Catastrophizing The Weather

Yesterday’s deluge in New York City was a substantial and frightening event. In Park Slope, Brooklyn, where I lived for 40 years before selling up and moving out (thank goodness!), the flooding at the bottom of the moraine was up to the windows of stranded cars.

As with every notable weather event these days, from floods to droughts, heatwaves to cold-snaps, and anything in between, this one brought out a Greek chorus on social and other media to pin the blame on “climate change”.

Not so fast, says earth-science professor and “political orphan” Dr. Matthew Wielicki, who maintains a Substack page called Irrational Fear. In a post published today, he reminds us that the Great Storm of 1882 dropped eight inches of rain on Gotham in a single day, while atmospheric CO2 was at a paltry 290 parts per million. He also presents this chart to show there there doesn’t seem to be any general trend with these deluges:

Read the whole thing here.

Oh, And…

Worm that jumps from rats to slugs to human brains has invaded Southeast US
 

Been Slow, I Know

Once again I must apologize for the spotty content here lately (aside from the item I popped up for discussion yesterday, which is really just me picking at a very old scab from a different direction).

I’ve had enough of jeremiads about the state of our decline and misrule; it would be easy enough to write a new one each day, but that job is more than adequately taken. So is the task of explaining, from various theoretical perspectives, how we got here: I’ve done plenty of that over the years, and lots of people are still doing good work in that department (see, for example, Auron Macintyre).

At this point I have little to add that I haven’t already said many times over. Most of what I’d write about current events at this point would consist mainly of “See? I told you so!” — or at this point, maybe something more like “Fly, you fools!!”.

What’s left is to figure out how we get ourselves out of this mess — but frankly, it’s all probably just going to run its dismal and destructive course, as it always has in the past, always and everywhere. Things will be a little different this time round, perhaps, because technology is going to allow the mills to grind “exceeding small” compared to anything that was possible in the past (and because we seem to be, compared to earlier times, more stupid and ignorant than ever), but the great cycles will turn as they always do.

If all that sounds a bit glum, not to worry – I’m fine over here, and have been distracting myself with other things: music, reading, swimming, chess, working on the house, spending time with my lovely wife, and all the other things that a gentleman of “a certain age” is supposed to enjoy. I just haven’t been inclined to write much.

That, of course, may change! You never know with these things; the Muse is fickle and capricious, and the Fall is coming (in both senses of the word). Do check in.

Spot The Error

(Spoiler: I can’t.)

Found here.

Just Wondering

I hear there was some sort of political debate last night. How did it go?

From The Workshop

Although I no longer have to mix records to pay the bills, I still love to do what I do best, and so I enjoy doing a few projects a year in Hiram Hill Studio, the superbly equipped little mixing room I have here at home.

This spring I mixed a five-song compositional-jazz EP for a wonderful musician (and new friend!) by the name of Joseph Henry Cortese (a lavishly gifted drummer, composer, and recording engineer who is also the pastor of Crossroads Tabernacle in New York). It came out very well, I think — every aspect of this record, from the compositions and arrangements, to the playing, to the pristine recordings Joseph made in his own studio, is top-notch — and I’m proud to have been a part of it.

Have a listen here.

A Mathematician’s Case For Belief In God

This entry is part 7 of 8 in the series Pilgrim's Progress.

Here is a brief and almost impossibly concise rationalist apologia for Christian belief, given by the Oxford mathematician John Lennox.

I’ll quote just two little gems from his speech. The first:

“People are so desperate now to show that the universe created itself from nothing – which seems to me to be an immediate oxymoron: if I say ‘X created Y’, I am assuming the existence of X to explain the existence of Y; if I say ‘X created X’, I’m assuming the existence of X to explain he existence of X — which simply shows that nonsense remains nonsense even if high-powered scientists utter it. It reminds me a little bit of G. K. Chesterton, who said ‘It is absurd to complain that it is unthinkable for an unbthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then to pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.'”

I think this one’s even better:

“Science, of course marvelous as it is, is limited. Even a Nobel Prize winner, by analyzing a cake, cannot tell why it was made. But Ant Matilda, who made it, can tell you! She can reveal it to you . But if she doesn’t reveal it to you, you’ll never know… It’s the same with the Universe. We can analyze it magnificently — but ultimately, if it has a Maker (and I believe it has), only He can tell you what it’s all about.”

Watch the whole thing; it’s only fifteen minutes long.

Dog Days

Sorry — even though the kids and grandkids (who were here for more than a month) have gone, I still haven’t been writing much here at the blog. We’re still in that lazy summer mode, and have been fully occupied with, as they say, “touching grass” (and, in our case, sand and water as well). And now we have guests again, so…

I have, however, been engaged in a discussion over at Bill V’s place, if you’d like to have a look. (And speaking of Dr. V., I will thank him for calling to my attention this excellent article by “N. S. Lyons” at Substack — a fantastic distillation of the ideas of Burnham, Higgs, Pareto, Schmitt, Machiavelli, Michels, and others on the subject of the managerial state. It’s long, but wonderfully concise, and well worth your time.)

Huge If True!

Korean researchers are reporting that they have developed an easy-to-make room-temperature superconductor. If so — well, hang on to your hats, folks.

Story here.

Update, 8/10: Never mind.

Oy Vey!

Now it’s Israel’s turn to fall apart. The country is engulfed in a constitutional crisis between its old-school Bolheveist left (cheered on, of course, by the usual organs of the Left, both there and here) and those in the center and on the Right (who, according to our mass media, are “authoritarian” “extremists” who want to “remove checks and balances” as a way to “destroy democracy”).

At issue is the unchecked power of Israel’s Supreme Court, a self-appointed body accountable to no-one, which has for decades now increased the scope of its sovereignty at the expense of both the legislature and executive, and now rules as arbitrarily, over every aspect of civic life, as an Ottoman sultan.

I know that things are breaking down rapidly in pretty much every modern democracy, but the slope of that slide seems to have steepened very sharply in Israel lately.

One thing to take note of: as always, it’s that all-too-familiar type — those brainy uplifters and Utopia-builders who wreck things always and everywhere — who’ve been trying to grab all the power and tell everybody what to do. And don’t let yourself be lied to: the Israeli Supreme Court no longer pays any attention whatsoever to cheeky little impertinences like “elected representatives”, “the popular will”, or “legislation”. Nor has it for a very long time now.

You are only likely to hear one side of the story from any major media around here — so to give you a little perspective on what’s really going on over there and why, here’s a three-part article that should give you a clearer view.

Divide And Conquer

The always-thoughtful Richard Fernandez posted the following thread recently on Twitter:

The catastrophic loss of institutional trust has made it imperative for the establishment to roll out virtual reality, not through goggles and special chairs, but by manipulating the entire information environment so that we live inside a lie.

One way to detect that you are inside an info bubble is to watch for a sudden rise and fall of overhyped policies, like manipulated stocks. Two recent candidates are COVID boosterism and trans mania. Today the world depends on it, then tomorrow it’s let’s move on.

Now that Google has found a way to get AI to actually write the news, it’s possible to micro adjust the information environment around us in near real time to produce a very plausible fake world where everything beyond your immediate ken is curated.

Once we are all confined to 15 Minute Cities what can we really know what lies beyond our sight except through our networked devices? Already as I walk down the street I see more and more people heads down on their phones. That’s the world to them.

I was immediately reminded of this, from Daniel Dennett’s 1987 book Consciousness Explained:

When your eyes dart about in saccades, the muscular contractions that cause the eyeballs to rotate are ballistic actions: your fixation points are unguided missiles whose trajectories at lift-off determine where and when they will hit ground zero at a new target. For instance, if you are reading text on a computer screen, your eyes will leap along a few words with each saccade, farther and faster the better a reader you are. What would it be like if a magician, a sort of Cartesian evil demon on a modest scale, could change the world during the few milliseconds your eyes were darting to their next destination? Amazingly, a computer equipped with an automatic eye-tracker can detect and analyze the lift-off in the first few milliseconds of a saccade, calculate where ground zero will be, and, before the saccade is over, erase the word on the screen at ground zero and replace it with a different word of the same length. What do you see? Just the new word, and with no sense at all of anything having been changed. As you peruse the text on the screen, it seems to you for all the world as stable as if the words were carved in marble, but to another person reading the same text over your shoulder (and saccading to a different drummer) the screen is aquiver with changes.

The effect is overpowering. When I first encountered an eye-tracker experiment, and saw how oblivious subjects were (apparently) to the changes flickering on the screen, I asked if I could be a subject. I wanted to see for myself. I was seated at the apparatus, and my head was immobilized by having me bite on a “bite bar.” This makes the job easier for the eye-tracker, which bounces an unnoticeable beam of light off the lens of the subject’s eye, and analyzes the return to detect any motion of the eye. While I waited for the experimenters to turn on the apparatus, I read the text on the screen. I waited, and waited, eager for the trials to begin. I got impatient. “Why don’t you turn it on?” I asked. “It is on,” they replied.

Gurdjieff, somewhere (I can’t remember where), said that the more conscious people become, the more they inhabit a shared, objective reality. In a roomful of sleepers, by contrast, each person inhabits a separate, subjective dream-world. The job, then, is for anyone who might awaken for a moment to try to rouse those around him before he yields again to the seductive pull of sleep.

Who is easier to rule? The sleeping, or the awakened? Will it not be in the interest of power, as our technology advances, to use it to lull each of us into our own personally customized, AI-tailored dreamland? And when our little screens are soon made obsolete by neural implants promising us the illusion of power, who will say no?

Anthony Bouza, October 4, 1928 – June 26, 2023

I learned with great sadness the other day that my good friend of more than thirty years, Anthony V. Bouza, died late last month in his adopted hometown of Minneapolis. He was 94.

In his long career as a policeman Tony rose from his humble origins, and the lowest rank, to the penultimate pinnacle of power (and, I think it’s safe to say, the highest pinnacle of influence) in the NYPD, and then spent nine years as the chief of police in Minneapolis. In his career as a detective, he investigated some of the city’s highest-profile cases (such as the Malcolm X assassination, and the kidnapping and murder that led ultimately to the downfall of the Dominican dictator Trujillo), and as a high-ranking officer he guided his force through the great social disturbances and embroilments of the 60s and 70s. He was never one to shy away from controversy, and he was never intimidated by anyone; indeed, were it not for his inveterate and ornery inability simply to “go along to get along” he would almost certainly have become New York City’s Police Commissioner.

