place as we and our children are taught to disparage the past by seeing it through the contrived lens of chic thought. It’s a grand undertaking to shove everything, including ideas, down the vortex of racism, systemic or otherwise. As such, there’s no need to pay attention to the books of dead people. The experience of mankind is reduced to the fetid imaginations of today’s pop stars like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. It dominates one of the two established political parties, is attached to the coattails of its politicos, and is smeared through policy and government actions. We’ll all be smeared by it.

It’s how college is reduced to the equivalent of totalitarian “struggle sessions”. It’s how the language is corrupted in order to stifle free inquiry. Last summer’s wave of statue defacement and destruction is a public manifestation of the phenomena. The zeitgeist’s tentacles are evident in Big Tech’s censorship, the reeducation of corporate employees in propaganda workshops, and the soiling of everything from Big Sports to school curriculums. Sowell’s view of the value books as the mental gym for cognitive maturity is replaced by the mass production of mental midgets.

A small snippet on the importance of books is an insight from Gordon S. Wood’s Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. It involves two things: common law and seditious libel. The legal principle of seditious libel is rooted in common law. For us, today, the concept of seditious libel sends shivers down our spine because of its recent dark history of government brutality to punish dissent.

However, the circumstances of earlier times presented a different story. The common law is found there, in the misty past. Common law closely corresponds to traditions that take on the force of law. Most commonly, they originate in the decisions of local magistrates who have to grapple with situations not foreseen, nor expected to be foreseen, in the statutory law. They develop over long stretches of time, and become the acknowledged precedents to handle similar situations in like manner.

Got it? Without the past, one definition of justice – treating like situations alike – would not exist, and we would be at the mercy of the impulses of the mob or the passions of spasmodic majorities who capture the powers of the state. Rampaging mobs through the streets of 5th and 4th-century BC Athens, nor the impulses of all-powerful assembly super-majorities, doth not make for public peace and tranquility.

A mob murdering Hypatia of Alexandria, a Neoplatonist philosopher and mathematician, in 415 AD.

Seditious libel ( the crime of publishing material that brings the government and its officials into contempt) fits into the common law due to conditions common in an era before institutionalized law enforcement. Police forces with their administrative structures and collective bargaining agreements didn’t exist. A single sheriff, and whomever he could coax to join him, couldn’t be the sole means to enforce compliance to a magistrate’s decisions. A great deal of voluntary assent and respect for the officer and office was considered essential for social harmony.

A depiction of the reeve, Oswald, in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. The reeve became the chief administrator in a lord’s shire. The word “sheriff” is a combination of “shire” and “reeve”.

The traditional aura that accrued to an official and his office was instilled by essential institutions such as the family and the Church, but also with the common law principle of seditious libel. Throwing aspersions on an official was tantamount to throwing aspersions on the office and therefore undermining the ability of a society’s officials to maintain public tranquility. Respect for both the officer and office was critical to maintaining order.

A man convicted of seditious libel in the stock in a 17th century English woodcut.

Books are the means to gain such insights. Without them, our libraries would be limited to one shelf in one rack, and filled with a few volumes of the excrescences of some fashionable halfwits who have discovered their moment.

It’s also very dangerous. Trashing the past frees your fashionable tyrants from restraint. Pol Pot’s “year zero” talk is fully anchored in a repudiation of the past and its customs. Today, we are abundant in such talk. For instance, “change” is a trite theme in the repertoire of modern Hollywood’s scriptwriters. It prizes a break away from the past to create someone’s gross conception of Shangri-La. It’s gross if you have some idea of where these ideas have led people in prior times. I suspect a profound ignorance of earlier human experience.

In this undated photo provided by Documentation Center of Cambodia, the late Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot, center, greets Khmer Rouge cadre in Phnom Penh airport, Cambodia.
Khmer Rouge labor camp
Child soldiers of the Khmer Rouge who proved to be vicious killers in the camps.
Skulls, discovered in 1981, lie in the killing fields of Choeung Ek, Cambodia.

