Another One Gone

I haven’t written much lately — I’ve been too busy with work and with personal matters, and frankly I haven’t had much to say. I’ve been thinking a lot about where matters stand, here in the senescent West, as this pivotal year winds down, and have been doing a lot of interesting reading — but there are times when one must pause for digestion and reflection, and to reassess what one knows and understands and believes, and this is, for me, one of those moments. At times like that it’s good to try to relax, and to let the mind’s “background threads” do their work in peace, and so I’ve been glad to concentrate on musical work for a while instead. I feel I can occupy myself far more productively at the mixing console than the writing desk just now, until some things are clearer in my mind.

I must, however, note with sadness the passing of the great conservative economist Walter Williams, who died Wednesday at the age of 84. He saw through many of the sacred delusions of our age with piercing insight, and wasn’t afraid to say so. (Here he is, for example, taking on one of the most persistent of these “progressive” pipe-dreams: minimum-wage laws as a solution for poverty.)

We will miss him.

Pro Tip

It’s possible to enjoy this world a whole lot more if you aren’t convinced it’s all there is.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Best wishes to all of you. This year has been a difficult test, and we will be tried even more severely in the months ahead, but we still have much to be thankful for. Take a breath, and focus on gratitude.

Reasonable Doubt

A commenter on our previous post asks how any intelligent person could actually be suspicious about the result of the recent election. He also mentions, in support of his confidence that the results are legitimate, that Joe Biden won the popular vote by millions of votes.

Here’s my reply:

First of all, the point about the popular vote is irrelevant: it’s the Electoral College that determines the presidency, not the great mass of voters in huge Blue population centers.

Second, the people telling us “nothing to see here” — the political operatives of the Democrat Party, and its foot-soldiers in the press — are the same ones who perpetrated the four-year operation to remove Donald Trump from office, by any means necessary. They subverted our most powerful institutions of justice, national security, and intelligence to do so. They created a truly audacious hoax, using a fraudulent opposition document paid for by the Clinton campaign, as the basis for surveillance of Mr. Trump’s campaign, legal harassment of his allies, and a relentless smear campaign in all media. When it came to light that the whole thing was a pack of lies, they insisted as one that its critics had all been taken in by a crazy conspiracy theory. To this day, we are still waiting for justice to be done. (Spoiler alert: it won’t.) At every turn, these powerful and implacable enemies of the President have done everything they can, again and again and again, to defeat, slander, and remove him from office. Anyone who questions this sustained assault is censored, cancelled, doxxed, shouted down, and excluded from polite society.

Given all that we have seen of these people, how can any intelligent person not assume that they would do everything they can to steal this election? Do we think they are too scrupulous, too dedicated to honesty and fair play? Given that they know they will get the faithful and absolute support of the press to erect a stone wall against any scrutiny, why wouldn’t they do the very best they could to prevent Donald Trump from winning a second term? We know that they have pressed constantly, in advance of the election, for everything that might undermine the security of the system. They have introduced mail-in ballots on an unprecedented scale, when voting by mail is known to be so ripe for error and abuse that it is scrupulously avoided in most other countries. They have further reduced the security of voting-by-mail by sending unrequested ballots to many millions of voters, many of whom have turned out to be dead, or no longer at their previous addresses, or use two different names, both of which were sent ballots. They have permitted “vote-harvesting”, which interrupts the vitally important chain of custody. They have resolutely resisted the most basic tool of election security — voter ID — which is such an obviously necessary measure that it is the law pretty much everywhere else on Earth. They have altered mail-ballot rules (in some cases, in clear violation of the Constitution) to weaken the security of the mail-in vote, by discarding requirement for timely receipt, for making sure that signatures match, and for ensuring that ballots are correctly filled out.

Third, there are great and gathering currents of evidence that something was very seriously amiss here, and amiss in just the places that mattered most. Taken individually, perhaps, they don’t amount to much, but taken together those currents all flow in the same direction. There is statistical evidence – from Benford’s Law anomalies to rejected mail-ballot percentages. There are obvious geographical curiosities — where, for example, the vote in adjacent red Midwestern counties separated by a state border voted in wildly different ways, despite having very similar patterns in the past. There are sworn affidavits from poll-workers explicitly testifying, under oath, to egregious malfeasance of various kinds. There is the curious fact that in places where the down-ticket Republicans did very well indeed — far outperforming 2016 — but somehow Donald Trump’s lead slipped away in the wee hours of Election Night, and in the days after. There is the refusal to admit observers (or letting them into gigantic spaces, but keeping them so far away they couldn’t see anything). There is the suspension of the vote-count in key cities in the middle of the night, so as to send the observers home, then resuming the counting in secret. There are the great tranches of Biden ballots that suddenly arrived en masse once the deficits had been reckoned — thousands and thousands of pristine ballots, perfectly marked in the little ovals with black ink, with no down-ticket candidates marked at all, just Biden. There is the discarding of large numbers of mail-in ballot envelopes, making it all but impossible to separate timely and legitimate ballots from fraudulent ones. There is the extremely shady history of the Dominion voting system, which was used in many of the swing states where Biden miraculously rose from the dead to overtake Trump by narrow margins.

Is any of this conclusive? Well, we will never know unless we do everything we can to verify the results, and unless we do everything we can — despite the howls from the media — to make sure that we count only those votes that were cast in accordance with local voting laws, and with the Constitution. No matter what happens from here, the stench of fraud is already thick enough that there are going to be many, many millions of American citizens who will have lost all faith in our system of elections. At the very least, we should try to keep that number of citizens as low as possible, and that means letting this investigation, and this contest in the courts and legislatures, play out to the end.

The damage is already done, though. After the arbitrary authoritarianism of our mayors and governors all year in dealing with both the Wuhan virus and the anarchy and violence in the streets, followed by this reeking election, our national morale is now, to a very great extent, broken beyond repair. As far as confidence in the rule of law is concerned, and trust in the Republic to honor its founding principles, 2020 will have been, probably for at least fifty to a hundred million Americans, the year they began to check out.

Let’s Get Kraken

I’ll follow on my previous post by saying that, regardless of how persuasive the statistical, anecdotal, testimonial, technological, and other indicators of election fraud may be, none of it matters unless those litigating the claims produce a coherent and consistent case, with hard evidence sufficient to convince the courts and state legislatures to alter the existing vote-counts in favor of the President, or to discard them altogether and invoke other procedures for settling the matter. We’ve been hearing a lot about soon-to-be-dropped “bombshells”, and “releasing the Kraken” — but just as with all the rest of the spectacular corruption that’s come to light over the past four years, from Hillary’s emails, to Spygate, to the revelations of the Biden family’s perfidy, nothing ever seems to come of any of it.

Time is of the essence here. Yes, we will all “hang in there”, as I exhorted us to do yesterday — it really does appear, quite overwhelmingly, that this election was anything but clean — but now would be a good time, please, for us to see some of those bombshells actually detonating, or some tentacles in the water.

Hang In There

I haven’t written for a few days, because I have nothing new to say; like all of you I am waiting to see how this election challenge plays out. We are up against titanic forces, not least of which is just the colossal, viscous mass of institutional inertia, media resistance, and partisan antipathy that stands in the way of a fair and searching inquiry into what happened. But the stench of corruption is so foul, and the evidence of strategic planning and tactical malfeasance so multifaceted, that none of us should lose heart. This isn’t over yet.

I was listening to a couple of guys from Russia today, talking about how the Russian people see this charade. The vote-counting corruption is obvious enough, but that’s no big deal; most Russians generally assume that all elections are corrupt. What Russians watching today find laughable is that the U.S., which has been swaggering around the world for decades lecturing other countries about election integrity, should have ended up presenting to a global audience this tawdry spectacle: an election so obviously tainted and insecure that even the most brazen 20th-century caudillo would have been too embarrassed to try to pass it off as legitimate.

