Friday, December 9, 2016

New Fiction (STICKY; Scroll Down For New Material)

     It’s ready at long last:

     Stephen Graham Sumner is a lawyer from Onteora County, New York and a descendant of the late William Graham Sumner, one of America’s forgotten great thinkers. We meet Sumner in his mid-thirties: he’s capable and passionate about justice, but his life ambitions are unformed. He becomes general counsel to Onteora Aviation, a defense-industry corporation, and meets those who will mold his ambitions, with particular emphasis on a single figure: Louis Redmond.

     In consequence of his reluctant agreement to become the running-mate of the incumbent governor of New York, Sumner develops a vast distaste for what American politics and government have become. Surprised and made optimistic by his unexpected popularity, not merely in New York but throughout the Northeast, he campaigns for and wins the presidency on the Constitutional Party ticket: the first candidate to rise to the White House from a third party since Abraham Lincoln.

     Sumner’s presidency is not a tranquil one. Foreign military adventures, provoked by Islamic terrorism, lead to horrifying consequences. These, plus his domestic efforts to return American government to its Constitutional origins and his support for maverick inventor and space enthusiast Todd Iverson’s orbital habitat project, cause the rise of an implacable enemy: Ian McIlvaine, U.S. Senator from California. By dint of brilliant though darkly-motivated tactics, McIlvaine succeeds Sumner in the Oval Office, and contrives a downfall for Sumner that no previous president has had to face.

     Statesman is the fifth and final novel of the Realm Of Essences saga. Only $2.99 at:

Monday, December 5, 2016

One big happy clappy glop.

"Liberals believe that their nation states are associations formed by individuals for the purpose of ensuring their natural right to life, liberty, and happiness. They have an imaginary view of their liberal states as associations created by isolated individuals reaching a covenant, a contract or agreement, amongst themselves in abstraction from any prior community. They have a predilection to whitewash the fact that their liberal states, like all states, were forcibly created by a people with a common language, heritage, racial characteristics, religious traditions, and a sense of territorial acquisition involving the derogation of out-groups." [Source not provided by Lemur.]
This was precisely the case in the founding of the United States. The Anglo-Celtic nation of the New World constituted themselves as a particular people according to the articles of the Constitution. Plato and Montesquieu, NOT Locke, were the main influences. Republics are always particular, rather than universal. The People Preceded the Proposition.

Not buyin' the proposition.

Until 1965, most of the US population came from Northern Europe, and those who didn't were ruthlessly assimilated according to WASPish norms. Likewise the Black population came from a small sector of West Africa - hardly the melting pot meme dreamed up by some Jew in London in the twenties.

[Origin writes:] "Ultimately, over the 151 years since that conflict ended, the American People have made great progress toward forming a society under a mostly ethno-neutral...polity.["] It's a complete [non-sequitur] to go from ["]the blacks had it tough, and so we straightened that out["] to 'America should be an ethno-neutral country. That's [ahistorical] nonsense, a retrospective end of history fever dream. America is now a domain of tribal competition thanks to the open borders efforts of oligarchs and leftists with a sick obsession with the other and a hatred of their own traditions. Diversity + proximity always leads to conflict. Here's [sic] the studies which point to where the United State is headed. Trump's just the beginning, and [je and] Bannon (who is only a white nationalist in the imaginations of Mother Jones types) are mere avatars of the social changes liberal ideology itself installed. And the research is [underway] on the consequences... https://heartiste.wordpress.com/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/

Liberalism of course is the true ["]easy ideology["]. Everyone is placed in little boxes - abstract units of production, consumption, and 'self realization - where the ruling zeitgeist is ["]do as thou wilt[" within] the parameters of the harm principle. But actually conserving the traditions of a spiritual organic community against the globalizing forces of dissolution - that is the hard choice. Actually generating and aspiring to something greater than a value neutral post-modernism poz-fest requires concerted effort. Liberalism is a contract with mediocrity that protects its practitioners from ever being more than political children.

By contrast, ["]the wonderful mosaic of diversity["] is a series of decontextualized exotic cultural stimuli our bored last men and women amuse themselves with. The liberal state is ultimately the enemy of any true diversity, because the liberal state ethos leads to differentiation without difference.