Even when they portray the past, it’s done through the tunnel vision of today’s obsessions. History becomes another tool in the furtherance of contemporary thought fashions. It’s a distortion, but who cares, as the lessons of real history are turned into just another form of confirmation bias?

That’s where many of us have chosen to be: at a place not to be disturbed by custom, or anything else that can rock us from the safety blanket of our own falsehoods. Sadly, many of us don’t know them to be falsehoods because there’s nothing else rolling around in their heads to unsettle the mind. When those in power are in the grip of the banality, watch out, for there will nothing left to provide refuge from the whirlwind, custom and the lessons of the past having disappeared down the memory hole. At this point, we get the pleasure of repeating the horrendous errors of humanity’s worst flaws: one of them being willful but mentally comfortable ignorance.

Indeed, this is the dawn of the era of no need for customs, fueled by bad learning. It won’t end well.

Flames rise from a liquor store and shops near the Third Police Precinct on May 28, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during a protest over the death of George Floyd. (AFP / Kerem Yucel)

RogerG

Posted on

A Twisted Orthodoxy for Purges

A man appearing before a tribunal in the Soviet Union during the Stalinist purges against alleged Trotskyists and political opponents, 1935.
Cancel culture in science

People, are you aware of what is being let loose on our lives and livelihoods? It begins as a thought in the higher status elevations of our society, in influential institutions, quickly gains traction, morphs into an elaborate belief system, ascends to power, and is imposed on us. It’s a familiar historical script.

If you think that you’re immune from its horrors, or deny its existence, prepare to try on the shoes of the average peasant and worker in 1917 Russia. Most had no clue in 1917, till the breadlines, requisition squads, thought-crime camps, disappearances, and evictions hit home. Over the following decades, careers and reputations were falsely ruined, and the population would soon acquire the nervous tick of constantly looking over their shoulder and self-censoring their speech.

A fresh batch of inmates, mostly peasants and workers, escorted into a Soviet gulag in the 1930’s.
A Soviet museum of atheism

What’s worse is that a mind-mold will be pressed upon your kids in their classrooms, as in Khmer Rouge and Soviet schools, and then your dinner-table conversation will be suddenly laced with hints of the new orthodoxy. You’ll be left wondering, “Where did that come from?”

Sound familiar? It’s happening.

The new revolutionary orthodoxy’s presence is signaled by rhetorical tags such as “white supremacy” or “systemic racism” or “social justice”. It’s encapsulated in politically useful academic-sounding labels like “critical race theory”. The recipe: take claptrap and add “theory” at the end. And it’s everywhere.

A critical race theory training session

In a nutshell, it’s something borrowed from Marx’s practitioners: lying beneath the surface of a society is a web of evildoers and their supportive arrangements to oppress the weak and downtrodden. It’s the excuse for a campaign of inquisitions, a culling of the “extremist” – “extremist” being synonymous with the old “counter-revolutionary”.

The stories of these assaults on the conscience are becoming all-too-familiar. Academia has long been a source of thought-suppression. The business world is increasingly infected. But in particular, the gray lady, The New York Times, has been a fount of examples. Add to the list this one: the quasi-show trial and removal of one of its science writers, Donald McNeil, Jr.

The NYT’s Donald McNeil, Jr., a harsh critic of Pres. Trump who was forced to resign after running afoul of the woke mobs in the newsroom.

What’s his act of treason to “proper” thought? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. A conversation with a group of high school students on a trip to Peru came to light to informers in the newsroom. A student described her encounter with another student to McNeil by mentioning the use of a racial slur in the other student’s video presentation. The student asked McNeil about how to respond to the slur. He repeated the word in his response, not to validate its use but to more directly address the student’s question. And for this he is “canceled” – a nicer word for “eliminated”. No walk down a dark basement corridor that will end with a bullet in the back of the head and an erasure from history, as in Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon. Just the soiling of a reputation and a black mark on the résumé.