Whatever happens next — no matter who takes the White House once the dust settles, and I have no idea who that will be once as much of the truth comes out as we can manage to uncover — half the nation is now going to think the other half stole the election. (So: interesting times ahead for the Republic.) Both sides should take an interest in reducing that uncertainty as much as possible, if only to try to preserve the peace, but only one side seems to be doing so. The other just wants us all to move along — because, you know, nothing to see here.

Meanwhile, I’m still seething over the Democrats’ sudden calls for “unity”. How dare they. After what they’ve done these past four years, and the way things are going, the only reply they are going to get from scores of millions of Americans is the one Andrew Breitbart gave.

On Serpent-Tongued Calls For “Unity”

David Harsanyi has posted a tart reply. An excerpt:

When Democrats win the presidency, we are treated to solemn calls for national restoration and political harmony, and to the expectation that, for the good of the nation, the opposition will embrace decorum and pass legislation they oppose. When Republicans win elections, grown women put on knitted hats depicting their reproductive organs and stomp around Washington protesting, all to a hero’s welcome.

Read it here.

Fair And Balanced, Cont’d

Here’s another perspective on things: Curtis Yarvin, AKA “Mencius Moldbug”, has published an essay today about the 2020 election. In it he describes himself as being “so pro-Trump, I wrap all the way around to pro-Biden.”

Yarvin makes an important point about the difference between traditional American conservatism and all forms of Leftism: subsidiarian, small-government conservatism is all about checking and distributing power – which gives it an intrinsic, permanent, and colossal disadvantage. This is inherent in the system devised by the Founders, which sought in all its forms to prevent the consolidation of power in any political official or faction, and to reserve it to state and local government. The ultimate aim — the “final cause” — of the system they devised was to maximize individual liberty, which is of course the exact opposite of imperium. But the American system has an exploitable vulnerability, which was recognized at the time of the Founding by everyone involved: without unanimity, among a virtuous civil society, as to the appropriate final cause, a faction that knew what to do and how to do it could gradually infiltrate and corrupt everything. “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”, goes the old saying. John Adams put it this way:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

No Constitution, real or imagined, can provide a suitable form for unsuitable people. The Constitution is, after all, only a piece of paper, and has no more power than any other piece of paper, save by the will and fealty of the people it purportedly governs.

Here’s Yarvin:

Progressives see power as an end; conservatives see power as a means to an end. As soon as conservatives get even a sliver of power, they start trying to use this power to create good outcomes. This is irrational.

The rational way to use power is the progressive way: to make more power. Your power grows exponentially. Eventually you have all the power, and can get all the outcomes you want.

There is not one progressive idea which does not yield a power dividend. I cannot think of a conservative idea that does. If one did, the progressives would steal it. Then the conservatives would persuade themselves to oppose it, and all would be well.

This is not a coincidence. The great flaw of the American right is that, besides not being able to get any real power, they do not want any real power, and have no idea what they would do with any real power.

From later in the essay, here are a few words about the result (if result it should turn out to be, once the appeals are over):

Accelerationists who voted for China Joe will be disappointed. Nothing will speed up. All the gas in the regime’s tank is coming from Trump. As soon as Trump is out, the panzer death sportscar custom-built to guzzle his pure octane will sputter to a crawl.

Once as the Trump administration is over, no one has anything to fear or hate. No threat could ever be as exciting as the racist rapist in the White House. No Malibu hausfrau will ever again feel like she is in the French Resistance. After Prohibition, breweries could still sell nonalcoholic beer. This is journalism after Trump.

Why was I pro-Biden? Because I longed to see my enemies cast out into the cold, uncaring wind of poverty and despair. Why were you pro-Trump? Because you loved seeing your enemies grow huge and fat and hard? I like to win. I hate to get owned. How about you, my based friend?

By March or April, America’s ruling class will feel like Hunter Biden on a Tuesday morning. Hunter reflects. He knows he left his pipe somewhere. He’s not sure where. What he knows is that this world, which as recently as mimosa brunch on Sunday was still burning with the rainbow fire of a hundred suns exploding in H-bomb supernova pornstar orgasms while galaxies collide, is an ugly, boring place. A sterile promontory. A foul and pestilent congregation of vapors… also, something sticky is stuck to his ass. He’ll get to it in a minute… oh, man…

For four years, the regime is stuck with a spokesmodel who combines the charisma of Leonid Brezhnev with the probity of Willie Brown. China Joe is getting no younger. His circuits already wrestle visibly with every solar flare. He did bring a backup unit, who has the charisma of Linda Blair and was once the protegée of Willie Brown. Is God supposed to hand us something better?

Take the time to read the whole thing, here.

Fair And Balanced

My last couple of posts have been, to put it mildly, a tad heated. It has been a bitter year in our cold civil war, and the counting of the votes in our recent election has been unlike anything we’ve ever seen before — in large part due to newly (and in many cases it seems fair to say unconstitutionally) adopted changes in voting procedures. Those new procedures have provided unprecedented opportunities for electoral monkeyshines, hijinks, hanky-panky, chicanery, jiggery-pokery, and general mischief, and it seems to a great many of us that such things have indeed happened on a scale that would tip the balance in key states and races.

I’m strongly of the mind that this seems very likely indeed, and I have expressed my heated vexation in these pages, followed by lively discussions in the comment-threads. I would hate, however, to be guilty of the same suppression of dissenting viewpoints as our cultural overlords, so here is a piece by Anatoly Karlin, a familiar voice to many on the Right, arguing that accusations of game-changing fraud in this election are overblown.

Mr. Karlin’s essay has a lively comment-thread of its own. Feel free to comment here as well.

Earthquake Weather

Rage is building in America as the audacious manipulation of this election, and the naked complicity of the media, become more and more self-evident (the major networks cut away from the President of the United States today as he was making remarks at the White House).

This cannot stand. The historic American nation has watched, in stony silence, the tantrums and vandalism of the spoiled and petulant Left all summer long. That mischief will be nothing — nothing at all — compared with the incandescent wrath of these scores of millions of patient and long-suffering patriots once they are roused, at last, to abandon their faith in the sacred rules, procedures, and limits that have sustained this great Republic in ordered liberty for centuries. They have been reviled, insulted, and sneered at long enough, and their patience is almost at an end. The air is charged with electricity; even the calmest and sanest among us can feel its terrible potential tingling and prickling their skin. If this election is indeed stolen in plain sight, a terrible storm will break upon the land. There is still a chance to avoid it, I think, but it is rapidly slipping away.

Kipling:

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

Dum Spiro, Spero

And here we are: a closely contested election, which will now drag on for days or weeks and likely be resolved in the courts. (There appears to have been no shortage of electoral shenanigans and monkeyshines, exactly as we feared.)

This certainly isn’t what we’d hoped for: if President Trump prevails by superior lawyering, the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) will spend the next four years hounding him for having “stolen the election”. If, on the other hand, he cannot make his case, then we get the doddering and moribund mediocrity Biden for a brief interregnum before the miraculous ascension of Kamala Harris — a woman who was so massively unpopular during the primary campaign that she dropped out before any votes were even cast — to the Oval Office. The question of Mr. Biden’s obvious corruption will be broomed into oblivion by the incoming DOJ, sure to be headed by someone like Keith Ellison, and a compliant press. Likewise, whatever the current DOJ has in train regarding the disgusting Spygate scandal will be smothered and disposed of as swiftly, and permanently, as possible.

But it isn’t over yet. Say what you will about Donald Trump, he’s a fighter, and he’s a winner. Enough states are still in play to give him a chance, and he may still pull this thing off. As Churchill said in far darker times:

“You cannot tell from appearances how things will go. Sometimes imagination makes things out far worse than they are; yet without imagination not much can be done. Those people who are imaginative see many more dangers than perhaps exist; certainly many more than will happen; but then they must also pray to be given that extra courage to carry this far-reaching imagination. But for everyone, surely, what we have gone through in this period … this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

And let’s hope that, even if against all hope we lose the White House, we can at least hold the Senate. If not, there will only be the Court standing between what remains of the America of the first 232 years and the fever dreams of the Squad. It will not be pretty. But with the Senate still in our hands, we can still prevent a great deal of damage.