Tony (who had immigrated as a a boy from El Ferrol, Spain to Park Slope, Brooklyn) and his English wife Erica had a house on Drummer Cove here in Wellfleet, and spent summers here for many years. We first got to know them around 1990, back when we used to be summer renters here, and Nina became friends with Erica in an exercise class they both attended. We spent time with them every summer after that, until Tony and Erica both grew so aged a few years ago that the long drive between Minneapolis and here became just too much for them. They moved into a senior-care center, and although we kept in touch by the occasional letter or phone call, the only time we saw them after they stopped coming to the Cape was a quick visit when we were in Minneapolis in the spring of last year.

Tony, a towering autodidact (he was 6′ 6″), was one of the most extraordinary people I’ve ever known. He was one of those men whose presence, even when silent, filled the room, and he was rarely silent for long; he was big in every way, with a deep, booming voice. He was a man of strong opinions: though occasionally wrong, he was never in doubt. He was fantastically well-read, wrote copiously and well, had an enormous vocabulary, and was a keen student of history — especially the history of the Americas, South, North, and Central. He had a bawdy and mordant sense of humor, and used it far more often to poke fun at himself than others. (He was also, like so many immigrants who remember the hardship of life elsewhere well enough not to take anything for granted, an ardent American patriot.)

Above all, Tony had the heart and mind of the best sort of philosopher — a lover of wisdom and understanding, not for its own sake, or his, but because he believed that the truth of the world, correctly understood and rightly applied, could improve human flourishing, and increase the store of happiness in the world. He was, though, no starry-eyed optimist; the darkness he had seen and lived through in his long life and in his career as a cop meant that he well understood that mankind is flawed and crooked timber, from which nothing perfect could be wrought, and so he had a well-grounded skepticism of Utopian daydreams. Here he is, for example, on the use of violence by the police:

“I am an unapologetic supporter of the use of police violence, even lethal force, but it has to be guided by the law, the standards of reasonableness, and the U.S. Constitution. I have presided over clubbings, shootings, gassings, and other assaults by the police. I see violence as a key weapon in the police arsenal and I have trained cops in the full range of possibilities available to us. My only caveat is that the use of force has to be legally justified, measured, and appropriate, and that the weapons have to be in conformance with the law.”

His bluntness and realism made a lot of people angry, such as when, in 1976, he referred to black and Hispanic teenagers who had gone on a riotous spree as “feral”, and when he suggested that Roe v. Wade had been responsible, by causing a generation of such youths never to have been born, for the sharp decline in violent crime a couple of decades later. He was careless of making enemies in high places if he thought it was his duty to do so in order better to serve the public; knowing Tony as well as I did, I have very little doubt that whenever he thought so, he was usually right.

Having said all that, though, I’ll say that Tony and I had our disagreements. He was, despite his frankness about the limits and defects of human nature, nevertheless a man of the Left. This seemed contradictory to me at first, but the way I came to understand it was that he was an unshakeable believer in the supremacy of nurture over nature. This was, as far as I can recall, the only systematic error in his worldview, but it’s a doozy, and of course as the basis of a social philosophy it is an axiom that leads to all sorts of questionable (and costly) theorems. We locked horns often about this (he and I would sequester ourselves at parties to get away from all the small talk), but he was unbudgeable; any softening of his position would be, in his mind, a buttered slide to the abomination of racism. But even when we disagreed sharply — and this is something that is almost unheard-of these days — we could always disagree in a friendly and respectful way. (How rare is that now?) I remember that at some gathering or other, after we’d spent hours off in a corner haranguing each other on this topic (and I was getting the feeling that I was at last gaining the long-sought advantage), it grew late and Tony got up to go. He rose to his full height, gave me a great, twinkling smile, and stuck out his gigantic hand.

“Malcolm,” he said cheerily in his thunderous voice, “fuck you.” I never felt closer to him.

What a life this man had! I wish I’d been his friend for more of it, but I’m happy to have got the years I did. Requiescat in pace, my dear friend. I hate to lose you, and I will miss you always.

You can read Tony’s obituary here, and his books are available here.

Missouri v. Biden

Yesterday U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty gave us a fine Independence Day gift: a preliminary injunction against the government’s censorship of social-media content. The case built upon the government’s coercion of Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms to suppress commentary on COVID, the 2020 election, the Hunter Biden laptop, and other matters we should have been allowed freely to discuss and debate.

You can read the opinion, which concluded that the federal Leviathan seemed to have “assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth'”, here.

Service Notice

Happy Independence Day, everybody. Attending the 4th-of-July parade in a small New England town — lots of smiling happy families, and Old Glory on display everywhere — is a reminder that wherever things are headed in America, it ain’t over yet.

Our daughter, her husband, and our three young grandsons — Liam, almost seven, Declan, four, and Cooper, one and a half — arrived on Saturday (they live in Hong Kong, so we don’t see them much), and will be staying with us for the rest of the month. (Chaos! – but happy chaos.)

What this means is that I might not be writing much for the next few weeks (though you never know). Best to all.

Sailer At VDare

Steve Sailer recently gave his first public speech in a decade or so at VDare’s summer conference (which was held a couple of weeks ago at the castle they now own, in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia). Here it is:

Ukraine: Update

Here’s the latest assessment on the situation in Ukraine, from ~finnem capital:

Our latest analysis on the “counteroffensive”:

Despite claims that the counteroffensive “has not begun,” in fact, after the Armed Forces of Ukraine were stalled by highly effective strikes on brigade level depots of fuel and munitions, not to mention troop concentrations behind the lines, in the late spring, it seems clear that major offensive efforts have been underway since early June.

Forced to play for time with reduced objectives after the backfield strikes threw logistics into chaos, the Ukrainians have finally launched into offensive operations with attempts at everything from a general screening attack (just short of a full-blown offensive), to fixing attacks, to probes, along the entire line of contact in an effort to create concentration movements by the Russians in particular areas (and therefore dilutions in other areas). The June 4-12 operations are representative of the results of the best efforts Ukraine could mount earlier this month.

They did not go well:

The doomed assault by two or perhaps three of the five brigades under Ukraine’s 10th Operational Corps (Assault), specifically the 47th Separate Mechanised (Assault) Brigade (which sported Leopards given to Ukraine plus more than 50 M2 Bradley IFVs and troops trained at U.S. bases in Germany) and the Ukrainian 33rd Mechanised Brigade (which also fielded Leopards, including the much praised 2A6) and possibly the 21st Mechanised Brigade, is an important datapoint.

The 10th Operational Corps was specifically stood up as an overall structure for assault formations, that is, to field offensive combat power. Aside from the 47th and the 33rd, it contains the 37th Marine Brigade, a light mechanised force intended to be highly mobile to conduct reconnaissance and probing operations and equipped with British Mastiff MRAPs and AMX-10RCs, the French reconnaissance vehicles the Western press amusingly took to labelling “wheeled tanks”.

The 10th also contains the 82nd Air Assault Brigade which was created from the remains of the 25th Airborne Brigade and the 80th Air Assault Brigade, and, since Russian air superiority in theatre means Ukraine cannot deploy rotor craft to execute the unit’s Air Assault function, the 82nd was given the famous Challenger 2 tanks provided by the UK (who gives 75 ton Main Battle Tanks to an Air Assault unit?), and Stryker infantry fighting vehicles lend-leased by the U.S., and German Marder infantry fighting vehicles.

The 10th also contains the 21st Mechanised Brigade, which appears to be stocked with Leopard tanks as well, but about which little other information is available.

In total, Ukraine is thought to have created eight new assault brigades for the counteroffensive. That three of these (more than a third of the total mechanised assault groupings) were committed to a disastrous assault early this month (depicted in the infamous and disheartening minefield video) [Not going to link that here – MP] would seem to expose as fiction any claims that operations earlier this month were merely “battlefield prep.”

Instead, the goal of such a serious screening attack would be to allow the restructured and reformed forces (logistics work that has been mostly completed as of this writing) to poke a hole somewhere and identify an axis where the rest of the “best” Ukrainian units (NATO trained and equipped) could push with a 7-9 brigade force of secondary units (i.e. 20,000 – 30,000 troops at the new reduced standard of 2,000 men per Ukrainian brigade) that waits in reserve.

The issue now that those efforts have been rebuffed is that most of these reserve units are not assault units, and the highest grade assault units under the 10th Operational Corps have been badly mauled. We see signs of confirmation here where recent prisoners taken by the Russians have disclosed that they were in traditionally defensive units but nevertheless pressed into assault roles, roles for which they have received no training.

The fact that hundreds if not thousands of personnel, including large populations of NATO / foreign mercenary forces, are lingering around in places like Kramatorsk, less than 30 kilometres behind the front, demonstrates the issue. The Russian strike there purportedly was targeting a brigade level command post, in particular the leadership element of the 56th Motorised Brigade, a non-assault formation which has been augmented with a hefty fleet of T-72 Main Battle Tanks including T-72M1 and T-72M1R tanks from Poland for the counteroffensive. The 56th is the sort of unit that would be expected to exploit any breakthrough of Russian lines, so its presence at Kramatorsk is understandable. In fact, several prisoners from the 56th have also been captured in the Kherson region in the last few weeks. Lacking proper assault formations that are combat-ready, the Ukrainian ground forces are faced with a number of difficulties.

Since Ukrainian efforts to prompt dilutive manoeuvres by the Russian forces have failed to meet any of their objectives, and every day that passes sees Ukraine’s shiny new assault capability either mauled in the field well in front of Russian defensive lines, or degraded by Russian strikes, there would seem to be only one option remaining for Ukraine if it wishes to continue offensive operations: it must pick an axis and mount an all-out assault with the support of whatever aviation and GBAD assets are still in a condition to conduct combat operations. This will necessarily cause Ukraine to initiate precisely what it was attempting to inflict on Russian operations: concentrative manoeuvres to create a Centre of Gravity for an assault, manoeuvres that necessarily result in dilutive effects elsewhere, effects that the Russians, with strong aerial and space-based reconnoissance assets, will see immediately. Effects that will also thin out already scarce anti-air resources and permit Russian deep-strikes to do even more damage.

The two open questions that remain for us:

1. Will Ukraine launch “the final battle” or will they return to a defensive operational posture and try to deter a major Russian operation on the ground, but face the constant attrition cost of Russia’s deep-strike capabilities?

2. As things look increasingly grim for Ukraine’s military aspirations in the theatre, will NATO step up intervention in the only way it is now possible to do so: NATO troops commanded by NATO leadership on the ground in Ukraine?

Our friend ~finnem offers detailed analysis that you won’t find elsewhere. Stay tuned for further updates.

Separation Anxiety, Cont’d: Michael Anton Replies to “Anonymous”

A couple of days ago I posted some commentary on Michael Anton’s recent article on “national divorce”. Asylum magazine has now made available online Michael Anton’s response to an anonymous reader’s critique of his dialogue on the topic of “national divorce”. (You can read it here.)