Soviet show trail from the 1930’s

What follows is something reminiscent of Stalin’s 1930s show trials: the accuser’s proclamation of the thought crimes and the groveling of the accused. The mass-circulated email from the NYT’s overseers announcing the dismissal contains this fealty to the Party and the crimes of the accused:
“We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent. We are committed to building a news report and company that reflect our core values of integrity and respect, and will work with urgency to create clearer guidelines and enforcement about conduct in the workplace, including red-line issues on racist language.”

Then there is a vow of subservience to the place’s cadre of over-sensitive and over-politicized Party informers:
“Every person in leadership at The Times is dedicated to building a culture where each of our colleagues feels supported and respected. It’s vital that we get this right. To those of you who have reached out to us with your honest and sometimes painful feelings about this incident, we thank you.”

No suggestion to get over it. No suggestion for apologies and a group hug. No, just an occupational lynching. So, as one pundit put it, “What gets rewarded gets repeated.” The downhill-rolling snowball of denunciations grows into a frenzy that sweeps through our culture’s institutions. It’s now everywhere.

The accused, having lived a life of surrender to the zeitgeist, cowers before the whip-hand of the accusatory mob. He’s intellectually disarmed by a previous deep and abiding attachment to the Party’s doctrines. He begs for forgiveness and “rehabilitation”, preferring to slink off into the sunset. Here’s McNeil from his resignation letter:

“Originally, I thought the context in which I used this ugly word could be defended.
I now realize that it cannot. It is deeply offensive and hurtful. The fact that I even thought I could defend it itself showed extraordinarily bad judgement. For that I apologize.

To the students on the trip, I also extend my sincerest apology. But my apology needs to be broader than that.

My lapse of judgment has hurt my colleagues in Science, the hundreds of people who trusted me to work with them closely during this pandemic, the team at ‘The Daily’ that turned to me during this frightening year, and the whole institution, which put its confidence in me and expected better.

So for offending my colleagues — and for anything I’ve done to hurt The Times, which is an institution I love and whose mission I believe in and try to serve — I am sorry. I let you all down.”

Stalin (left) with fellow Bolshevik leaders Rykov, Zinoviev and Bukharin – all of whom he later had executed.

I’m reminded of the chief accuser in Stalin’s infamous 1938 show trial of Bukharin and Rykov, leading Bolsheviks from the time of Lenin and the Revolution. Years later, Soviet leaders in the 1980’s made an attempt to make amends for Stalin’s reign of terror by allowing an investigation into the corrupt proceedings. The accuser admitted to lying, and Bukharin and Rykov disappeared – probably the long walk down a basement corridor that ended with a bullet in the back of the head. When asked why he lied, the witness professed a complete fealty to the Party and its doctrines. It was the core of his identity, and therefore something that he would betray all, including morality, to defend. Want to talk about identity politics?

McNeil’s resignation letter has the flavor of the Bukharin accuser’s mea culpa, especially the zealot’s profession of fealty to the ruling orthodoxy.

If you’ve noticed, the McNeil incident closely parallels behavior in totalitarian regimes, regimes who seek to control everyone’s mind and body, thought and action. The 20th century’s escapades in totalitarianism are rich in more examples than just those in the Soviet Union.

Panchen Lama of Tibet during a Maoist struggle session, 1964
Even after telling a crowd he was “coming to grips with my own brokenness,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey was booed and asked to leave a demonstration for refusing to defund the Minneapolis Police Department, July 2020. (Getty Images)

The McNeil incident brings to mind Maoist “struggle sessions”. An intense propaganda push – like the BLM stuff that streamed through all our devices and enveloped all cultural institutions, the summer of Red Guard-like riots and protests, Party canonization of Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, and the corruption of history in “The 1619 Project” – followed by “speaking bitterness sessions” to expose ideological malefactors (real or imagined) – such as McNeil – and culminating in the struggle sessions to ritually confront and pressure the accused and allow the “guilty” to debase themselves before the rabble – Sen. Romney’s march with BLM and the episodes of crowds kneeling to confess their “white guilt”. Frankly, it was disgusting.