So: let’s keep our spirits up. Where there’s life, there’s hope.

The Locust Years

I am chastened by the discussion in the previous posts. (See here and here.) All I had sought to do in my original remarks was to point out the natural advantages of cohesion, compact unity, patriotism, faith, competence, and positive worldview that Red America has over Blue, and to suggest that whatever happens next, we have at least those assets to give us hope. The response was that those things aren’t nearly enough without effective organization, which we have failed to create. I must agree that this is a fair critique, and that the matter is becoming urgent.

Along with other historically literate voices on the Right, I have been predicting this calamitous state of affairs in America — this disintegration of national unity, and descent into ruinous civil strife — for many years now. In the early days I took a lot of heat for my alarmism. It would proceed “gradually, then suddenly”, I warned, and so it has — and now it is, suddenly, obvious to all that the crisis is upon us.

It is in the nature of the conservative people of the Anglosphere, despite their capacity for lethal fury when aroused at last, to prefer a quiet and local life until they no longer have any choice. (The old English saying “Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you!” sums this up neatly.) The runup to World War II was a perfect example: even as it became clearer and clearer, during the 1920s and ’30s, that Germany was intent on diabolical mischief that would affect the security of all of Europe, the British, still in shock from the maiming of Europe in the First World War, clung desperately, and naively, to hopes of peace. Winston Churchill, who was the only prominent man in all of England to sound the alarm — and who was excommunicated from political life for it — would later refer to this period of squandered opportunity as “the years the locusts have eaten”.

And so it has been for us: for at least the last sixty years, a poisonous, corrosive ideology has made its long march through our institutions. The Marxist rebels of the 1960s assimilated themselves into every corner of our academies, media, and government, and made it their top priority to take charge of the education of our children. What they sowed so patiently for so long has now produced its bitter harvest. When Barack Obama promised, in 2008, that his election would herald the fundamental transformation of America”, he wasn’t kidding. (A lesson that we never seem to learn is this: when these people tell you what they intend to do, you should believe them.)

My own shortcoming in all of this is that I am only, by nature, an observer, and a reader of history, and all that I have offered all these years is a warning, a diagnosis. Seven years ago I wrote about what I called “Cultural Immunodeficiency”, an AIDS-like condition that prevented the West from mounting a natural defense against pathogens that threatened its survival; in the intervening years its effects have brought our civilization almost to its deathbed.

Can we now mount a reaction? The election of Donald Trump four years ago, and the massive outpouring of support he has awakened this time around, are heartening signs, but our national illness is now very far advanced. If we had sensed the urgency twenty years ago, we might perhaps have prevented the current crisis — but we didn’t, and it’s no use crying about it.

So: although the point of my original post was to focus on the positive, and to remind us of our natural assets, I think our commenters are quite right: something must be done, and it has to begin now. As I write, merchants in cities everywhere in America are boarding up their properties, knowing that if the Party of Love and Inclusion loses the election, its brownshirts will embark on a vengeful and destructive rampage. The era of comity and national unity in America is over, and we must face this horrifying truth without further delay. A resounding Trump victory tomorrow will, perhaps, buy us a few years without the government itself wielding its crushing power against us; if so, that’s a blessing, but we must not be lulled into feeding more years to the locusts. It is already evident that 2016 was the last “normal” election in America; from now on, nothing is ever going to be “normal” again, not for a very long time.

The message of our commenters “vxxc” and JK is simple: ORGANIZE. The Left has been doing this energetically for decades, while the rest of us coasted along thinking that, having “organized” in 1776 and 1787, we needn’t bother now. How to do this is not my area of expertise, but there are a very great number of patriots — ex-military people, in particular — who can help. I do know that it will, almost necessarily, have to begin locally: as the Framers understood, a “well regulated militia” is “necessary for the security of a free State”.

It grieves me to write this post, but history teaches us that collapse can happen here — it can happen anywhere, and indeed, given enough time, it inevitably does. As much as I hate to say it, it appears to be happening here today. I will confess that all along, even as I saw the diagnostic markers of national disintegration and civil war piling up all these years, I’d hoped that it might simply be a passing spasm of cultural madness, and that as the so-called “progressives” moved farther and farther Left, they would gradually peel off adherents until they marginalized themselves. Some of that has indeed happened — the seismic support for Trump this year is evidence of that — but at this point, with our political system and civil society breaking down before our eyes, a purely political solution may no longer be enough. We may very well have crossed the event horizon, and if so, we are headed for the singularity. Whether or not this is now inevitable — and I still hope it isn’t, as civil war is nothing to wish for — it behooves us to be prepared for what had, just a few years ago, seemed almost unimaginable. As depressing as the prospect of continuing collapse may be, we should begin to hedge our bets.

Red America, Cont’d

A lively discussion has ensued in the comment-thread to our previous post. Commenter “vxxc” argues that my assessment of the natural assets of the Red coalition is too optimistic: that our lack, so far, of functional organization puts us at a lethal disadvantage in the gathering struggle. I, on the other hand, think this is too dark a prognosis.

Often I promote these discussions to a new post of their own, but I’d like to keep this thread intact. The conversation continues here.

Red America: A More Perfect Union

The political situation is like nothing I have ever seen in my longish lifetime; as I wrote a little while ago, we are no longer a single community disagreeing about the difficulties of the world we share, but rather two bitterly antagonistic camps inhabiting utterly different realities of belief and perception, with nothing objective in common save the physical reality of a geographical land-mass. What is even more dispiriting is that the cleavage plane between these two realities cuts right through friendships and families — including my own. It is simply baffling to me that anyone could look at what the Democrats have become, let alone the candidates they have put forward for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, and seek to hand them the levers of power; but at home in Brooklyn and Cape Cod, and in the musical community I have spent my adult life living and working amongst, that sentiment is not only predominant, but is promoted with fiery and bellicose malevolence. It’s just a thing I have to live with, but doing so is neither easy nor pleasant. I console myself with the hope that the hydra-headed monster will be set back, next Tuesday, for another two years at least, and maybe even four: the woeful deficiencies of the Biden/Harris ticket, the balefully destructive folly of their platform, and the fantastic outpourings of enthusiasm and optimism that Mr. Trump creates everywhere he goes, stand in glaring contrast to what the pollsters tell us. I think we will win.

If we don’t win, though, here’s something to keep in mind: the American Remnant has a natural advantage over the Left, one that will help us endure as we become the Resistance.

What is that advantage? It is that, in sharp contrast to the Bioleninist coalition of the Left, the American community that brought Trump to power, and that will persist even in defeat, is remarkably monolithic. It has deep roots in not only American, but Western, cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions — traditions, such as the intrinsic worth of the individual, the paramount importance of liberty and property, and the belief that there are natural rights that flow from Man’s creation in the image of God, that are shared, with very little disagreement, by everyone who is about to vote for Trump in the coming election. The basis of the Left’s coalition, on the other hand, is little more than a tallying-up, or adoption by proxy, of grievances — sullen resentments that arise from one’s membership in this or that victim-group. To see life only through this lens is to externalize the most important aspects of one’s existence — while the essential precept of the Red philosophy is, by focusing on liberty and “negative” rights, to internalize the essential ingredients of happiness. For Donald Trump’s cheerful legions of supporters, what matters most in life is not the action of external forces, or what the government can do for you (including by hampering others!), but rather what one can build for oneself, by the virtuous action of industry, provision for the future, and moral self-restraint. Because of this deep commonality and relative lack of faction, the Red nation will be able to form, in opposition, a compact and durable unity.