Mr. Anton seems irritated; his rejoinder is titled “How To Read Dialogues”, and he scolds “Anonymous” (not directly, but in what’s known these days as a “subtweet”) by quoting Leo Strauss to the effect that “a certain bewilderment is the beginning of wisdom”. What he seeks to correct is the ascription of his character Tom’s views to Mr. Anton himself; he offers, as an example, that it would be wrong to assume that when Macbeth speaks, he speaks for Shakespeare himself. (Having made such an ascription myself, I suppose I’m guilty as well — but while I wouldn’t suggest that Aaron the Moor is Shakespeare presenting himself, I do suspect that there may be considerable overlap between Mr. Anton’s take on “divorce” and his fictional character Tom’s.)

In his response, Anton rightly points out that the dialogue form has been throughout history a way for controversial thinkers to avoid censorship (or worse): frogs in the West today have good reason to worry about the consequences of public expression of their heresies, and Mr. Anton is brave to have said as much in public as he already has. He also, and also rightly, reminds us that in order to assess our situation, and to deliberate our options, we need to be able to present conflicting positions of the great questions at hand, and that’s what his dialogue was for.

We read:

The value of the dialogue in modern discourse should then be obvious. The censor’s hand is stronger than it has been in centuries and the tools available to him are unprecedented. Censorship may not be the least of our problems but it is a huge problem, and one directly related to our greater problems. It’s hard to know what to do, and harder still when one is not allowed to talk about it. Which is the whole purpose of censorship: to forbid and, if necessary, persecute discussion of alternatives.

This leaves us with three options: forgo discussion, charge ahead heedlessly, or find other ways. The first is contemptible and guarantees failure.

Agreed. Reading on:

As to the second, too many who see clearly the vileness of the present regime appear to believe that direct charges at its authority are the highest priority and indeed the highest good. At their worst, they attack people on their side for failing to say what they personally demand must be said, even—again, especially—if saying it guarantees instant cancellation. They assume either that anything not said must also be a thing not believed, even a thing contradicted, or else that prudence and caution can only be signs of cowardice or treason. Often they insist on both at the same time.

It’s tempting to respond: “Fine, if you want to sacrifice yourself for nothing, charge that machine gun and get shot.” But in fact the consequences of such bravado do not fall on the heedless alone. While heedlessness may be courageous, it also carries costs for those affiliated or associated with, even merely sympathetic to, the heedless. You are not helping your cause by saying things that guarantee the harsh reaction of the regime against your ideas and those who hold them, even—perhaps especially—if the things you say are true. Right now, only the left has the power to smash through the Overton window. We by contrast must nudge it open carefully and slowly. I realize that we’re running out of time, but that doesn’t make breaking glass any more useful at this moment. Besides, to compound the metaphor, anyone who has ever lived in an old house knows that a stuck window, gently worked for a bit, can suddenly become unstuck and fly open. But patience and care are required.

Anton is right about this as well. Curtis Yarvin has spoken often in recent years about the asymmetry of the playing field we find ourselves competing on: dissidents in the West at the moment should regard themselves as prey species in a landscape populated by powerful predators. Indeed, even I worried a bit about the frankness with which I spoke about an “appeal to heaven” in my previous post; and as a retired geezer with no need of employment, I am far less “cancellable” than most people.

Anton continues:

The flipside to counterproductive bravado is the conclusion that nothing big can be done because everything beyond smallball will necessarily fail. So why talk about things that can’t be done?

I think this is what vexes Anton about his anonymous reader’s response: it is a broad-spectrum blackpill that gives up on both divorce and defiant resistance: the former is deemed impossible, the latter futile. (Which they may well be!)

If Anton is objecting to anything here, I think it is to despair. He continues:

It’s a cliché, but not therefore false, to respond that if every dreamer were this “sensible,” then mankind would never have accomplished anything. It is also true that the doing of great deeds will once again require the coupling of great imagination with great daring. Of course, as always, both will have to be tempered by prudence, but a genuine prudence that recognizes the occasional necessity of risk, not the faux prudence which some hold to be synonymous with timidity.

This situation is dire; it is not hopeless. (And let me say as an aside, when you put me of all people in the position of dispensing white pills, that you are too blackpilled.) It is never hopeless because, first, one never knows what may happen. Virtue doesn’t always win, but it often does, and is only certain to lose when it doesn’t try. Second, fortune is capricious and does not consistently favor (as far as the human mind can discern) either side in any struggle. Third, adversaries make mistakes, even unforced errors. Fourth, despite its pretensions, this … thing cannot last forever. Even one of its own founders and most committed partisans admitted as much.II Fifth, and perhaps most encouraging, “there is no reason for despair as long as human nature has not been conquered completely i.e., as long as sun and man still generate man. There will always be men (andres) who will revolt against a state which is destructive of humanity or in which there is no longer a possibility of noble action and of great deeds.”

I might also point out that many of the essays culminating in recommendations to do small things have an almost laughably anticlimactic quality. They sketch problems so huge they could only be addressed by grand solutions, only to propose … running for school board. Not to dismiss or ridicule running for school board. This and many other limited, local actions are going to have to be taken. They may even be (and likely are) indispensable foundation for future success. But if our problems are as large as these same authors assert, then such solutions cannot possibly be sufficient.

So I repeat the truism that, to know what to do, one must first debate what to do, which includes discussing the pros and cons of options that will eventually be ruled out. But the discussion must take place. Choosing smallball in advance is self-limiting, and will prove to be a mistake until and unless it is known that smallball will be sufficient and/or that all alternatives are impossible. Preemptive exclusions tend to cultivate defeatism.

Now we must, in fairness, note that “Anonymous” was “discussing the pros and cons of options that will eventually be ruled out”; to be more precise, he was debating the case made by “Tom” for national divorce. And “Anonymous”, too, tried his best to avoid the black pill, and made more or less the same case for prudence that Anton made:

As bad as the situation is, there is a lot to be positive about in America today. The grassroots protests against lockdown policies had a massive impact on bringing them to a close. Parents have taken a much more active role in fighting back against dangerous ideologies pushed in their children’s schools. Even the chaos and surrender that defined the Floyd Riots was contrasted with the enormous personal bravery of citizen groups and impromptu law enforcement formations, people who just wanted to help. It seems like many more people are paying attention now. This is truly great, but it is very important that that massive energy be harnessed into something productive, that can last for decades, as opposed to ultimately empty rhetoric about a potential suicide run against the US military.

So, in closing, I think that yes, perhaps both “Anonymous” and I were too quick to ascribe Tom’s opinions to Anton himself, but I think Anonymous was right to point out, in the spirit of debate and discussion, that of all the possibilities before us a genuine split of the United States into noncontiguous Red and Blue countries is probably the least plausible future of all. I think we all would also agree that armed revolt is — despite whatever swashbuckling fantasies certain types of naive young men may secretly harbor — a horrifying prospect, and should only be considered when all else has failed beyond all hope, and the only remaining choices are immediate, kinetic resistance or permanent subjugation to tyranny. Finally, I think that all three of us will agree that some sort of “middle way” would be best, if only we can find it; best of all would be if the accelerating obscenities of our Progressive overlords manage, at long last, to awaken enough of the good and decent people of this nation that we can find the will simply to stand up together and say NO.

Separation Anxiety

I’ve just read an engaging pair of articles at Asylum magazine: an item by Michael Anton on the possibility of “national divorce”, in which he makes the case for breaking up the United States, and a rebuttal to Anton’s position by an anonymous author. (You can read Michael Anton’s original post here, and the response from “Anonymous” here. Apparently Mr. Anton has posted a reply of his own in the latest issue, but I haven’t yet been able to find it published online.)

I’ll say up front that I’m an admirer of Michael Anton: he’s one of conservative America’s most important thinkers, and he writes as well as he thinks. (I was flattered to have Mr. Anton respond to a post I’d written here a few years back, and to have exchanged some correspondence.) He understands the severity of the crisis we face in America, and he doesn’t shy away from engaging with serious thinkers whom mainstream pundits would consider dangerously radioactive (such as Curtis Yarvin and BAP). I respect his steadfast commitment to the principles of the American Founding, even if we may disagree about some (rather important) technicalities.

In his Asylum article, Anton presents a dialogue between two ex-friends in diametric political and axiomatic opposition: a conservative, “Tom”, modeled after himself, and a condescending Blue-state left-wing intellectual (who is, it pains greatly me to report, named “Malcolm”).

Tom tries to make the case for a peaceful and mutually agreed-upon breakup of the United States, on the wholly sensible grounds that a) the Left despises us and everything we believe in, and b) that it is unjust for the Blue ruling class, who have managed to put in place an unbeatable electoral advantage by way of mass immigration and shameless election-fudging, to rule us forever without our consent. Why, he asks, would Blue even want to continue sharing a nation with us, if we’re so awful?

Malcolm, of course, is having none of it, on the wholly sensible (to him) grounds that a) such a breakup would be costly and inconvenient; b) it would be wrong to give evil people like Red-state Americans a free hand to oppress women and minorities, and c) it’s good to be the King.

My sympathies, of course, are with “Tom”. Surely the most gentlemanly and civilized way to resolve this crisis (and I flatter myself that I am both of those things) would be an amicable parting of the ways, however difficult that might be to arrange (and Mr. Anton does a remarkably thorough job of enumerating the many difficulties it would involve, and honestly acknowledges that some of them may be impossible to overcome).

That said, though, I feel that there is something craven about Tom’s side in this dialogue. Both he and Malcolm acknowledge that Tom’s faction (our faction!) has no real leverage, and so Tom’s case begins to sound like nothing more than begging for mercy. It’s clear that Blue holds the whip hand: as long as we play by the rules, we lose (and there’s an asymmetry there: Tom’s side, which is loyal to the Founding, to law and order, and to what shreds remain of the Constitution, is clearly the one that cares the most about “the rules”). Given the demographic replacement that has already happened, the total victory of the Left in their half-century “long march” through all of our institutions, and the irreparable loosening and corruption of our electoral system, it’s hard to imagine any scenario in which Red can save itself, by purely political action at the ballot box, from permanent subjugation. So why would Malcolm, or any other conqueror, simply give away the spoils of victory, merely to avoid the nugatory ill-will of the conquered? It makes no sense, and is almost unexampled in all of history. The tyranny of the majority is precisely what the Founders feared most about democracy, and they did their best to keep democracy tightly laced up — but they knew well that democracy is a powerful acid, and difficult to contain, and they knew well that things might come to this. (“A Republic, if you can keep it!”, said Franklin.) And here we are.

The Founders also knew well that the only remedy for tyranny, in the end, is what they called at the time “an appeal to heaven”: you screw your courage to the sticking place, and fight, and you win or you die.

“You have to know that if you tried it, you’d be crushed,” Malcolm said.