McNeil quickly bowed before the enforcers of Party “truth”.

Are we in the midst of a purge to eliminate the last vestiges of free thought and pluralism? It seems so. We are in a very dangerous moment that’ll require courage on the part of the public to nip this slide into thought control in the bud. Rather than accept this state of affairs as a new normal, it needs to be challenged across the board in all forms of public pressure, and a march to the polls to punish the Party officialdom for this affront to decency and Constitutional order.

Whites kneel in forgiveness for “white privilege” during summer, 2020.

RogerG

Posted on

Provocation of the Worst Angels of Our Nature

Thousands of residents of Minden, Nv., ran BLM protesters out of town as soon as they showed up in the neighborhood and threatened to cause a scene, August 2020.

While reading this morning, I realized that I was listening to a musical piece entitled “Inequities in a Society” on XMRadio’s Symphony Hall. The online write-up for the piece goes as follows:
“The death of Trayvon Martin in Florida in 2012 drives Julius P. Williams’ InEquities in a Society, a ‘political’ piece that laments this country’s tendency to crucify young men of color. The oboe carries us forward, merging with a string melodic line whose angularity will result in a full ‘confrontation’ with the repressive agents of ‘authority’.”

Julius P. Williams
A Trayvon Martin selfie

Now, I thought, it’s everywhere with no nook or cranny of life not infected with the dreaded specter of “inequities”, and a clarion call for an “equity” holy war. It’s as if a Ministry of Truth has suddenly planted itself into our society with its controlling tentacles everywhere. Some have noticed its appearance; some have warned of its baleful influence. Indeed, it is here, and provoking the worst angels of our nature.

What is the source of the provocation? I believe that one part of the country is in the grip of a shiny new and chic thing: the belief that racism must, absolutely must, exist despite its universal condemnation and six decades of public and private efforts to weed it out, with near-unanimous acclaim.

At root, Marx’s class-obsession is replaced by a Foucauldian race-obsession. Foucault was famous for announcing the existence of concealed forms of power. So, the way is cleared for claiming the presence of something that can’t be proven but nonetheless will be proclaimed. It’s what all the beautiful people take for granted in their stultifying conversations in their exclusive and tony east and west coast soirees.

Michel Foucault

To give the thought a patina of academic respectability, statistical contrivances are conjured to add an aura of confirmation. One such gimmick is “statistical disparity”. When a socio-economic number strays from the norm – the “norm” defined as a group’s percentage of the population – it’s time to jump to the conclusion of the alleged actuality of white/male power with its host of useful monikers (white supremacy, white privilege, systemic racism, patriarchal hegemony, etc.).

Don’t expect the people who should know better to know better – and by people who should “know better”, I mean the degreed people who populate Sociology Departments, et al. They should know better but don’t because their mind is surrendered to Foucault’s mind. When the stuff percolates down into the broader society, the beautiful and truly semi-literate people in their social circles, and in the complete absence of a skeptical mind, parrot the baloney. Thus, we get “Inequity” symphonies, corporate sponsorships of Marxist groups (BLM), NBA endorsements of Leftist propaganda, the Big Brother light-and-heavy censorship coming from Big Tech oligarchs, streamed entertainment to reinforce the party line, as ad-men and women insert the dogma in their commercials. Maybe Biden was wrong in an earlier carnation. His hope that China will become more like us must give way to the realization that we are becoming more like China.

Is this what we’re in for?

As in a strike-slip fault, when one tectonic plate moves while the adjoining one remains stationary, the great divide in America is between those who remain faithful to the Founder’s vision of a moral equality in law and government in addition to a supportive civil society, and those who have jumped with both feet into Foucault’s mental snake pit.