No more. As the National Front tweeted after Trump won, “Their world is collapsing, ours is being built.” The epoch of dissolution is over. The age of a new nationalism has begun.[1]

Notes
[1] Comment by Lemur on "ORIGIN Incensed—Presidents Elect have a right of freedom of speech and expression too." By Origin, Sic Semper Tyrannis, 11/22/16 (slight formatting changes; emphasis added).

Sunday, December 4, 2016

If I Had Trump's Ear...

If I were Trump's economic advisor, my advice to him would be that his legacy hinges on fulfilling the most basic spirit of his campaign promises, which is to improve the quality of the average, middle-class, 'normal' American's way of life.  And within this context (and the context of the recent election), that would seem to hinge on two, overwhelming concerns --

1) curtailing immigration
2) improving wages, especially of blue-collar type workers

And obviously these are related.  Trying not to delve into too much of the contentious political aspects of pursuing these things (especially number 2), let me just suggest a couple of things that have occurred to me.  

I see a lot of discussion in various whereabouts which seems to suggest that people have either forgotten or just to have relatively bad models in their head of the basics of how wages are determined, at least in my opinion.  Very basic economic theory says that wages (or really, the 'return' to anything, wages being the return to labor) are determined by what is called Marginal Value Product (MVP).  Not 'number of immigrants', not 'women entering the workforce', not 'supply of labor,' etc, though of course those are all relevant.  What it seems has happened is people have made rather radical theoretical simplifications -- even some very smart people -- and ignored that the process of production is intrinsically an interplay.

To make a slightly smaller simplification that gives a much more accurate picture (in my opinion, at least) wages are (mostly) determined by the ratio of capital to labor.  The higher the ratio of capital to labor, the higher wages will be, because labor has become relatively more dear (i.e., in lower supply compared to the amount of capital available for production.)  When capital is in short supply, labor must compete hard and prices of labor fall.  Conversely, when capital is abundant, capitalists must compete hard and wages increase.

Reducing the ratio of capital to labor, for example, through high immigration, hurts wages.  But not merely by 'increasing the supply of labor.'  If the supply of capital increases proportionately, there might be no change.  Real wages might even increase, due to efficiencies discovered in a larger system. But typically, immigrants don't bring much capital with them, and often strain the system when they arrive in sufficient numbers (have you seen Houston traffic lately?) precisely because there isn't enough capital to accommodate them.

With that in mind, it appears that the two things Trump should focus on are keeping his promises to overhaul -- and ultimately curtail -- immigration, and simultaneously attract more capital to the US. Not 'raise the minimum wage.'  Not engage in crony capitalism and special tax-break type arrangements to attract or retain businesses.  Even a cut in personal income taxes, while obviously something desirable and frequently the object of much political attention, is probably not the best focus of his efforts.  I don't think much of any tax cut he could arrange would help most people anywhere near as much as a raise would.  At least to me, the most crystal clear and obvious way -- perhaps very nearly the only real way -- to address low wages is more capital.

But how do you do it?

My second thought -- as weird as this sounds, probably the best way to do this would be to impose a small-ish, uniform, across-the-board import tariff, and simultaneously cut corporate tax rates back a bit.  This kind of suggestion has of course attracted both enthusiasm and criticism -- most of the criticism on free-trade, free-market grounds -- but I think a little bit of thought could put it into a context that might make it easier to digest.

First, it is obvious that a lower corporate tax rate would attract capital, for obvious reasons.  This is not an uncommon opinion.  But it is not obvious that a tariff would -- how exactly would imposing a tax attract capital?  Free-traders would protest 'protectionism!'  And beyond a certain point, I have no doubt they are correct.  Yet I have started to think these two are actually very closely related, and one actually implies the other -- so that to have the one and not the other could actually be something like the inverse of protectionism.  'Domestic vampirism,' or something.  To discontinue doing it might be helpful.

I will argue by analogy from a perspective I am more familiar with, and maybe other people are, too -- the housing market.  