“Totally,” Tom replied. “And, to be clear, I’m not calling for anyone to take any action, much less a suicidal action.”

Well, then, Tom, given the concessions you make in this dialogue, I think you might as well resign yourself to subjugation. (As noted above, tyrants don’t just let go just because you’ve asked them nicely.)

In the anonymous response, also published at Asylum, the author raises solid objections to optimism about the success of national breakup: the lack of a coherent political theory on the American Right, lack of political will, imbalance of power, headwinds the new Red nation would face both here and abroad, etc. He asks a simple question:

All of this brings us back to the original question: Why? Anything close to a National Divorce would require a truly Herculean effort, a level of national political organizing not seen in America in hundreds of years. If this were to be achieved, why not simply take power in the United States using something resembling the normal process?

The objection to that, of course, is that the “normal process” — that is, the political process, involving winning elections — may already be foreclosed to us.

Our anonymous respondent closes, though, on an upbeat note:

As bad as the situation is, there is a lot to be positive about in America today. The grassroots protests against lockdown policies had a massive impact on bringing them to a close. Parents have taken a much more active role in fighting back against dangerous ideologies pushed in their children’s schools. Even the chaos and surrender that defined the Floyd Riots was contrasted with the enormous personal bravery of citizen groups and impromptu law enforcement formations, people who just wanted to help. It seems like many more people are paying attention now. This is truly great, but it is very important that that massive energy be harnessed into something productive, that can last for decades, as opposed to ultimately empty rhetoric about a potential suicide run against the US military.

What do I think about all this? Like “Anonymous” (why can’t people come up with snappy pen-names?), I think the project of actual breakup — the division of the United States into two geographically distinct nations — is a non-starter; it is simply too complicated and difficult. There may be, though, some sort of middle way: a Great Sorting of the citizenry into Red and Blue states. This is already beginning to happen, as people leave places like California to move to redder states like Florida, and to the extent that strong local governments in these places manage to push back on wokeness, it will also drive Blue-team folks out of those places. We may, over the next few years, see the “purpling” of states like Florida and Texas begin to reverse itself. But even if that happens, I doubt that the blue Leviathan in Washington is going to let up the pressure, and it will simply do with Federal law what Red states try to resist locally. The relentless concentration of power in the central managerial behemoth is going to make it hard for any real subsidiarian shift — any centrifugal dispersion of sovereignty — back to the States.

What’s left, then, if we can’t divorce, and we can’t make our abusers leave us alone? The only alternative to humiliating subjugation would be, as noted above, the civil war we all hope will never happen. We might very well lose; we would certainly bleed. (And the lack of cohesion on the Right would be as much of a problem in this scenario as in the purely political one; such a conflict would likely just consist of an irregular, if popular, resistance.) But at least we’d go down fighting.

Am I hoping for this, or advocating it? Emphatically not. As I’ve written elsewhere, civil war is a thing that nobody should wish for. A great political reversal, or failing that, an Anton-style national divorce, would be far better outcomes. But standing on one’s feet with dignity, even in a lost cause, is better — and more patriotically American! — than humiliating subjugation as a tyrannized minority.

As Jefferson said:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Perhaps Macaulay said it best of all:

And how can man die better,
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods?

Fog

What the hell’s going on in Russia? From the breathless coverage, you’d think it was a straight-up Wagner mutiny against MoD, with Prigozhin playing the role of Caesar, and already well across the Rubicon. But my sources (and I have some good ones) say that is way too pat. Yes, this is Russia, so sometimes chaos and dysfunction are simply that — but something very interesting is happening.

4-D chess? We’ll see.

Coming Apart

When societies are cohesive enough to be in good health, they argue about means; when they become dangerously disintegrated, they argue about ends.

Stewardship

My local paper, the Provincetown Independent, recently featured an item about the construction of a wetu in Truro, the village next door to my own here in the Outer Cape.

What is a “wetu”? It’s a small wood-framed structure, “built to withstand Cape Cod’s elements”, that was the traditional dwelling of Cape Cod’s indigenous Wampanoag tribe.

As you would expect, the event was well-attended. We read:

Visitors gathered inside to take shelter from the elements and observe details of the dome-shaped structure’s wood, rope, and bark construction. “It is a beautiful work of art and craft,” said Helen McNeil-Ashton, vice president of the Truro Historical Society, as she opened the ceremonies, noting that the way it was built symbolizes “the connections of family and community.”

Earlier in the day, Cape Cod National Seashore Supt. Brian Carlstrom joined state Rep. Sarah Peake and members of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe to offer remarks about the dedication of the wetu. “Having the wetu built on this site recognizes the continued stewardship we share with the Wampanoag people,” said Carlstrom.

Seashore historian Bill Burke locked pinkies with Carol Wynne, a dancer from the Wampanoag Nation Singers and Dancers, and took a turn at the mosquito dance.

Weeden, a member of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, involved students and teachers from the Truro Central School in the project, teaching them some of the steps involved in building a wetu.

Here’s a picture of the wetu under construction:

And here’s the finished product:

While reading about this, it occurred to me that there’s a place in England also called Truro, after which our own little town here on the Cape is named. And just like the Wampanoags, the indigenous people of Truro, England, likewise had a knack for building durable, weather-resistant structures out of local materials. Here are a couple of pictures of one they put up a while back — Truro Cathedral — which also holds its own quite well, I think, as a “beautiful work of art and craft”:

So! Both Truros have a lot to be proud of. And it’s good to see that our schoolkids have learned to make a wetu. (I’m sure they’ll be learning all about the Cathedral, as well.)

Coming Apart

When “anything goes”, everything does.

This Is The Hell We Are Building For Ourselves

Get a load of this.

Theodore Kaczynski, 1942-2023

I ought to have noted the death, last Saturday, of the mathematician and terrorist Theodore “Unabomber” Kaczynski, who died last Saturday at the age of 81.

From Wikipedia:

He was a mathematics prodigy, but abandoned his academic career in 1969 to pursue a primitive lifestyle. Between 1978 and 1995, Kaczynski murdered three individuals and injured 23 others in a nationwide mail bombing campaign against people he believed to be advancing modern technology and the destruction of the natural environment. He authored Industrial Society and Its Future, a 35,000-word manifesto and social critique opposing industrialization, rejecting leftism, and advocating for a nature-centered form of anarchism.

I’ve never read his 1995 manifesto, but I think I will do so now. Those I know who have read it tell me that he understood, at a profound human level, the problem of modernity; that he was NRx “avant la lettre”. It’s a pity he ruined it all: as much as one might like to, one simply cannot approve of mailing bombs to people.

You can find a copy of his manifesto here.

As I Was Saying…

For years now I’ve been writing, in these pages, about a few points that I think are central to understanding the decline of American — and, more broadly, Western — society and culture. (I might as well have been yelling up a drainpipe, for all the good it’s done, but at least I’ve been trying.) Among other things, I’ve tried to explain the danger that a secular, materialistic metaphysics presents to liberal social organization.

One hazard is that the absolute bedrock of the American Founding is the doctrine of “natural rights”. This was summed up in America’s ur-document, the Declaration of Independence, in the statement that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Readers may recall, from a few years back, a series of linked posts that began with my having read a review, by Michael Anton, of Thomas G. West’s outstanding book The Political Theory of the American Founding. Mr Anton responded with an email to me, reprinted here as the third in the series, and things went on from there I am particularly indebted to our friend and commenter “Jacques” for his contributions to the conversation.

I was particularly troubled by whether the very idea of natural law, upon which the whole American project rests, could withstand the removal of the transcendent foundation in the “Creator” invoked by Jefferson in the Declaration. (Spoiler: I believe it can’t.) In the last post in the linked series, I focused on that problem, which I think neither Anton nor West has satisfactorily resolved.

In that post, I used a term I’ve relied on often to describe the corrosive effect of the radical skepticism that results from the abandonment of transcendent metaphysics. I see it as a “universal acid” — in that there is, in the absence of a permanent and objective footing for our abstractions, no stopping place that prevent our relentless questioning from dissolving away to nothing every tradition, institution, and moral intuition. (I’ll give credit to Daniel Dennett for the term, which I’ve used many times over the years.) In this post from 2015, I pointed out that a nation that prides itself on being “an idea” — as America uniquely does — is particularly vulnerable to memetic hazards, which are exactly what the death of God in a rationalist society creates. Way back in 2009, long before I began to make any serious movement toward the real possibility of theistic belief, I wrote about the risk of secularism to social cohesion and stability.

Here in 2023, all these chickens are now coming home to roost, in a rapidly accelerating social, cultural, political, moral, and national disintegration. We have been “running on fumes” for several generations now, as the moral and civil premises that made America possible in the first place lingered on despite the death of these axioms at their root — but now the rot has gone so far as to poison all of our institutions, and so the last generation that really kept these beliefs alive as “self-evident truths” is now growing old and weak.

For most of my life, I was, with just the tiniest sliver of doubt, effectively an atheist, and at times quite militantly so. I will say for myself, though, that my personal beliefs didn’t stop me from acknowledging the dangers of widespread secularism at a societal level. I watched the celebrated “New Atheists” — Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris rise to fame with an increasing sense of foreboding about their carelessness, knowing that, although brainy types like themselves might be able to come to terms with the abyss they were staring into, their aggressive promotion of nihilism was profoundly unwise. I don’t think they thought they were doing anything other than nobly pursuing what they, on what I now understand to be shaky “rational” grounds, believed to be Truth; indeed, for them, the nonexistence of God was, no doubt, as much a “self-evident” truth — a matter of faith, even if they’d never admit it — as the basis of natural rights was for the Founders.

So it is with some grim satisfaction now that I see more and more secular materialists — atheists — coming round now, with the same reluctance that I did, to the conclusions I got to quite a long time ago. A good example is the right-wing gadfly Carl Benjamin, who confesses in a podcast interview with Auron Macintyre that the scales have begun to fall from his eyes. Many of the things I’ve been saying for years are in there — the shaky foundation of natural rights, and of classical liberalism generally, in the absence of God; the descending glide-path of modern liberalism having been slowed by the residual influence of Christianity; even the phrase “universal acid” to describe the corrosive effect of the radical skepsis bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment. The whole thing is well worth your time, and you can listen to it here.

Service Notice

Sorry for the scanty content; I’m away on one of my musical retreats with the Shoal Survivors. Back this week, with plenty to talk about.

OK, Pandemic’s Over. What Next?

I wonder where this story is headed.

(Commenter “JK”, call your office…)

Signal And Noise

Here’s a pithy little item about uncertainties in climate-change modeling.