The zero-sum political philosophy of the Blue coalition, in combination with its being a stitched-together assortment of jealous interest groups, means that as soon as the enemy — us! — is defeated, the ideology of grievance has nowhere to turn but inward. As I have noted since at least 2014, grievance is fractal: once you get in the habit of it, it can operate at every scale. As soon as there is no longer a Trump to rail against, the Left’s myriad factions will simply begin bickering among themselves. They will hardly sheath their knives before they draw them again — this time against each other.

As I said above, I do not expect us to lose this election! I think the enthusiastic multitudes we have seen everywhere in America these past few weeks will carry the day. But even if we do, we should not lose heart. Yes, we should expect Blue to consolidate its power as swiftly and ruthlessly as it can, but even in defeat we will enjoy a solidarity that will make our bondage less oppressive. Meanwhile, the fissile nature of the victorious coalition should make cohesion impossible, and present a variety of exploitable weaknesses.

Service Notice

Today I saw my shoulder surgeon, Dr. Laith Jazrawi of Langone Orthopaedics, for my six-week post-op followup. The result was gratifying: everything is fine, with impressive progress toward full range of motion, and I no longer have to wear that bloody sling. I am also cleared to drive again, which is enormously liberating.

I’m able to use the computer now without significant discomfort, so I no longer have any excuse for the thin content around here, other than having had, lately, few original thoughts to express. But “few” is not “none”, and I do have some jottings to set down. Back shortly.

La Différence

I’ve just read a pithy and sensible article at Quilette on the subject of psychological and behavioral sex differences. The essay was written by David Geary, a professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, and it disputes the social-sciences orthodoxy that sees all such differences as social constructions, remediable (as if remediation were actually a thing to be desired) by aggressive early-childhood intervention by pious busybodies. (As I have noted elsewhere, those who seek to eliminate all such differences are accelerants to the destructive action of entropy against the natural order — and that which promotes and assists entropy can justifiably be considered “bad”.)

Professor Geary notes that the idea that these sex differences in humans are mere cultural artifacts must account for the fact that they seem to occur not only in all human cultures (I’ll note that they are mentioned in Donald Brown’s tally of human universals), but also in many other species as well. That males are more competitive and “agentic” is a deep adaptation to male superfluity in reproduction, whereas females constitute a limited (and limiting) resource. (The essay mentions rats, chimps, kangaroos, seals, and sheep as documented examples.)

Professor Geary concludes:

As far as I know, there are no gender role beliefs in any of these species and yet their young engage in sex-typical behaviors that presage reproductive activities in adulthood. Early engagement in these behaviors helps the young to prepare for the sex-specific rigors of adulthood, including more agentic activities for males and more communal ones for females.

As with these myriad species, children create their own worlds based in part on the sex-typed demands faced by our ancestors. These demands included a higher frequency of agentic activities of our male ancestors—including male-on-male violence to achieve social influence and resource control—and a higher frequency of communal activities of our female ancestors. As in other species, the influence of prenatal and early postnatal exposure to sex hormones results in biases in children’s agentic (e.g., play fighting) and communal (e.g., play parenting) play and the associated behaviors and skills are refined as children develop in same-sex communities with their peers.

As any parent knows, these sex differences are not the consequence of a parental imposition of stereotyped expectations on children. Nor can these differences be immutably altered by the edicts of gender role theorists or policy scolds working in central governments.

Read the whole thing here.

The Camel’s Nose

It is notable that the Biden campaign hasn’t denied the veracity of the material taken from Hunter Biden’s laptop, even though it appears to be damning indeed.

To the cynical observer this suggests what we’ve suspected all along: that the senescent and ineradicably tainted Biden is simply a Trojan horse intended to get the most reliably left-wing member of the Senate — Kamala Harris — into the Oval Office.

What’s needed to make the plan work, of course, is a reliable way to get old Joe out of the way once the election’s been won. To this end we have already seen the Democrats making arrangements for a 25th Amendment committee to deal with Biden once he’s in. But now, as insurance, all that’s needed is to keep the laptop scandal smoldering until after Inauguration Day, at which point the Dems can allow it to burst into flame — after which they will sorrowfully take Old Yeller out behind the barn.

The American Multiverse

What an extraordinary time in American history this is. We are bifurcated, not into opposing political camps as in normal times, but into opposing realities.

The developing story of Biden-family corruption is, in one of these dimensions of reality, evidence of disgraceful, comprehensive political and moral malfeasance that should utterly, and obviously, disqualify the Democratic candidate for any public office. In that same dimension of reality, the broadening revelations of the Obama administration’s abuse of power, with the media’s eager complicity, disclose the darkest political scandal in living memory. On top of all that, the Left’s religious anti-American zeal — their hatred of the American nation as founded, of the people who created and sustained it for centuries, of the traditional American culture and mythos, and even of the very notion of a common culture itself — constitutes an existential threat to the United States, and to the ordered liberty under the rule of law that it was created to cherish and defend.

In the other dimension of reality, the evidence of the Biden family’s corruption, and that of the previous administration, are non-stories: despite everything that has been revealed, they are nothing more than hostile propaganda. The real evil is Donald Trump, his deplorable supporters in their scores of millions, and the toxic forms, ideals, beliefs, and traditions they hold dear. It is the Trump administration that stands in clear violation of the political and moral order.

Inhabitants of both dimensions will say that they are patriots who love America. The difference is that one side loves America for what it is and was, while the other side will tell you that what they love is the possibility for America to renounce and reject what it is and was — because what it is and was is irredeemably evil — and to become something utterly new.

All of this would be bad enough if the two dimensions existed in truly separate realities. But the dimensions are only partially distinct, and what makes this an existential crisis, rather than a curiosity of political or cultural metaphysics, is that the inhabitants of these dimensions actually share some tangible realities: the physical territory of the United States, and its existing political system. So widely have the two dimensions diverged that each side can hardly imagine how the other can believe its own dimension actually constitutes any sort of reality at all; each believes that it is urgently necessary that the dimension they inhabit be recognized as the real world, lest we fall into a collective abyss — not only of political and cultural insanity, but also moral degeneracy. Each believes that it is locked in mortal combat with an army of devils. And a great battle looms, just a fortnight away.

As bad as 2020 has been so far, soon it may very well seem to have been the “good old days”. Plan accordingly.

On The Toxic Appeal Of Wokeness

From a sharp new item by Andrew Sullivan:

What antiracism brilliantly does is adopt all the instincts of racism and sexism — seeing someone and instantly judging them by the color of their skin, or sex — and drape them with a veil of virtue.

Also this:

Many moderns want the experience of religion without God. With [Critical Race Theory], as in the past with communism, they can have it.

Well, right. Read the whole thing here.

The 1619 Project: Fracture At the Times

Here is a scorching critique of the New York Times’ calumnious “1619 Project”, from one of its own.

The Inverted Monarchy

My latest, about the modern-day sanctification of democracy as an end in itself, is up at American Greatness. Have a look.

How This Works

From the Perry Bible Fellowship, a timely and essential truth:

Mending

Sorry to have been so neglectful here. I’m recovering normally, but am still supposed to keep use of my right arm to a minimum for another week or two, and am living in a sling. Typing is slow and uncomfortable.

Meanwhile the lovely Nina had surgery yesterday to remove a basal-cell carcinoma from the bridge of her nose, which required a large and painful incision and many sutures. So we are both a little under the weather; our small apartment in Brooklyn, where we are stuck for a few weeks, is like a hospital ward.

I’ll get back to writing ere long. (God knows, there’s a lot to comment on!) I may also have a new essay up soon at American Greatness; I will post a link if that happens.

Meanwhile, keep your peckers up. These are grim times — and with yesterday’s news about the Trumps having tested positive for the Wuhan Red Death, they may get very much grimmer indeed — but we must keep buggering on.

Thanks very much to those who have written me over the past couple of weeks. Back soon.