Most people may not be able to articulate the divide but they intuitively, as in Justice Potter Stewart’s famous words, “know it when [they] see it”. The average person recoils in horror at the antics of spoiled, fulminating snowflakes on our college campuses, the scorched-earth rampages through our cities, the indoctrination masquerading as scholarship, the swarming intimidations and threats on social media, and the mobs defacing the tributes to others who sacrificed so much for our freedoms and prosperity. People know barbarity and ingratitude when they see it.

Protesters wrecked a statue of Philadelphia abolitionist and philanthropist Matthias Baldwin, June 10, 2020.

Like two magnets that repel each other if touched by ends of identical polarity, so we increasingly find each other odious. Those who rejoice and those who find the revolution repellent are finding coexistence untenable. Terry Teachout predicted it in 2000, along with Gertrude Himmelfarb, as well as Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing in their 2004 book, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart. Traditionalists in blue-state red counties flock to red states. The blues stay pat in ignorance and denial. Blue becomes bluer and red redder. And some reds become purple as their cities emulate their blue-state cousins. Teachout predicts a soft civil war, or will it be occasionally hot? I hope not . . . to both, and most of all to the latter.

The real catalyst for the confrontation may lie in something more profound than Foucault’s intellectual hallucinations. Princeton’s Robert P. George thinks so. George, one of the few contrarians left in our over-priced and hubristic academies, sees the cultural emasculation of Judeo-Christianity as the accelerant. He’s onto something. Today, the restraint of the cross is replaced by the brute power of multiculturalism’s secular messiahs. The therapeutic restraint of Christianity on our worst instincts has been neutered leaving nothing behind but the exercise of naked power.

George refers back to Germany’s 18th-century Jewish-Christian poet, Heinrich Heine. Heine prophesied the dark clouds of brutalities in Germany’s future. To quote Heine,
“Christianity, and this is its greatest merit, has somewhat mitigated the brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which the Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame.”

Robert P. George
Heinrich Heine

The resuscitated “ancient warriors” need not be limited to jackbooted Nazis. Our would-be tyrants have no affection for jackboots, but wear penny loafers and suits and possess prestige indoctrination from prestigious Ivy League schools. Call them GQ tyrants. They operate with the same bumptiousness as SS-Brigadeführer Reinhard Heydrich in carrying out the 1934 bloody Nazi purge of the SA known as the Night of the Long Knives. You think that I exaggerate?

I do, but only slightly, to make a point. The federal government’s vast cadres of prosecutors and people with guns – the military and numerous law enforcement agencies – are about to be harnessed to a crusade against “domestic terrorism”. January 6’s capitol riot is yesteryear’s Reichstag Fire. The ground will be prepared by incessant talk of “extremism”. Do you actually think that they are looking both left and right for kooks? No, for them, “extremism” only comes from the right. Not to say that there aren’t kooks over there, but such talk greases the skids to ride out of the public square the last vestiges of opposition to the official wokeness. It will be the excuse to shame those who think differently. And Hollywood, Big Tech, and Big Media will enthusiastically join in the pogrom.

Reichstag Fire, 1933
American newspaper stories of the Night of the Long Knives, 1934.

In the meantime, the breakdown of law and order, the incessant “equity” inquisitions, the catastrophe of socialism’s incursions into the economy, the attempt to reformulate our Constitutional order to embed them in power for a generation, a facile and inhuman culture-run-amok, the threat to livelihoods from the commissars of the Green New Deal, will take its toll on vast populations lacking in enthusiasm for the revolution. The passion for a woke future will still have an audience in urban America and faculty lounges. Everyone else will either be refugees or man the political ramparts to keep the revolution’s bacillus from penetrating their state’s borders.

Biden and powerful Democrat politicos are preparing a jam-down. Their mistake is to think that they’ll be able to get away with it. They’ll discover that they’ve provoked the worst angels of our nature . . . on both sides.

RogerG

Posted on

Seabiscuit, The Salve of Our Times

*If you need something to steel your spine in the face of progressive authoritarianism, watch “Seabiscuit”.