Crime And …

Someone in an Urbit chat group just posted a link to an article I’d never seen about vote fraud in the 2020 election. The essay was written in December of that year on a blog called The Adventures of Shylock Holmes, and it is probably the best analysis of the question that I have yet to see. (That’s in part because very few people ever actually did any serious analysis, and because the courts at every level blocked nearly every case, on procedural grounds, from actually going to trial.)

You can read the article here.

I don’t know about you, but at this point I have no remaining confidence whatsoever in our electoral system — or, quite frankly, in the American system of government. It is all, at this point, a titanic, colossal failure, a rotting corpse whose lingering twitchings and gibberings are not signs of life, but merely the movements and gaseous exhalations of the necrophagic parasites devouring its decomposing tissues from within.

What comes next? What is to be done?

Well!

Here’s an interesting item about New York State’s election system. (I’m sure you will be as shocked as I was.)

Three Years On

Yesterday marked the third anniversary of the death of America’s holiest martyr, the sainted George Floyd. His joining of the choir invisible, while hospitalized after resisting arrest, ignited — as readers may recall! — a national convulsion of rioting and chaos that resulted in widespread social and physical devastation.

I’m a day late, but I thought I’d mark the anniversary of the great man’s passing by posting a copy of his autopsy. You can read it here.

You might also find this Twitter thread to be of interest.

Time-Hopping

One of the greatest Roman citizens of the late Republican era was the statesman, lawyer, and orator Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC). A little while ago, wanting to dig a little deeper into the man’s life and work, I ordered a book called The Complete Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero (now out of print, apparently, and hard to come by, so I’m glad I got it when I did).

The book — a thick, textbook-size paperback — is rather difficult to read, because it’s a photographic facsimile of an edition published in London in 1816. It reproduces all the defects and blurriness of the original printed pages, and there are also places where the text at the edges of the pages is curved and distorted, presumably by the book’s having had to be mooshed down onto the bed of some optical scanner. There seems as well to have been some problem with scanning the verso (left-hand) pages, which are often quite faint, with some patches nearly vanishing altogether. At first the thing seemed almost unreadable, but it’s surprising how quickly the brain adjusts, and after a little while I’d stopped noticing all this.

Although this edition was printed in 1816, the book was actually written in 1745, by Conyers Middleton (1683-1750), a noted clergyman and the librarian of the University of Cambridge, where he was a fellow of Trinity College. The book, far from being merely a translation of Cicero’s works, is, instead (so far, at least, I’m currently 291 pages in), a detailed biography of Cicero’s life, with fascinating commentary and analysis by Middleton, translations of relevant material by Cicero, and extensive footnotes in Latin.

All in all, reading the book has been a fascinating experience, with a feeling of leapfrogging backward in time: from 2023 to the first century BC, by way of 1745/1816 — that is to say, from the current era of the American Republic’s collapse, to the time of its founding, and then back to the last days of the antique Republic that provided the model for our own — and Conyers Middleton, whom I had never heard of before reading this book, is a remarkable traveling-companion. I’ll probably be posting further excerpts from the book as I make my way forward, but for now, here are two samples of Middleton’s commentary (with emphasis added by me).

In the first (page 15), Middleton describes the result of the “Social War”, in which Italian cities allied with Rome demanded, and eventually were granted, actual Roman citizenship:

Upon the breaking out of this war, the Romans gave the freedom of the city [citizenship] to all the towns which continued firm to them; and, at the end of it, after the destruction of three thousand lives, thought fit, for the sake of their future quiet, to grant it to all the rest: but this step, which they considered as the foundation of a perpetual peace, was, as an ingenious writer has observed, one of the causes that hastened their ruin: for the enormous bulk to which the city was swelled by it, gave birth to many new disorders, that gradually corrupted and eventually destroyed it; and the discipline of the laws calculated for a people whom the same walls could contain, was too weak to keep in order the vast body of Italy; so the from this time chiefly, all affairs were decided by faction and violence, and the influence of the great; who could bring whole towns into the forum from remote parts of Italy; or pour in a number of slaves and foreigners under the form of citizens; for when the names and persons of real citizens could no longer be distinguished, it was not possible to know, whether any act had passed regularly, by the genuine suffrage of the people.

Next, here’s a passage from page 92, about the passage of a law granting unprecedented emergency authority to Pompey to command Roman armies in Asia (a law that was supported by Julius Caesar, but generally opposed in the Senate):

J. Caesar also was a violent promoter of this law; but from a different motive than the love either of Pompey, or the republic; his design was to recommend himself by it to the people, whose favor, he foresaw, would be of more use to him than the senate’s, and to cast a fresh load of envy upon Pompey, which, by some accident, might be improved afterwards to his hurt; but his chief view was to make the precedent familiar, that, whatever use Pompey might make of it, he himself might one day make a bad one. For this is the common effect of breaking through the barrier of the laws, by which many states have been ruined; when, from the confidence in the abilities and integrity of some eminent citizen, they invest him, on pressing occasions, with extraordinary powers, for the common benefit and defense of the society; for though power so entrusted may, in particular cases, be of singular service, and sometimes even necessary; yet the example is always dangerous, furnishing a perpetual pretence to the ambitious and ill-designing, to grasp at every prerogative which had been granted at any time to the virtuous, till the same power, which would save a country in good hands, oppresses it at last in bad.

How little things change.

Vallicella On The Limits Of Transhumanism

We live in an age dominated by scientistic materialism. Ever since the Enlightenment, the explosive growth in our scientific understanding of nature has rocked religion back on its heels by providing mechanistic and mathematical explanations for phenomena that had previously been wholly mysterious. The great paradigm by which we understood the world was slowly inverted; science’s glittering successes gradually shifted the default position regarding the explanation of all phenomena toward the laws and mechanisms of the physical world, and away from transcendent agency.

The world is no less astonishing than it ever was; the difference now is that when we see something we can’t account for, we insist — reflexively, as a matter of faith — that “I’m sure there must be some scientific explanation”. This makes sense, but only up to a point: for example, while there do indeed seem to be laws of nature, observations of the breaking of which usually lead only to the discovery of deeper and more subtle laws, nobody, at least as far as I’m aware, has yet come up with a compelling “scientific explanation” of the origin and specific content of the laws themselves. (See my linked series of posts beginning here.)

This confidence in scientistic materialism is not irrational in itself, if one accepts that it rests on axioms that, like all axioms, are themselves unprovable, and so must be taken on faith: that they simply “feel true”. (That’s just what axioms are; if they could be proven, they’d be theorems, not axioms, and would in turn have to rest on even deeper axioms.) But being “not irrational” is consistent with a variety of other rationally defensible models of the world, for example the various theistic models that religions have offered. The scientistic-materialist model, however, now enjoys a dominant position in Western civilization (there’s some irony in that, but I’ll leave that for another post), and so its adherents would like very much to shoehorn everything one might normally want from a plenary and satisfying world-view into its austere constraints. Being human, after all, we still yearn for meaning, purpose, and some way to comfort ourselves in the face of annihilation — things that transcendent, theistic models handle easily, but which present an almost insuperable challenge to secular materialism.

And so we find some poaching going on: attempts by materialists to pocket attractive features from the religious model. One form of this is called “transhumanism”, which is the idea that advances in life extension, cognitive and sensory enhancement, and control of nature will put genuine transcendence — everything we might ask and long for — within reach right here in the material world.

Our friend, the philosopher Bill Vallicella, was recently asked by a correspondent whether, in this way, transhumanism might eventually “put religion out of business”. The answer is no: and in an excellent piece over at Substack, Bill explains why. You can read it here.

No Can Do

This entry is part 6 of 7 in the series Accelerationism.

Over the past week or two I’ve been kicking around the idea of “accelerationism” — that the best way forward for this rotting society is to give its most destructive factions free rein, so as to make the disease progress so rapidly, and to such extremes, that it either provokes, at last, an “immune response” from the millions of decent Americans who, by voting in so-called “progressives”, have let it get this far; or forces the whole bloated, unsustainably evil thing to collapse at last, allowing us to begin to build something new from the ashes.

Well, after lively debate — with, among others, Bill Vallicella, Vito Caiati, our commenter ‘mharko’, and my own brother David (who is a man of exceptional intelligence and sound moral instinct) — I’m persuaded that it isn’t the right way forward. Even from a purely strategic, instrumentalist stance it’s an even bet at best; and from a moral point of view I simply cannot endorse evil, even for the chance of drawing the Devil into a tactical overreach. Moreover, the acceleration’s happening anyway, and our energy will best be spent cultivating our strength, husbanding our resources, improving our defenses, forming networks of resistance, preparing for the crisis, and building whatever arks and fastnesses we can to endure the storm, and to cherish and preserve that which we will need to carry the light forward.

So: accelerationism? I’m out. Thank you all for helping me to make up my mind.

Contra Accelerationism

This entry is part 5 of 7 in the series Accelerationism.

Our commenter mharko has given us a link to a brief video making an argument, from a Christian perspective, against accelerationism. The presenter, Jonathan Pageau, calls it “dancing with death”. Here it is:

There is an interesting “as above, so below” theme running through the argument. The idea is twofold: first, that there is an isomorphism between the individual and society, and second, that there is a similar parallel between the arc of history and the life of Christ.

Regarding the first, Mr. Pageau says that, for most people at least, it will be impossible to foster accelerating decadence in the larger society (above), without allowing the rot to seep into our individual selves (below). He describes this as a dangerous flirtation with nihilism, and I can’t say he’s wrong.

As for the second, the argument is that, under a Christian understanding at least, this period of crisis and passion is inevitable, but it is precisely during such a moment in history when we are required to be Christlike; to remain faithful to what we know in our hearts to be good and right and true, even if the whole world seems to be mocking it all and throwing it back in our faces.

If I were to push back against Mr. Pageau’s argument, it would be to say that, as regards the analogy with the individual, there is often a threshold effect in which a disease has to progress to a certain point before triggering a full-body immune response; the accelerationist, on the other hand, would say that keeping things on a slow boil, as our feeble resistance does, might delay that response, allowing more damage in the long run. (I would point out also that even in the story of Christ, Judas had a vitally important role to play.)

That said, though, I’m not sure I don’t find this anti-accelerationist argument persuasive. It is the same argument made very well by Vito Caiati over at Bill Vallicella’s place, and it is easy to see that it is a morally consistent position – as against the cynical, instrumentalist position of the accelerationist.

So: what’s my position here? As Jack Benny famously said: I’m thinking it over.

Just So

“Let any great nation of modern times be confronted by two conflicting propositions, the one grounded upon the utmost probability and reasonableness and the other upon the most glaring error, and it will almost invariably embrace the latter.”

— Mencken

Where Matters Stand

I’m at the point where I don’t see much use in banging on endlessly about how broken things are, and about what a decadent position we’ve reached in the great cycle of civilizations — but every now and then I suppose we need a little reminding, just to keep the fire going, and today at American Greatness I read such a thorough and pungent summary of our predicament that I thought I might as well post it.