Service Notice

Shoulder surgery tomorrow, 9/14. I’m glad to be getting it done, but my right arm’s going to be in a sling for six weeks, so it’s going to be hard to write. Back when I can.

Update, typed with left hand only, Monday 7 pm: All done. Supine and resting at home, generously medicated and waiting for nerve-block to wear off. Thanks to all for your supportive comments, messages, and emails.

What’s Going On

I want to apologize to all of you who have been coming here over the past few months only to find little or no new content. I’ve written three articles this summer for publication elsewhere, but since my excruciating shoulder injury in July I’ve badly neglected the blog.

Since 2005 I’ve written over five thousand posts here; as my own views and focus have changed, the content of this site has changed from a breezy potpourri, sprinkled with posts about evolution, martial arts, and philosophy of mind, to a darker concentration on the long currents and cycles of history, religion, society, culture, political philosophy, and human diversity that make civilizations rise and fall, and that are making this one fall before our eyes.

In particular I’ve been gnawing for years now at the nature of the American Founding, and wondering whether the grave illness now threatening to put an end to that noble experiment is due to something “baked into” its originating principles, or to a failure to respect them and adhere to them.

In a post two years ago (one that prompted a stimulating exchange with the conservative writer Michael Anton) I wrote that I was “dogged by the question of just where things went off the rails in the West.” (See the linked series of posts here.)

Central to that question is this one: is the decay we see all around us in the early 21st century a result of the principles the American system was built upon, or did it occur in spite of them?

Every social system sturdy enough to achieve maturity faces this question when it reaches, sooner or later, a crisis of doubt and exhaustion. When this happens, there will always arise two factions in bitter opposition. One believes that the problem lies in laxity and infidelity regarding founding principles; the other calls into question the principles themselves. One side will argue that radical change has been foolish and destructive, and will call for a doubling down on original principles; the other will say that those principles are (at best) obsolete, and that the only way out is to double down on change itself. The pattern has repeated itself throughout history in nearly every complex human system, whether political, social, or religious — and in these last years it has brought the United States to the brink of civil war.

In the United States of 2018, the debate is almost entirely between a Left faction that calls for radical and accelerating change, and a Right that seeks a return to strict Constitutionalism, States’ rights, meritocracy, border control, diminution of Federal power, demographic stability, and individual liberty — in general, what today’s academic jargon would call a “re-centering” of the philosophy of the Founders. Listen to any of the prominent voices on the Right — whether it’s the Claremont or Hoover Institutes, or National Review, or Thomas Sowell, or the late Charles Krauthammer, or media personalities like Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh — and what you will hear is that the nation’s problem is that it has lost touch with the Enlightenment principles enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; with the philosophy of Locke and Hume and Montesquieu and Jefferson and Franklin and Madison.

There is a solid argument to be made that the blame here should indeed be laid upon “laxity and infidelity regarding founding principles”. Mr. Anton himself is a strong proponent of this view, whose primary intellectual bastions are the Claremont organization and Hillsdale College. Two recent books defending this position stand out, in my opinion: The Political Theory of the American Founding, by Thomas West, and America on Trial: A Defense of the Founding, by Robert Reilly, which I am currently reading.

Related to all of this is the question of religious faith, and of the existence of God. A central problem, as I see it, is whether the natural-law underpinnings of the Founding are strong enough to hold up the Western (and particularly the American) edifice without reliance upon belief in God. Although Thomas West works hard in his book to shore them up with arguments built upon reason alone, even he acknowledges at the end of his summation that none of the arguments he presents suffice on their own. As I’ve moved away, over the years, from the “scientistic” atheism of my youth, I’ve come to the opinion that secularism is deeply maladaptive for human groups (see this post from eleven years ago, when I was still far less open to the possible existence of God than I am now). John Adams wrote that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I have had very little doubt for years now that he was right about this, even if the natural-law assumptions underlying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are left unexamined by most people, and usually glossed over even by intelligent, secular Americans. How many Americans, after all, burrow down to the philosophical roots of why the rule of law is itself good or just, or precisely how we can know that justice itself should depend on assumptions of absolute equality before the law? (Bear in mind that we already qualify this latter principle when defendants are on trial, for example by considering profoundly defective intelligence, and other questions of mental competence.)

Robert Reilly’s book brings exactly these questions sharply into focus, and in doing so identifies just what is at the heart of the struggle we see playing out in America’s culture (and in its streets) today. It is the conflict between two models of Creation itself, and the nature of Man. The first model is one in which reason and comprehensible order are primary, meaning that God’s creation — Logos — is a book that rational Man, himself created in the image of God, may read and be guided by. The second is a world created entirely by Will, in which there is no objective order, only whatever state of affairs God decrees from moment to moment. The terrible danger in this latter model is that if God is taken away, all that is left is the will of Man. The law, shorn of its transcendent origin in the rational mind of God, is simply whatever the sovereign says it is. What is good, what is just, even what is real — all of these things, unmoored from everything save human will, become nothing more than prizes of power. How can a constitutional order possibly survive in such conditions?

That second model is not new; even in Christendom it has been afoot since Ockham, and then Luther. But until our era it was checked, in part at least, by faith in the benevolence of God’s Will to maintain the Good. When faith in God dies, though, and belief in God becomes belief in Man, there is at last no restraint on the temptation of Man’s will to absolute power — and because that absolute power includes not only temporal sovereignty, but even the radical power to define what is good and what is just, the last check, that of conscience itself, vanishes as well. Everything, at last, is rendered unto Caesar.

So this is what I’ve been brooding about as I’ve watched the cities burn, and as all the natural categories and self-evident truths that have guided the nation since the Founding have been thrown on the pyre. Regardless of whether the Founding itself contained intrinsically fatal liabilities, it is clear, I think, that as we lose our belief in a transcendent foundation for natural law all becomes mere Will, and that under such a regime, the American nation as founded — or anything that would have been recognizable as America to anyone born before 1975 or so — cannot long endure. That may not bother some of my friends out there on the Nietzschean Right (you know who you are) but all I can say is: be careful what you wish for.

Masks

In an article a few weeks ago at American Greatness I wrote about the dark effect of mask-wearing:

The face we present to the world is our “sigil,” our flag of individual distinctness. Our faces, and the richness of expression they make possible, are the primary medium of interpersonal communication. [The old expression “Smile when you say that!” shows that what we say with our faces trumps the words we use.] They are the book from which others instinctively read our characters, our thoughts, and our moods. To “show one’s face” is the most basic act of participation in civil society; to “lose face” is always and everywhere painful and humiliating. When we face one another we connect as social beings; there is a reason why popular social media and communications platforms have names like Facebook and Facetime. Moreover, why do fundamentalist Muslims insist upon covering the faces of their women? It is precisely to prevent this connection, this humanizing and socializing interaction. It is a means of possession, of control.

Now, like the burqa-clad women of the Dar al-Islam, we all must cover our faces, except in the isolation of our homes. The effect of this is powerfully leveling and atomizing; it works in an insidious way to break down the horizontal ligatures that bind us together as a society. And as we sit unemployed at home, awaiting our relief checks, the result is an increasing deflection of all social connections from the horizontal to the vertical: away from the people around us, and toward the sovereign power above us, from which all blessings increasingly flow.

In this way, with every faceless and “socially distant” passerby now a potential carrier of pestilence, attraction gives way to repulsion. We see fewer and fewer people in person, and keep more and more to ourselves, until it all begins to feel normal. We have lost another essential feature of American life: the richly rewarding human experience of being a distinctive and self-reliant member of an organic and multidimensional civil society.

All of this — for what? For nothing, argues Daniel Horowitz. Here.

Buckle Up

The election is two months away. I don’t get the sense, from most people, that they have any inkling of what a catastrophe it’s going to be. But if you think it’s been a crazy year so far, the period after Election Day is going to make the first ten months of 2020 look like 1955.