Last night, as I routinely do, I watched the nightly news by flipping between CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. The first two infuriate me and the third revs up the infuriation about the other two. I normally break away from it by seeking something else as food for the soul. Lo and behold, from our downstairs rec room came the sounds of my wife and son watching “Seabiscuit”. I thought what a great idea since I haven’t seen it for a long time. So, I streamed the film from the beginning. It’s a great movie.

It is a perfect accompaniment for an escape from the discontents of our time, and a perfect lesson for us in our troubled times. The arc of the story has the additional advantage of being true . . . for the most part. The New Deal hero-worship by historian David McCullough’s voice-over was a bit much. The fact is, the New Deal made many people feel better as it kept them in misery. But the story, the story. The script artfully blended the lives of three broken people – Tom Smith, Charles Howard, and Red Pollard – brought together by a broken horse.

Trainer Tom Smith with Seabiscuit.

Seabiscuit wasn’t so much broken as rejected. He didn’t fit the expected profile for a racehorse – like many of us who don’t fit the expected mental profile of our rich, fashionable, insulated, and lacking in self-awareness “social betters” by rejecting their chic and foolish ideas. He lacked, as they say among horseracing connoisseurs, “conformation”. He didn’t look like a racehorse. He was short, had awkward legs with knobby knees, and was gimpy in his walk. To boot, he was lazy, temperamental, unpredictable in performance, and hated training.

And he became a hero to the “forgotten man” in a decade of troubled times. The “forgotten man” isn’t the one exploited by FDR in the 1936 campaign for political purposes: the man, in Roosevelt’s words, “at the bottom of the economic pyramid.” The real “forgotten man”, according to economist Amity Schlaes, was the working men and women who ended up paying for the largesse that was distributed to the constituents of FDR’s New Deal coalition, and beginning the political practice of using taxpayer money to build political power. Actually, both versions flocked to a horse who bucked the preferred look of the privileged class, as most of his fans did.

Seabiscuit with jockey Red Pollard.

The horse’s fan base is more like today’s “smelly Walmart shoppers” than the student bodies and alumni of prestige colleges with their fat trust funds. Princess Diana was garishly and undeservedly given the moniker of the “people’s princess”. In contrast, the “people’s horse” was a title rightfully earned by Seabiscuit. His following grew so much that by the time of his five-year-old season in 1938 he drew enormous crowds. In the seven years after his retirement to his death, he had 50,000 visitors.

Seabiscuit fans who came out to see him race.

The thing about Seabiscuit is that he had “fight”. It’s a word in disrepute among today’s self-appointed gatekeepers of thought after its use by their bogeyman Trump on January 6. The word simply means the well-spring to rise to a challenge. Some people call it grit; others associate it with courage and determination. Whatever it was, he had it, and it was admirable and inspirational. It’s something we’ll need to resist the hegemony of our malignant and politically-connected cultural elites.

Seabiscuit crossing the finish line ahead of War Admiral in the 1938 match race.

Trump is a special taste for a special political and social pallet. His ability to inspire didn’t reach beyond his tranche of the electorate. “Inspiration” isn’t a word that I can easily associate with him. “Dogged” and “fight”, yes. Seabiscuit had all three.

See the movie, even if it might be for the third time. It’s the perfect salve for those anxious about the gauntlet that the cultural left from their exclusive estates and seats of power are setting before us. Seabiscuit’s “fight” is a lesson for us 70 years later.

RogerG

Posted on

The Principal Cause of Our Discontents

Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg

Pro-life Democrats are beyond “endangered” on that official list of fading species. They are “critically endangered”. Soon, you’ll only be able to see a stuffed one in a musty museum exhibit.

At the start of 2020, there were four in the House. Now, there is one: Henry Cuellar of Texas. Two were taken down by Republicans in the general, and one, Dan Lipinski of Illinois, was primaried earlier by another one of those signature social justice warriors in vogue in the Party. The downfall of Democrats who show even the slightest squeamishness about abortion is the harbinger of the Party’s leap to the far left, which is the principal cause of the chasm in our national politics and culture.