Here it is.

Not To Worry!

If, like me, you’ve been worrying about the threat of runaway artificial intelligence, well now you can relax: the government is here to help. The formidable polymath Kamala Harris, fresh from her successful remediation of our troubles at the southern border, is now the Biden administration’s AI czar.

What a relief! It’s good to know that everything’s going to be OK.

More On Acceleration

This entry is part 4 of 7 in the series Accelerationism.

Over at Bill Vallicella’s place, commenter “mharko” (who also has things to say over here from time to time), left such a fine comment on Bill’s accelerationism post that I am going to repost it here:

I had a thought mulling these things over while pulling weeds and cultivating soil that I wanted to risk exposing here regarding acceleration.

I have experienced spontaneously erupting notions, over this nouveau era, of the accelerationist idea, and I’m old enough to have been around the block on these themes before. As one of our prophets says, “If you you don’t believe me I can show you the scars.” (I am not very unlike any of you posting and commenting on this thread wrt the political and philosophical underpinnings of my worldview.) For example, “Oh God, bring it on! This world is FUBAR! Let’s get ready to rumble!”

I’m not disavowing that notion, and I acknowledge the moral issue of ‘doing the right thing versus the expedient thing’, but here’s my sticking point right now:
There are, and have been all along I presume, 1) those elements and agents who like arson on principle, and 2) on a spectrum or gradient, many others also, persuadable or influenceable.

Signing on to a protocol of acceleration is not our proper calling, gentlemen. Signaling acceleration to the social engine that feeds on humanity is what powers the beast. But recognizing the inevitability of acceleration is proper. The acceleration will continue (until morale improves) whether we will it or no, but surely, it will. The answer to the question, “What shall we do, now that the shit is slow motion hitting the fan before our eyes while we watch”? must be to occupy and witness (?????, ???????) without giving occasion to our neighbor to stumble.

Too many people are vulnerable, susceptible to or already on suicide watch to give any leash to notions of activist accelerationism or a posture of advocacy, but we can and must at least acknowledge with one another the signs of the times, and encourage each other as charity and wisdom commend.

I’m cultivating a close connection to local sustainability as I always have, gardening, conserving, prepping sanely, keeping powder dry and living as simple a life as possible, hoping even an ignored example will bear some witness, have some effect. Trying to balance being a modern and a traditionalist, and a stranger in a strange land. As I heard someone say earlier this evening, trying to marry beauty with divine intelligence. And be awake and responsive now and in the hour of you know what, amen.

I have to say that, despite my serious consideration of accelerationism (at the end of my own recent post on the topic, I wryly suggested pulling the lever for another term for the Big Guy), mharko’s words feel right to me, in particular the point he makes that the acceleration of our Progressivist catastrophe is jerking along just fine without any assistance from good and decent people. I was particularly affected by his use of the word “gentlemen” in his appeal to our higher instincts; perhaps that’s at odds with the cold tactical logic of the accelerationist, and perhaps gentlemanly restraint may even, in the long run, be our undoing, but one must be a steward of one’s own soul and dignity as well as of one’s civilization.

I won’t say the question’s now settled in my mind (and of course I won’t flatter myself that what an obscure blogger thinks about any of these great tides of history really matters in the slightest anyway). I’m grateful for the thoughtful conversation we’ve been having (and, I expect, will continue to have), and I wanted to thank mharko for his contribution by republishing it here.

PS – as noted in the comments below, the question-marks in parentheses above are the Greek words “katecho” and “marturo”. I am having trouble getting them to render!

Here We Go Again

A couple of weeks ago, after a brief trip back to New York City (where I’d lived for more than forty years, and where my wife and children grew up), I wrote:

I’m glad to be back on my little dirt road in the woods — NYC this time around seemed, in its accelerating degeneracy, to be a human zoo, an absolute freak-show, and the whole place now completely reeks of weed.

Well, by now you’ve probably heard about the incident on the F train in Manhattan yesterday: Jordan Neely, an angry, deranged, homeless black man, with at least forty prior arrests for crimes including violent assault, began menacing passengers, saying that he had nothing to lose and was ready to die. Several other passengers, reasonably concerned that he might be about to attack someone, moved to subdue him. One of them, a young white ex-Marine, applied a chokehold, and maintained it until Neely stopped resisting.

Neely died. The young man who had choked him was released by the police — who, I suppose, must have believed him to have acted bravely and justifiably.

If we had been looking for a spark to ignite yet another racial conflagration — which, of course a great many people always are, including public officials and those in charge of our media – we couldn’t have found a better one. Mr. Neely, whose beatification is already underway, will follow the holy George Floyd to canonization in saintly martyrdom, while the young Marine — whose name I do not know — will almost certainly go to the stake.

Summer’s coming! Looks like a hot one.

Should The Culture War Take A Back Seat?

This entry is part 3 of 7 in the series Accelerationism.

On April 27th, Josiah Lippincott published an essay at American Greatness arguing that we’ve lost the culture war, and that the way forward is for the Right to focus squarely on the issues that got Donald Trump elected in 2016.

Lippincott’s article, which you can read here, stakes out the argument as follows:

Immigration, trade, war, and crime. Being right on these four issues propelled Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016 against all odds. The intervening seven years have changed nothing. The only way a candidate from the Right can possibly win the presidency in 2024 is by campaigning on limiting immigration (build the wall), increasing tariffs, getting out of Ukraine, and restoring law and order (especially in regards to elections and the opioid crisis).

These are the core issues for the center-Right coalition needed to win national elections. No supposedly conservative politician with aspiration for higher office should ever make any public statement without hammering at least one of these points. Journalist asks about Social Security? Talk about why we need to stop giving money to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Democratic opponent brings up climate change? Talk about why we need to build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.

The issues of national survival are of primary importance. There is no point in fighting a culture war if we don’t have a country in which this war can take place. Conservatives do not have a viable path to political power any other way.

The Paul Ryan strategy of calling for lower taxes and deregulation is yesterday’s failure. Voters don’t have enough skin in that game to care. Calling for entitlement reform, i.e, cuts to social security and medicare, is political suicide. And as the 2022 midterms showed, campaigning on social issues like abortion is also a losing gambit.

Lippincott, who is a Christian himself, argues that Christianity has failed in its moral stewardship:

Trying to rehash these old battles in the present political moment, when institutional Christianity no longer has any meaningful political or cultural clout, is a waste of time—at least at the national level.

COVID-19 made the weakness of American Christianity painfully clear. Protestant and Catholic churches alike overwhelmingly declared themselves nonessential during the spring of 2020. That was, sadly, merely an acknowledgement of a longstanding reality.

Virtually no one today cares what the pope or any megachurch pastor, for that matter, has to say about political and cultural life. Their endorsements do not move the needle and their influence has had little to no bearing, even on their own flocks, when it comes to preserving the older standards of Christian morality and decency.

Since 1933, the American Right has posted loss after loss in the culture war. From blasphemy laws to pornography, school prayer to abortion, gay marriage to biological men using women’s bathrooms, conservatives and Christians have suffered a nearly unmitigated series of losses.

America’s pastors and priests couldn’t stop this decline. And, for the most part, they didn’t really try or seem to want to. Aside from a few metaphysical niceties and theological quibbles, I can detect no real difference in the innumerable sermons and homilies I’ve heard in my lifetime. The modern pastor wants little more than to issue platitudes and collect the tithe.

The vague admonitions to “have faith” and “follow Christ” that pepper the Sunday morning pastoral exhortations from America’s pulpits generally lack any practical core. America’s pastors, with few exceptions, shy away from fighting for the faith they supposedly love. They lack the sternness and fidelity of their forebears. Compare a St. Augustine to a Pope Francis or a Martin Luther to a David French. Our Christian forebears had iron in their souls. The modern pastor is generally soft.

All that’s left, then, for traditionally minded Americans, is to set the hopeless culture war aside, try to build a coalition around whatever’s left, and fight to wrest the White House and Congress away from the Democrats in 2024.

The AG piece has led to some discussion by some of our online friends. Writing at The Orthosphere, JM Smith acknowledges Lippincott’s gloomy assessment as further evidence that consensual government in America is dead, and that “we have clumped down another step in the basement staircase that leads to civil war.” Meanwhile, Arthur Roebuck, also at Orthosphere, presents a more nuanced version of what he thinks Lippincott should have said, and takes a slightly more optimistic position: namely, that if the culture war really is unwinnable, then there’s no reason to want America to survive anyway — but that to conclude that the war is really over is premature.

Over at Maverick Philosopher, our friend Bill Vallicella has posted two items recently that touch on this question: one in response to my own recent post on “accelerationism” (that one’s here), and another replying to Lippincott’s article (here). Both of these have lively comment-threads, including some excellent push-back against the “accelerationist” strategy by Vito Caiati, who is also an occasional commenter here.

In a comment on Bill’s latter post, I made an attempt at parsing the three positions:

a) “Accelerationism” is a laissez-faire approach that says that we should let the Left have its way until, in its lust for evil, it makes things so undeniably awful that the millions of decent citizens who are currently just “going along to get along” have finally had enough, and rise up as one to strike it down. Only by letting things quickly become truly intolerable will all those good people be awakened to their peril; otherwise, the Left will slowly keep “boiling the frog” until civilization is cooked.

b) Others maintain that even if we are doomed to lose, we must always resist the encroachment of evil, because it is the duty of a good Christian — or any righteous person — to do so. Any strategic cleverness Accelerationists might propose should be resisted on this principle.

c) Lippincott recommends what seems to be a hybrid “middle way”: laissez-faire on cultural/moral issues, while using an emphasis on immigration, war, trade, and crime to build a broadly Rightist electoral coalition that can actually seize effective political power.

Commenter “Ian” at Bill’s place made a strong objection to Lippincott’s strategy:

Lippincott’s strategy of a temporary cessation on social issues at the national level will turn into a permanent one: so we’re supposed to shut up about social issues at the national level until we secure power, at which point we can start talking about them again? And in the meantime, conservatives will have continued secretly to care deeply about these social issues when all our national leaders have agreed to stop making them issues? How is that supposed to work exactly?

If you stop making something an issue, it sends the message that it is not important. And guess what: people will start believing that.

It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for an election!

The great accomplishment of the pro-life movement during the Roe v. Wade era was keeping abortion controversial rather than surrendering it as a settled issue. This meant millions of people thought that abortion was murder, who thereby kept their souls from being corrupted. This all by itself justified the existence of the pro-life movement, even had Roe v. Wade never been overturned.

So: lots of good discussion. What’s the right plan? What is to be done?

P.S.

This entry is part 2 of 7 in the series Accelerationism.