There are four possible outcomes: close wins for either Biden or Trump, or lopsided victory for one side or the other. Only one of these — a Biden landslide — might defer a slide into chaos for a little while. Unless there is voter fraud on a truly massive scale, however, there will not be a Biden landslide, and in any other scenario the election will be bitterly contested (the word “bitterly” hardly conveys the fury we will see) in the days and weeks following November 3rd. It could easily be, for the United States, the fatal crisis that we all seem — even now! — to think “can’t happen here”.

To get a sense of what preparations are already being made to resist a Trump reelection, have a look at this alarming essay by Michael Anton. Or you might listen to the latest of John Batchelor’s brief podcasts with Michael Vlahos (which is in two parts, here and here).

Critical Mass

I’ve just posted an adaptation of my old (2013) “Small World” essay at American Greatness. Here.

The Flight 93 Election, Only More So

Essential reading: Michael Anton explains, more persuasively than I’ve read anywhere else, why we must have a Trump win in 2020. You may not fully understand the scope of the calamity that awaits us if the Democrats consolidate their power; read his essay and you will.

Here.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Here’s the latest collaborative video from my Star Island music team: a lighthearted cover of another Beatles classic. (You can see our others here.)

Lead and background vocals, some bass guitar, and mixing: your humble correspondent.

 

Dog Days

Our August hiatus continues. I’m a little hampered by the painful shoulder (broke a toe yesterday as well), and there have been the usual distractions of this late-summer season. (There’s a lot going on in the world, as always, but I’m taking a little break.)

What time I’ve had for writing I’ve been using to rework my old Small World post — about human societies and the ideal gas laws — for publication elsewhere. (The idea still seems to me to be a useful metaphor, and I’ll be glad to offer it to a wider audience.) It should be up soon, and I’ll post a link here when it is.

I’m heading for surgery on the shoulder on September 14th, so I’ll probably be out of commission for a while after that as well. I’ll be glad to start getting back to normal — if “normal” is even possible any more — after that.

Meanwhile, have a look at this sobering article by Christopher Caldwell over at CRB. If you think all we of the “silent majority” need to do to regain the ground we’ve lost is to stop letting ourselves be bullied by this abusive culture, think again: we have, in our unwisdom, erected formidable legal obstacles as well over the past few decades. We’ve really got ourselves into a bit of a pickle.

The Singularity Is Near

I’ve a new essay up at American Greatness on the prospect of civil war. Have a look here.

Service Notice

Sorry, readers, for the quiet around here. (August is always a bit of a hiatus for the blog.) I’ve been back and forth to NYC to get the shoulder looked at (will head back for surgery in a few weeks), and have been distracted in other ways as well. I’ve also been working on some longer-form posts for American Greatness, which has diverted my attention from my duties here.

Service Notice

Off to NYC for a couple of days to have the shoulder looked at. Back soon.

Update, 8/4:
Surgery it is; seems I tore it up as badly as I had feared. September, most likely.

What We’ve Lost

I had a post ready to go here yesterday, but I sent it off to American Greatness and they picked it up, so I’ll ask you to read it there.

Note: a disclaimer about the reality of the pandemic didn’t make the final cut. I’ll I’ll post the unedited, and possibly slightly revised, version here tomorrow.

Update, 7/31: Here’s the article as submitted to AG:

 

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

 

Here we are, a little over halfway through 2020. Events have moved so quickly that most people can hardly keep up, and are simply coping as best they can. More has changed in these past few months than at any other moment in our lifetimes, and many things that would have seemed unimaginable just a year ago have come to pass. 2020 has ratcheted us into an entirely new world  —  and it is in the nature of ratchets that they don’t move in reverse. Let’s survey the damage.

China, rocked back on its heels by America’s having stood up at long last to its cheating and bullying, released a plague upon the world. (Whether the outbreak was planned or not, it is clear that the CCP intentionally suppressed warnings about it, and allowed it to spread around the globe. What better way to smash its enemies, America in particular, than to destroy their economies?)

The result over here was an immune response that nearly killed the patient. (It may yet.) A drastic quarantine was imposed upon the nation, and a roaring economy bludgeoned to its knees. Unemployment, which had been at the lowest levels in half a century (and for blacks and Hispanics, the lowest ever recorded) soared to Depression-era levels. Hundreds of thousands of small businesses failed.

Governors and mayors imposed this quarantine, severely restricting commerce and assembly, entirely at their whim. The determination of “essential” businesses and activities  —  which, for many smaller enterprises, meant the difference between life and death  —  was glaringly, often contemptuously, capricious.

Nietzsche famously defined happiness as “the feeling that power increases — that resistance is being overcome.” In politics, war, and international affairs, the temptation to see what you can get away with is always there, and times of crisis provide the ideal opportunity. (So well does this work that the cleverest and most ambitious will find a way to create a crisis if events fail to provide one.)

For many governors and legislators — in particular those Blue politicians and political strategists who, in this critical election year, felt themselves losing ground as the Trump-era economic boom continued  —  the “Wuhan Red Death” was a gift from heaven. Everyone knows that a good economy favors incumbents, and that hard times favor an expanded and maternal State  —  and so the sudden appearance of this pestilence was an astonishing stroke of luck, a kind of <em>deus ex machina</em>. Opportunities to seize emergency powers are as rare as Willie Wonka’s Golden Ticket; usually one has to start a war, or burn down a parliamentary headquarters, to create them. Yet here was just such an opportunity, tied up with a bow and stamped “Made In China”. Our overlords lost no time.

Think of what we’ve lost:

—  Professional,  amateur, college and high-school sports, as well as youth athletic leagues: gone. (Yes, there is some baseball now, but in empty stadiums  —  and the prospects for football, basketball, etc. are dim.)

—  The schools are all closed. This means in turn that parents who depend on the schools to look after their children during working hours cannot return to the workforce.

—  The entire movie industry: gone.

—  Theater: gone.

—  Concerts: gone.

—  Summer camps: gone.

—  Bars: gone. (Here in Massachusetts, they will be closed until there is a vaccine, which for many, if not most, is a death sentence.)

—  Restaurants: either closed, or operating under draconian restrictions. Many places still do not allow indoor dining, and those that do permit it only at reduced capacity. The restaurant business has thin margins under the best of circumstances, and you can be quite sure that nearly all restaurants are currently losing money.

—  Travel: decimated. (This includes hotels, car rentals, etc.)

—  Public gatherings: churches, parties, funerals, weddings, reunions, school commencements, club meetings, cookouts, marathons, and so on: gone.

That’s only a partial reckoning  —  but what a list it is! If one were asked, a year ago, to name the things that make up ordinary civic life in America, it would have been, more or less, the same list. All gone. (A year ago, could we have imagined a New York or Boston without an open bar? But here we are.) Meanwhile our governors, giddy with power, decide for us daily what we can or cannot do  —  our basic right “peaceably to assemble” notwithstanding. Jog by yourself on a beach? Attend an outdoor funeral? You’ll be arrested. Form a mob of thousands and crowd the streets to bray about an officially sanctioned political grievance? By all means, please proceed.

Flourishing societies strike a healthy balance between rights and privileges. When either grows too much at the expense of the other, a nation declines: on the one hand toward impotent mediocrity, on the other into tyranny.

The rights in question here are not “negative” rights, of the sort found in the Constitution, which boil down to particular variants of a more general right not to be interfered with by the government, but rather positive rights — rights to goods that require expense and effort to provide — which necessarily involve a positive compulsion on someone’s part to provide them, effectively indenturing one segment of society to another. As more and more of these goods become mere entitlements, rather than rewards to be earned by productive labor, the burden upon the productive segment of society increases, even as that segment dwindles — and the nation sags toward impotent mediocrity.