Our split cannot be charitably described as both sides simultaneously moving in opposite directions – or even a by-product of a particularly boorish Republican president – but is a result of a leftward momentum in the Democratic Party that began long before the orange man came down the escalator. The Party absorbed the 60’s radical left and thereafter continued its transformation into the organizational agent of muscular eco-utopianism and the erection of a central-planning police state.

It’s happening before our eyes. And the Party’s minions aren’t alone in their mission in “transforming” America. Censorship is about to enjoy the full force of the central government, but the greater reach to blanket all of America is made possible with the cooperation of well-moneyed elites who speak in the mono-voice of the cultural left. The tenets of cancel-culture are found everywhere from the corporate boardroom, faculty lounge, Big Tech oligarchs, the entire world of entertainment to its branch in Big Sports. Super Bowl LV will be replete with subtle and not-so-subtle messages about a racist America. Watch that space.

Buffalo Bills players kneeling during the national anthem.

Big Money is fully on board. This isn’t a revolution of pitchfork-wielding peasants. It’s being imposed from the top down. Following the money, as they say, will show that Biden’s basement campaign and Stacey Abram’s antics in Georgia were amply funded from the deep pockets of Big Money. The poor Republicans weren’t the party of the rich zip codes, by a factor of three or four.

Don’t believe me? Comb the campaign finance reports.

Big Money made it possible to engineer an election ripe for exploitation by funding the political pressure for immense mail-in voting, registration drives for the uninterested and ill-informed, the army to hector the uninterested and ill-informed and harvest the things. The pandemic was the excuse; but with the fear-mongering no longer sustainable, they are working to chisel the scandalous regime in granite for all time in Pelosi’s much-loved HR1. If she has her way, America’s elections will have all the credibility of those in Maduro’s Venezuela.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has claimed victory for ‘the revolution’ in a controversial election a day after ten were killed in a wave of protests, July 2017.

The half-witted, semi-literate elites, and their underlings, at the commanding heights of our culture gave us a left-wing government and are seeking to complete the cycle by dictating a left-wing culture as well. Amazingly, though, enough word gets out to animate a counter revolution. Hats off to the folks at Fox News, et al, and people like Mike Lindell for swimming against the currents at the oxygen-starved financial elevations of Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey and Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos.

It’s a troubling trend: achieve a 9-zero portfolio and your brains are drained. They’re good at the narrow specialty that earned the bank, but it doesn’t qualify them for the post of philosopher-in-chief. But that hasn’t stopped them from claiming the mantle.

This crowd with their money beyond count, allied to a radical left party that sings their cultural tune, has enforced a new kind of Jim Crow, an imposed feudalism. They, with their values and political views in tow, have divorced themselves from the hordes of paycheck and mortgage-paying Americans. If they can engineer an election system like they do cell phones, they will be able to make America unrecognizable to your grandparents.

Sen Charles Schumer’s famous quip after the November 2020 elections.

Herein lies the crux of our dilemma: our moneyed elites have shamefully abandoned America and its traditions, culture, and institutions. Personally, I think that it’s a consequence of years of K-through-grad school indoctrination in UN-love and global citizenship.

Their alliance with a radical left Democratic Party has pushed the Party and its co-conspirators away from the rest of us. They are the principal cause of our discontents. Until the Party opens its doors to ideological and cultural diversity, and or moneyed elites show more practical sense, America will remain in the throes of a cold civil, and maybe not-so-civil, war.

At least 3 officers were injured after being attacked at a Black Lives Matter protest in July 2020. (Source: Screenshots from Twitter)

Meanwhile, I’m not certain about watching Super Bowl LV. I don’t have a taste for political sermons emanating from a Manhattan-based league monolith and the mouths of its multi-millionaire players. If I’m to have leftism splattered into my life, I prefer that it come from the usual miscreants: California’s Democratic Party, the Antifa and BLM street thugs, our increasingly decrepit colleges, and the urban and coastal mandarins in lifetime sinecures.

Politics on the playing field is like spitting in church.

RogerG