My old friend Bill Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher, has put up an item about my “accelerationism” post, and some discussion has ensued in the comment-thread. You can read it here.

Should We All Now Be Accelerationists?

This entry is part 1 of 7 in the series Accelerationism.

In case you haven’t noticed, America, and the West more generally, are falling to pieces. How so? Here’s a brief, but far from exhaustive, list:

— Public confidence in the government and media are at all-time lows;

— The printing of money in order to support government spending at an astronomical rate has triggered dangerous inflation, and has driven public debt to unsustainable levels;

— The death of meritocracy in favor of race- and sex-based “equity” has forced an abandonment of standards and qualifications in every institution;

— Our borders are effectively nonexistent, with aliens and lethal drugs flowing freely across them;

— Our foreign policy has descended into hubristic madness as we cling to the idea of America as the world’s policeman and “redeemer nation”, with the effect that we have driven our most powerful rivals into each others’ arms, and are now even endangering the dollar’s critical status as the world’s reserve currency;

— Our pernicious mismanagement of the COVID outbreak has ad a catastrophic effect on small businesses, commercial real-estate markets, education, trust in government, and social and psychological health, while massively strengthening and enriching oligarchic corporate power;

— Crime, suicide, anomie, depression, nihilism, social isolation, and deaths of despair have all skyrocketed, while comity, trust, and social cohesion have plummeted;

— Our great cities have become so tolerant of crime and disorder that people and businesses are fleeing;

— The idea of a binding American commonality that trumps other differences has been replaced by a sullen and resentful identitarianism that assigns every person membership in one or more racial or sexual interest groups, and pits them ruthlessly against one another, with white males being the one group that everyone can agree to blame and hate;

— The founding European stock and cultural heritage of the American nation is kicked to the curb, despised, and is being displaced as swiftly and methodically as possible;

— The aggressive feminization of every aspect of American civil and political life has led to the denunciation of healthy natural masculinity as “toxic”;

— Dissent and debate are crushed, whether by the shouting down and cancellation of impermissible opinion, or by the weaponization of government agencies and the unequal prosecution of law;

— Easily half of Americans have lost all faith in the integrity of our elections, while attempts to impose minimal standards of election security are blocked and denounced as “racist”;

— In every aspect of American life we see the exaltation of the perverse and unnatural, the chaotic and the abnormal, over those norms and behaviors that have always been seen as good, wholesome, and conducive to human flourishing; in every direction we see the enthusiastic promotion of the lowest, the basest, and the ugliest, in the name of “equity”. Whatever is grotesque, bizarre, licentious, degraded and decadent is given pride of place over everything healthy, vigorous, virile, virtuous, and beautiful — and we are commanded not only to tolerate this, but to assent with enthusiasm, and call it “progress”.

Why has all this happened? Because an aggressive, secular pseudoreligion, which denies all transcendent order and natural categories, has seized control of the minds of scores of millions of Americans, and of the levers of political power and information dissemination. This ersatz religion holds as its highest principle the flattening of every natural distinction, and all social hierarchies, except of course the hierarchy that places itself in the position of commanding power over every institution, and over all of civil society.

Among the obvious, essential truths that the stifling orthodoxy of this belief-system condemns as heresy are:

— Innately unequal distributions of natural talents, abilities, cognitive capacities, and behavioral dispositions among individuals and populations;

— The reality of sexual dimorphism, and of natural sexual differences in aptitudes and life preferences;

— That differences in life outcomes of individuals and groups can be due to any causes other than racism, sexism, nepotism, and other forms of willful and malevolent oppression and malfeasance;

— That the American founding was a noble and innovative experiment in self-rule, and that the Founding Fathers deserve respect and gratitude;

— That the past has anything to teach us other than as a racist and blood-drenched catalogue of moral and philosophical errors;

— That there is such a thing as “human nature”, and that it is not infinitely malleable;

— That excellence should be fostered for the sake of all;

— That the life of mankind might have a higher dimension than maximizing the gratification of the stomach and the genitals;

— That what optimizes a civilization’s well-being is for people to find the role in life, and the place in social hierarchy, for which they are best-suited, and best-qualified, by their nature;

— That unborn children might be living human beings, and therefore might be morally entitled to protection against lethal violence;

— That serving the interests of America and its citizens should be the basis of American immigration policy;

— That no person or group of persons knows enough about the organic complexity of human societies to significantly re-engineer them without causing unforeseeable harm;

— That democracy in itself is simply one form of government among many, with conspicuous liabilities of its own;

— That the right measure of any government is whether or not it governs well;

— That Western civilization has produced towering, sublime achievements of art, literature, science, mathematics, philosophy, discovery, prosperity, and human happiness, and has bequeathed all of this to us as a priceless heritage—and that as stewards of this incomparable legacy we have a duty, perhaps above all other duties, to cherish and preserve it for our children, and for our children’s children.

I could, as you might imagine, go on and on.

I think it should be clear that this course is plainly destructive; the question, then, for anyone standing on the outside of this mass psychosis, is: what can be done?

There are various options. The most “conservative” and “traditional” response, of course, is some sort of organized political resistance. But how? I doubt that any intelligent observer can at this point honestly imagine that we’re going to vote ourselves out of this mess. Not only does it seem that half the country is already in the grip of this madness, but even if that weren’t so, there are monotonic trends that go in the wrong direction: the steady flow of new Democratic voters pouring in across the border; the relentless push by the Left to expand the franchise, even to felons and illegal aliens; and the increasing strength of the “top-and-bottom-against-the-middle” coalition that buys votes by fostering an infantilizing dependence upon the State for every material need, comfort, and blessing, and is happy to pay for it all by printing money and redistributing the wealth of productive citizens. If, on top of all that, we add the steady erosion of election integrity, and the blithe insouciance with which vote-manipulating shenanigans are committed and then screened from accountability, then resistance at the ballot-box seems increasingly futile.

It should also be clear that the great Leviathan in our nation’s capital is immensely, monstrously powerful, and, far from the being the modest apparatus of minimal necessity conceived by the Founders, it now has a life, and interests, of its own — and that, like any living thing, it will fight for its survival with everything it has. Any attempt to redistribute its power back to state and local governments, or to curtail its arbitrary authority, will provoke a ruthless defense — as we have seen again and again in these last years.

What about armed revolt? This may very well come to pass, and if it does, millions will join the cause — but as I wrote eight years ago, civil war is not a thing to wish for, and a hot 21st-century American civil war would be as gruesome as any in history.

This brings us to acceleration. If things really are as bad as they seem — and mark my words, they’re even worse — this whole rotten system may be so far gone, so diseased, and so at odds with the nature of human flourishing, that it must eventually collapse and die of its own accord. If that’s so, then it’s best, for the sake of our children and children’s children, if it happens sooner rather than later: the sooner we can plow Leviathan’s decomposing corpse into the ground, the sooner we can begin the process of organic regrowth. We’ve already seen the sickness beginning to peak, since the ascension of the doddering grifter Joseph Biden to the Presidency, along with the Left’s total control of Congress for the first two years of his term. We see it in the ever-increasing emphasis on sexual lunacy and perversion in government, media, and academia; we see it in the blazing prominence of outright morons in our ruling classes; we see it in our insane energy policy and increasing subjection of private and economic life to climate hysteria; we see it in the coddling of criminals at the expense of the freedom and safety of decent citizens; we see it in the sacralization of transgenderism, and the hallucinatory insanity of allowing men to compete in womens’ sports; and we see it in all the obvious lies about objectively existing reality that we are forced to put into our own mouths every day just to keep our jobs and privileges.

Perhaps, then, it is best in the long run not to slow this process by incremental and ineffective political resistance. It may be that such an approach, by making the decay more gradual, will also make it somehow more bearable, day by day, and might turn it from an acute and intolerable affliction to a slow and chronic decline — a creeping Brazilification, a great national frog-boiling. Perhaps we would be wiser simply to let the cleansing fire of fever run its course, and burn itself out. It will be painful, and surely debilitating for a while, but then it will be over. And then, at last, we can awaken, blink our eyes, and get back on our feet.

Another term for the Big Guy might be all it takes. Four more years!!

Wait – What?

The big item in today’s news was that Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox has come to an abrupt end. This is a watershed in American media history (and likely no small moment in America’s political history, too).

For starters: Fox News just became completely irrelevant. An enormous number of that outlet’s subscribers, who saw saw Carlson as their only voice, their only proxy, in mass media, will be walking away. As I write, the market value of the network is already down by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Whose idea was this, I wonder? Did it have to do with Fox’s settlement with Dominion, over the weekend, of their defamation lawsuit about irregularities in Dominion’s voting machines, and their effect on the 2020 election? Did it have to do with something Carlson might have been preparing to say about Ray Epps (the Jan 6th glowie who was on CBS’ 60 Minutes last night), or about the broadening Biden-family scandal? From what I’ve heard today, Carlson had no idea this was coming, and was blindsided as he was preparing this evening’s show earlier today.

Like it or not, Tucker Carlson is easily the most uncontroversially influential personality on the American Right. Scores of millions heed and trust him as their only consistent and coherent voice in desperate times. He is young and charismatic, and uncowed by the left-wing Leviathan he took aim at every weekday evening.

What now?

Grab some popcorn. If history and human nature are any guide, power flows toward this man.

On Ukraine, Being Lied To, And Lying To Ourselves

Some of the most interesting conversations in all of media for many years now have been the periodic discussions that John Batchelor has had on his radio program with thinkers such as law professor Richard Epstein, the late Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen, and war historian Michael Vlahos. For a couple of years Batchelor and Vlahos devoted their weekly talks to the topic of the possibility of a new civil war in America, but more recently they have assumed the personae of Gaius and Germanicus, well-to-do Roman citizens living in 1st-century Britain, with the gift of foresight into the future — a way of examining the parallels between the arc of Roman history and that of the modern-day Global American Empire. Lately they’ve been releasing a weekly installment, as a podcast, every Monday, and the topic for the last year or so has been the war in Ukraine.

Despite what you may have heard from our government and media (to the extent that you pay any attention at all), Ukraine’s position is utterly hopeless — and every day that the West shovels more money and Ukrainian lives into the meat-grinder merely prolongs and intensifies that nation’s suffering, and fattens the purses of predatory interests (did you know, for example, that as much as 40% of the equipment we send to Ukraine is simply sold on the black market?). Meanwhile, the war has been a disaster, too, for America’s position in the world: aside from the colossal waste of taxpayer dollars, it has sharply destabilized the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, driven China and Russia into each other’s arms, made things extremely awkward for the GAE’s vassal states in Europe, and generally caused the rest of the world to realize that they might be better off just trying to get along without us.