Privileges, on the other hand, are by definition blessings bestowed by those in power. It is always and everywhere a hallmark of tyranny that all rights, even negative rights, become privileges, granted or withheld according to the interests of the powerful. That’s exactly what’s happening here: our supposedly inalienable rights to assemble, to do business, to worship in church, etc., have abruptly, and with no discernable process of public consent, become privileges. That is no longer the rule of law; it is the rule of men.

But this is not the only erosion of the rule of law we have seen in 2020. While millions of working Americans have, by decree, been forced to abandon their jobs and businesses, the streets of major cities have been taken over, with the compliant approval of mayors and governors, by angry anarchist mobs. These mobs have destroyed and defaced both public and private property, have terrorized citizens and repeatedly assaulted the police, and have committed crimes ranging from vandalism to looting to arson to murder. The police have tried bravely to maintain order, but have so far been overwhelmed  —  and in many cases even told to stand down as the rioters went about their business. Meanwhile the police have been consistently vilified and slandered as racist brutes, and in many of the cities where the rioting has been the most dangerous, politicians have pledged to reduce funding for their police departments, or eliminate them altogether.

So: with supposedly rights-bearing citizens commanded by fiat to stay home and shutter their businesses, violent mobs running wild in the cities, and the police under withering assault not only from the mobs they face, but also from a hostile press and their own mayors and city councils, we can add “rule of law” to the list of things we have lost in 2020.

Here’s another thing we’ve surrendered: our faces. The face we present to the world is our “sigil”, our flag of individual distinctness. More than simply that, though, our faces, and the richness of expression they make possible, are a primary medium of interpersonal communication. They are the book in which others naturally and instinctively read our characters, our thoughts, and our moods. To “show one’s face” is the most basic act of participation in civil society; to “lose face” is always and everywhere painful and humiliating. When we “face” one another we connect and interlock as social beings; there is a reason why popular “social”-media platforms have names like Facebook and Facetime. Why do fundamentalist Muslims insist upon covering the faces of their women? It is precisely to prevent this connection, this humanizing and socializing interaction. It is a means of possession, of control.

Now, like the burqa-clad women of the Dar al-Islam, we all must cover our faces, except in the isolation of our homes. The effect of this is powerfully levelling and atomizing; it works in an insidious way to break down the horizontal ligatures that bind us together as a society. And as we sit unemployed at home, awaiting our relief checks, the result is an increasing deflection of all social connections from the horizontal to the vertical: away from the people around us, and toward the sovereign power above us  —  from which all blessings increasingly must flow. In this way, with every faceless and “socially distant” passerby now a potential carrier of pestilence, attraction gives way to repulsion. We see fewer and fewer people in person, and keep more and more to ourselves, until that all begins to feel “normal”  —   and so we begin to lose another essential feature of American life: the richly rewarding human experience of being a distinctive and self-reliant member of an organic and multidimensional civil society.

Finally, we have already, to an alarming extent, broken up the foundation of what it has always meant to belong to the American nation: the shared belief that America is, in its roots and in its heart, something worthy and good. The bedrock of the American mythos  —  the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the ennobling natural-law principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the confidence in the approval of Providence expressed in our national motto, and the sense that we are links in a great chain that connects the sacrifices of our ancestors with the duty of living Americans to preserve the blessings of law and liberty for our children’s children  —  these have all fallen away, precipitously, in this annus horribilis. What once we cherished, we now are taught to despise. But how long can a nation that disgusts itself continue to exist?

(None of this is meant to suggest that the pandemic wasn’t real, or that the risk didn’t justify prudent precautions. But in our time, after generations of unprecedented peace and security, we seem to have have succumbed to an enfeebling condition that the psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls “safetyism”  —  a degeneration of the spirit in which the fear of harm or loss overwhelmingly outweighs all other principles and practical concerns. In the era of COVID, the public-policy formula seems to have had a combination of safetyism, political strategy, and the heady temptations of power on one side of the equation, and almost nothing at all on the other.)

All of this, and more, have we lost in the space of less than a year  —  yet most of us have simply … adjusted. For those of us old enough to have the perspective of historical parallax, it is a disturbing reminder of some of humanity’s darkest lessons: lessons that far too many of us seem to have forgotten, if we ever learned them at all.

What’s The Word?

You may have noticed an uptick in mobs surrounding drivers in their cars, and an increasing willingness in drivers thus imperiled simply to step on the gas.

“What shall we call this?” wondered someone on Twitter. The answer, of course, is obvious:

Accelerationism.

Service Notice

Sorry (again) that it’s been so quiet here. I’ve been nursing this shoulder injury — due to insurance-coverage issues I’ve had trouble getting an MRI, and will end up traveling from Wellfleet to Connecticut next week to get it done — and although it’s been getting a little better, it’s still been uncomfortable to type.

I’ve also been rather at a loss for anything interesting to say. There’s a dull-witted lassitude that always affects me when the weather gets hot and sultry, and I’ve found that I’ve been feeling unusually tired since banging myself up, which is probably Nature’s way of telling me to take it easy.

I do have one post I’d like to write, which I’ll try to get up over the next day or so. (It’s nothing earth-shaking, just some thoughts about what’s happened all around us in the past few months.)

Thanks as always for coming round, and please do visit the archive, or try the “Random Post” link on the homepage.

The Bonfire Of The Sanities

From The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer:

“When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, it is well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse.”

It is remarkable how seductive the kinds of passions now driving our civilization to ruin can be. This is not least because passion itself is seductive: the idea that one has got hold of something so potent that all rules of order can justifiably be discarded is an electrifying feeling. Ordinary life is often dull, and when not dull it often chafes; duty is often unpleasant; rules are by their nature restrictive. To be able to say that a holy cause gives one a license to chuck all of that out of the window is enormously liberating.

But for those to whom ordered liberty is so unsatisfying, real freedom can be a terrible, even an unbearable burden — and this is the appeal of the mass movement, of the mob. To stand before the Universe as a radically free individual can be far too much to bear, but to subsume one’s individual responsibility within the compact unity of a mass movement is to act, in essence, by proxy — with the mob, not the self, as the locus of agency. In this way one enjoys the ecstasy of destruction, of dancing around a great bonfire, without any of the terror of personal accountability.

History has shown us how this works time and time again. That is one of the reasons that history has to go.

Yes, A Religion

From Steve Sailer:

Our New Religion of Race

Read also this post of his from June 10th, linked in the article above.

I won’t even talk about what the Smithsonian’s been up to; it deserves a post of its own, which I haven’t the oomph to write just now.

The NYT Eats Its Own

Opinion editor Bari Weiss has been purged from the New York Times for a lack of ideological purity. Her resignation letter is a window into the intensifying vortex of cryptoreligious madness that now threatens to consume all of Western civilization.

Read it here.

PS: Remember always that we outnumber these people, and that they have only such power as we give them. We could overwhelm them in a day if we chose to.

Ouch!

Slipped on a puddle in the kitchen last night, caught my right elbow on the counter as I was falling, and tore my right shoulder to pieces. Back from the ER at Cape Cod Hospital — lovely people there! — but will need MRI and orthopaedic consultation. Judging by the tearing and crunching sounds as the thing happened, this is a pretty bad one; surgery likely. In a sling for now on powerful medicaments. Typing very difficult. Will be quite slow here for a little while, I fear.

What a year!

Service Notice

Sorry it’s been so slow around here — summer doldrums, mostly, and lack of anything interesting to say. (We also have our son Nick, whom we haven’t seen for months due to the Wuhan Red Death, paying us a brief visit.)

Should be back with something soon. Thanks all for coming by, and please feel free to browse our massive archive. (You might give the “Random Post” link a try.)

Independence Day, 2020

Happy birthday, America. Never in my lifetime has the fate of the Union seemed more precarious.

To begin our 245th year, President Trump gave a rousing defense of the traditional American nation at Mount Rushmore. Unlike the terrible forces arrayed against him, this man truly loves his country, and he understands the awful threat it faces. May he prevail.

You can watch the speech here.

Coming Apart

When football season opens, if it does, we’ll be hearing two national anthems. (Readers of a certain age may remember one of them; it went with the deprecated American nation we all grew up with.) The NFL will be playing the “Black National Anthem” before “The Star-Spangled Banner”.

Why would one nation have two national anthems? Answer: it wouldn’t.

“Gradually, then suddenly.”

The Fellowship Of The Ring

It surprises me that anyone on the Right (or for that matter, anyone of middle years or older who grew up in the former United States, and feels that he or she has had a pretty good life) would have any hesitation at all about supporting Donald Trump — not only in the upcoming election, but also in the day-to-day grind of this terrible culture war. (I should make an exception for accelerationists, but I am not an accelerationist.)

Many seem to have given up in despair. But there is never any upside to despair; there’s a reason that Hope is one of the cardinal virtues. Despair is not only useless, but it destroys the soul, and as such it is rightly considered a sin.

Is Mr. Trump deeply flawed? Of course. Is he petulant, unstatesmanlike, vain, unlettered, and at times childish and vulgar? Yes, all of those things. But listen to how he speaks of America, of its goodness, of its greatness, and of its greatness still to be. Look at the way he honors our Founders, our traditions, our veterans, and the ordinary people who build and sustain American life. Say what you want about the man, his eye is on what’s good in America — all the things that over the centuries have made people from all over the world yearn to come here, all the things that I, as a boy, was taught that we must give thanks for to our forefathers, cherish for ourselves and our families, and preserve for generations yet unborn. He understands that we are links in a great chain — with a debt to our ancestors, and a duty to our children. Break that chain, sever that link to past and future, and men will be, as Edmund Burke said, little more than “the flies of a summer”.

All civilization depends on this continuity, this extension in time — and the belief that what we build today will be there when we are gone; that the tree we plant in our lifetime will give shade and fruit to our children’s children. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link: if we allow it to be broken in our time, it is broken for all time.

Donald Trump understands all of this: if not intellectually, then in his heart. And he is, in this moment, all we have. He is Gandalf against the Balrog at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm. As Lincoln once said of Grant: “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

Remember always: we are in an existential conflict with a fearsome global Enemy. This foe has limitless financial resources, and it has already conquered, in a long march spanning half a century or more, all the great strategic strongholds of our civilization — education, popular media, corporate boardrooms, the upper echelons of the military, the political leadership of almost all of our major cities, and the malleable minds of scores of millions of voters, in particular women and coastal city-dwelllers. As we can see all around us every day, they have fought us almost to a standstill even without controlling the White House and the Senate. Can you imagine what would happen if they were to consolidate their power by seizing those last defenses?

Perhaps you imagine that much of their current anger is due to their loss to Mr. Trump in 2016, and that a victory this November would settle them back down; that if they can reclaim the presidency they will be placated and magnanimous. Nothing could be further from the truth. Seething with four years of pent-up resentment, if they retake the commanding heights of political power they will, in their exultation and their fury, burn us all to ashes, and grind the remaining embers of the traditional American nation into powder.

At this point there is no longer any room for error, nor any place for faintness of heart. We hold, for now, the One Ring, and the malignant mind of Sauron thinks of nothing else; his lidless Eye searches for it day and night, without sleep, without rest. If he reclaims it, a much of great value will be lost, quite possibly forever. And the great sorrow of our time is that we have no Orodruin, no Mount Doom, with which to destroy this thing; we must simply keep it, and defend it, until beyond all hope this darkness shall one day pass from the Earth.

Selective Outrage

We hear in the media, and from his political opponents, that Donald Trump considers himself to be “above the law”.

Unsurprisingly, such accusations never seemed to be leveled at his predecessor. As this four-part list of two hundred examples shows, though, they might well have been.

Racist Thing #114

Mary Poppins.

Where The Moon Goes

My old pal Jimmy Haslip sent me a link to a new version of the old Weather Report song, as conceived by Zawinul protégé Scott Kinsey. The video features Jimmy on bass, Scott Kinsey on keys, the terrific Hungarian drummer Gergo Borlai, saxophonist Katisse Buckingham, and bassist/singer Naina Kundu on vocals.

Here it is. Turn it up.

Great Is Truth. May It Prevail.

Just in (I have bolded the key passage):

The Department of Justice today filed a statement of interest in Idaho federal court defending Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act against a challenge under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

“Allowing biological males to compete in all-female sports is fundamentally unfair to female athletes” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “Under the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause allows Idaho to recognize the physiological differences between the biological sexes in athletics. Because of these differences, the Fairness Act’s limiting of certain athletic teams to biological females provides equal protection. This limitation is based on the same exact interest that allows the creation of sex-specific athletic teams in the first place — namely, the goal of ensuring that biological females have equal athletic opportunities. Single-sex athletics is rooted in the reality of biological differences between the sexes and should stay rooted in objective biological fact.

Exactly right. Whatever you might think about sex vs. gender, implicit in any discussion is the assumption that there are in fact such things as male and female versions of each. The differences between the sexes being indisputably physical, they are stubbornly real. As Philip K. Dick once said:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

Read the rest here.

SCOTUS Does It Again

Another day, another calamity at the Supreme Court: John Roberts sides with the liberal wing to block the recission of DACA, remanding it to the Department of Homeland Security for another try.

The argument in the majority opinion — and along with the dissenting Justices, I think it’s so thin as to be quite transparent — is that precedent allows the Court to ignore a clarifying 2018 memorandum, by then-Homeland Secretary Kirtsjen Nielsen explaining the rationale for the recission. According to Justice Roberts, the explanation is “post-hoc”, and so can’t be considered by the Court, which may only look at the original explanatory memorandum presented by Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke in 2017. But, as Brett Kavanaugh explains in his dissent, there is no precedent for such a decision, in which the follow-up clarification of an agency’s position is provided by the agency itself.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Alito. In it he begins by explaining the fact that should have made the appeal to SCOTUS dead on arrival: that DACA was illegal to begin with; that it was created without any grant of authority from Congress to override existing law.

DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception. The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope. The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end.

Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision. The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong DHS’ initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own. In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong—the political branches.
Such timidity forsakes the Court’s duty to apply the law according to neutral principles, and the ripple effects of the majority’s error will be felt throughout our system of self-government. Perhaps even more unfortunately, the majority’s holding creates perverse incentives, particularly for outgoing administrations. Under the auspices of today’s decision, administrations can bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda. Even if the agency lacked authority to effectuate the changes, the changes cannot be undone by the same agency in a successor administration unless the successor provides sufficient policy justifications to the satisfaction of this Court. In other words, the majority erroneously holds that the agency is not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.

Justice Thomas argued further that even if DACA’s illegality were not sufficient to short-circuit the case, there were other grounds to reject the majority’s argument. I will not present this second section of his dissent here, but it is also clear and compelling.

The Court’s has not closed the door on the recission of DACA; by remanding it to the Executive Branch to try again it has, however, introduced a substantial delay, and it’s almost certain that nothing more will happen until after the election (upon which, God knows, the fate of what remains of the traditional America nation depends; if we lose, a lot more than the hope of rational immigration policy will go into the fire). The effect of this protracted lawfare campaign against the recission of DACA is described in a separate dissenting opinion by Justice Alito:

Early in the term of the current President, his administration took the controversial step of attempting to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Shortly thereafter, one of the nearly 700 federal district court judges blocked this rescission, and since then, this issue has been mired in litigation. In November 2018, the Solicitor General filed petitions for certiorari, and today, the Court still does not resolve the question of DACA’s rescission. Instead, it tells the Department of Homeland Security to go back and try again. What this means is that the Federal Judiciary, without holding that DACA cannot be rescinded, has prevented that from occurring during an entire Presidential term. Our constitutional system is not supposed to work that way.

No, it certainly isn’t. Read the whole thing here.