Messrs. Batchelor and Vlahos discuss all this and more in the latest episode of their podcast (with, at the end, a brief return to the possibility of civil war). You can listen to it in three parts: here, here, and here.

Form, Matter, And The Corruption Of Sovereigns

Here’s a thread I posted on Twitter earlier today:

When a computer stays on too long, with bloated apps running and leaking resources, it stops working well. What do you do? You reboot it. If that doesn’t work, you do a factory reset.

You do whatever it takes to make a clean start.

What does a nation do?

Another problem for computers can be that an older operating system, designed for maximizing performance on the system it was written for, no longer runs on current hardware.

That can happen to a political “operating system” when “hardware” changes: when the people it was written for are no longer the people trying to run it.

For democratic republics, one of the system requirements is what used to be called “civic virtue”: an ability, and a willingness, to internalize the general social principles and restraints that the system depends on.

For government to be limited, it is necessary that citizens be able to govern *themselves*.

If this fails, then so does limited government.

If you can’t rule yourself, you will be ruled.

People fetishize democracy; they think that rule by the “consent of the governed” – in which the people themselves are believed to to be sovereign – is the only way to secure good government against a corrupt sovereign.

In other words, democracy is a kind of inverted monarchy. (After all, sovereignty has to rest somewhere.)

But if the people are sovereign, what protection is there against the corruption of the people themselves?

And when the people are corrupt, have lost their civic virtue, and have come to govern as badly as history’s worst weak, short-sighted, and selfish monarchs, what then?

How do they reboot the system?

No sovereign anywhere, ever, has ever overthrown himself. Why would a corrupt, sovereign people do so?

They won’t.

But if they fail to discipline themselves, to relearn the necessary virtues for making their operating-system work, things just go from bad to worse; the government will fail at its most fundamental tasks of stewardship, security, and justice.

Misery, despair, blame, faction, hate, strife, resentment, anger, dysfunction, apathy, infertility, vice, and frustration begin to tear at all of life, as opportunistic and parasitic cabals fatten themselves in the gathering chaos.

Eventually, in their weakness and desperation, the mass of the people, who have long since lost the blood-memory of strength, virtue, and self-government, turn to someone – anyone! – who will make the pain stop; who will promise them respite and safety.

The high abstractions of republican self-governing eras – which are no longer possible for a broken-down, degraded people – go out the window. The people are glad to be ruled, whatever the cost, because they have lost the ability to rule themselves.

Where are we in this great cycle of history?

Do we have a choice, America, about what will happen next? Or are we too far gone already?

Does Civilization Still Make Sense?

An important concept, and one that I’ve written about myself, is the idea of “time preference”: how willing a person is to defer present consumption or enjoyment in order to earn a dividend in the future. The classic example is the “marshmallow test”, in which small children are given a marshmallow, told that the adult giving the test will be leaving the room for a few minutes, and given two options: to eat the marshmallow now, or, by waiting until the tester returns, to earn a second one as well. Apparently children who are willing to wait end up having better life outcomes as adults than the kids who can’t resist the temptation to gobble up the marshmallow right away.

That inclination to defer for future gain is called “low time preference”, and it’s arguably the basis of all civilization. Go to any great city and look around; it’s obvious, as Barack Obama might put it, that “you didn’t build that”: it was put together, brick by brick, by people now long dead, who invested their efforts to create things that their future selves, and future generations, would profit from. The importance of low time preference is especially critical for food production, and for economic growth; the seed is only planted in expectation of the harvest.

In order for any of this to be a rational choice, however, there must be stability: one must be able to depend upon a general continuity of rules and conditions over time. The farmer who cannot rely on the weather might be safer eating his seed than planting it; the child given the marshmallow during a bombing raid would be wiser to grab it and run. In short, for low time preference to make sense, one has to be able, to some extent at least, to make confident predictions about the future: to be able to trust that laws will still be in effect, that contracts will still be binding, that goods will retain their value, that property rights will not be abrogated, that crops will grow, and so on. As these conditions erode, low time preference — investing in the future — becomes less and less of a safe bet.

What makes all of this even trickier is that there’s a lot of feedback involved. The more confident people are about stability and predictability, the more likely they are to invest and work for the future — which in turn makes the future more reliable. This is how civilizations deepen their foundations, and build to the sky. But it works the other way, too: the less confidence people have in a secure and predictable future, the higher their time preference becomes, and the more they are inclined to consume at the expense of investment — which in turn destabilizes everything.

Both of these trends are rational orientations for our behavior; in a society descending into war and chaos it would be crazy to invest in shopping malls, while in a healthy, stable community with strong social cohesion and good economic growth it would be crazy not to. But because of the feedback involved, it’s possible for the trend to take off rapidly in either direction once some sort of tipping point — some watershed in the rationality of having confidence in a society’s future — is reached. Moreover, all of this is strongly affected by mass psychology; to make confidence in the future irrational, it might simply be sufficient for everyone to start believing that it is. Add to that genuine concerns such as decreases in social cohesion and stability, economic brittleness, war, rising debt, moral decay, educational decline, global pandemics, and so on, and it becomes more and more reasonable to have less and less confidence in the wisdom of building for the future — and so the negative feedback strengthens.

Where is that watershed, the boundary that separates low and high time preference as the more rational choice? As I’ve pointed out above, one necessarily crosses that boundary at some point in a civilization’s decline — but how can we tell where it is?

I have a feeling it’s somewhere right around where we’re standing.

What Next?

Sorry to have gone quiet again. I’m now back at home in Wellfleet after spending a few days in New York City (where we’ve spent much less time since selling our house in Brooklyn in October of 2021). I’m glad to be back on my little dirt road in the woods — NYC this time around seemed, in its accelerating degeneracy, to be a human zoo, an absolute freak-show, and the whole place now completely reeks of weed.

I’m here on my own for a couple of weeks: the lovely Nina has gone off to Hong Kong to visit our daughter & husband and our three young grandsons (the youngest is just learning to walk).

It was a tranquil spring day in the Outer Cape, and I took in a chamber-music performance at Preservation Hall here in town (the performance featured members of our outstanding Cape Symphony, and the program included Shostakovich’s haunting Piano Trio #2). I walked home along the harbor shoreline in the late-afternoon sunshine, and everything seemed suspended in time.

That’s an illusion, though. Things feel very creaky and jittery to me right now. Great wheels are turning in the wider world, and I have the uneasy feeling that we have ratcheted our way up to the crumbling edge of a very steep slope, and that things might get very “interesting” very soon now.

For now, though, all is calm here, and I should have plenty of time for brooding and writing. Back soon.

Happy Easter

“Man as man is conscious of the need of protection and direction, of cleansing from uncleanness, of power beyond his own strength. Through a multiplicity of forms, in different ages and races, this consciousness has sought expression, until at last it finds utterance in an insistent demand for God. Fear, ancestor worship, the personification of the objects of nature, represent the method by which man has blindly sought an answer to life’s great demand; but always, back of all, is this innate longing for higher communion. This longing disturbs the soul from the first dawn of consciousness. It is deeper rooted than any other want. It is more insistent than any other desire. Years cannot silence it. Our desires change as the years pass by. Youth loves pleasure; manhood, achievement; old age, rest. But ever present, behind all our desires is this hereditary want, an endless aspiration, a longing for something beyond, a discontent with life as it is and a reaching out toward a good that is undefined.”

Horace Blake Williams, 1922

Close Encounters

It’s jarring when, at a dinner gathering or small social event, you encounter a mind that conceives reality in a way so utterly, radically, axiomatically alien that you cannot believe you both could possibly inhabit the same objectively existing world. This happened to me recently at a friend’s house.

The person in question — a friend of my friend’s — was a professor at a small state college. In quick succession he asserted as facts that there was no such thing as human nature; that nothing is innate or inherited; that “freedom is a myth”; that that we were already irreversibly doomed to “climate catastrophe”; that the only just society would be that which abolished the “myth” (he liked that word) of equality of opportunity, and committed itself instead to guaranteeing equality of outcomes; that complete equality of outcomes could easily be achieved by “nurturing” alone, and would require no hobbling of exceptional or talented people (because they don’t exist); that anyone could be a Newton or a Mozart — and if they couldn’t, well that doesn’t matter anyway, because if some people do seem to do better at things we value (like, presumably, physics and music), the answer is to stop valuing those things, and to value other things until everybody is equal.

There was much, much more. I could hardly get a word in edgewise; also mentioned were guns, “MAGA”, “Trump”, and “Trumpsters”. When, trying to change the subject, I mused for a moment about huge things that we had never foreseen when we were younger (thinking, in that moment, of technological changes like the Internet and social media, which have had enormous effects, and which nobody saw coming), what came back was ” like the Storming of the Capitol”.

It gave me a frisson of horror to realize that for there to be so little overlap in the most basic assumptions about the foundations of reality meant that one or the other of us must almost certainly be insane. (I can’t imagine that an actual extraterrestrial’s mind could be any more completely, incomprehensibly alien.) Not only did this man’s axioms seem to me to be utterly, demonstrably, and self-evidently at odds with the plain reality of the world, and with all of history and human experience, but they were not even consistent amongst themselves; I couldn’t conceive of a theoretical model that could splice them all together.

In social intercourse these days what strikes me, again and again, is the extent to which folks just assume that their axioms — which of course they must know are in fact highly controversial and rejected by at least half of their fellow citizens — are shared by all decent people, and so they needn’t bother with any caution about giving offense. It’s like the way that nobody in Boston takes any care not to offend visitors who might be Yankees fans — because after all, how could any decent person be a Yankees fan? There was a time in America when in casual social settings people were careful not to bring up controversial topics like religion and politics, precisely because it was more important to get along: because there was a feeling that whatever our differences about such matters might be, there was more that united us than divided us, and that it made life better for everyone, ourselves included, if we made an effort to be civil, to tolerate differences of opinion. That this is no longer the case shows that something else has come along that we think is more important: something basic, something existential: something worth hating for.

At the risk of repeating things I’ve been saying for years — I’ve been at this so long now that at this point it’s hard not to! — what’s clear above all is that every aspect of American life is now framed in terms of an unbridgeable chasm between Us and Them, and that what matters far more than finding some modus vivendi with the other side is simply to crush them, to push them out of power, to subdue and humiliate and silence them. Both sides now look at the other this way (though I will say that much of the Right would, even now, still be content simply to be left alone), and at this point I suppose they are probably right to do so: because living together as a nation requires an irreducible minimum of commonality, and of mutual tolerance, that just doesn’t seem to be there any more. We live nowadays in completely different models of moral, social, historical, philosophical, religious, and even “scientific” reality — and each team believes that for the other, obviously false, model to have its hands on the levers of power would be the end of everything good in the world.

How can we still call this a “nation”? How much longer can this go on before it all goes kablooey?