According to at least some economic theory, different sorts of taxes are in fact interchangeable, and this is obviously the case (at least to me) in the housing market between property taxes and income taxes.  I will try to make a brief, hopefully-intuitive explanation for those who don't already know this.  Most people accept that the value of an asset is a function of the income derived from the asset, which can be expressed as an NPV (net present value).  This relationship of asset prices to income is what makes metrics like PE ratios and bond rates 'work' and why making comparisons between them is meaningful (take the reciprocal of a bond rate and multiply by 100, and you have something comparable to a PE on a stock.  I usually think of this as an 'asset multiplier' -- the multiple of income that the asset price commands, which is also used in business valuations, appraisals, etc., by the people who do these sorts of things.  The inverse is the discount rate, but I'm not going to go into that...)

If this relationship holds, then it is intuitive that a government taxing a portion of income is equivalent to taxing a portion of its present value, because the present value just is a function of income and is interchangeable with it using relatively simple conversion factors. Theoretically, anyway. So, on a house -- suppose that a house 'yields' an income of $6000 per year (after all expenses, etc., except property tax).  Further suppose that the government claims $2000 of this income in tax.  If the discount rate in this market is 6% (i.e., the 'multiplier' is 16.67), the implied value of the house is $100,000 -- but this value is discounted by 1/3 on the market, because the government claims 1/3 of the income it generates ($2000/$6000 = 1/3) -- asset buyers will not pay for income that they do not expect to receive. So, the house will have a market price of about $67,000 with a property tax of about 3% (3% of $67,000 = $2000, approximately).  

Therefore -- a 3% property tax and a 33% income tax on the property are (approximately) equivalent.  (Yes, I'm rounding a bit.)  It doesn't matter which way you charge it, the two taxes amount to the same thing.  Guessing home valuations is a bit easier, I suppose, so that is the way it tends to be done.  But to do it the other way would be equivalent.

I would like to argue that, I think, tariffs and business income taxes may likewise actually be interchangeable -- and by setting a lot of tariffs at zero and corporate taxes at 40%, our policies may have induced a really harmful disequilibrium.  It might help a great deal to (try to) put them back into equilibrium.

Unfortunately, I do not know how to calculate the right values for this example, but the argument is basically as follows -- given that taxes are to be imposed, a domestic business pays income taxes in order to access American markets.  Presumably, the taxes go to 'uphold the common good' -- to pay for roads, basic law and order, etc.  (Or some such; I don't want to get into a debate about that -- call it pay-to-play, if you prefer.)  Under a regime of no tariffs foreign companies get access to the American 'common good' for free -- so they are being subsidized by domestic companies and taxpayers.  The foreign companies have no equivalent tax imposed for access to the American market, which constitutes a strong incentive to locate overseas.  I don't really know what to call this, but it reminds me of the 'moral hazard' people used to talk about during the financial crisis -- privatization of profit, socialization of costs.

I will grant a few things -- first, that they do not have as much 'access' to the American 'common good' as domestic companies, since much of their operations are overseas.  But it is absolutely inarguable that they derive value from it (else they wouldn't do business with us), and aren't required to support it as domestic companies do. A second thing I will grant -- just as a 3% property tax was equivalent to a 33% income tax, yet 3% and 33% are very different numbers, there is no doubt that a tariff equivalent to a 40% income tax would also be a very much smaller number.  Income deducts expenses, but revenue does not.

But I'm not sure how to calculate it -- it seems like a sales or revenue tax, and so you would need to know how much profit was derived per unit to calculate what was equivalent to a 40% income tax.  But obviously, most profit margins are in the less-than-10% range, especially for the kinds of things America tends to import, so likely an equivalent tariff would be something like 4%.  Anyway, I think that's a reasonable estimate, and getting fairly close is at least a lot better than completely blowing it.  Hopefully Trump would know someone smarter than me who could do the math.  And hopefully if this was done, 40% would not be the target since one would want to reduce the corporate rate at the same time.

By making the two equivalent, the goal would be something like tax indifference -- it would not matter which side of a border a company was on, the impact of the American-imposed tax regime would be the same.  And since America is a relatively great place to do business, more businesses would be induced to move here if they'd like to sell here.  And with increasing levels of domestic production, capital would accumulate and wages would rise.

But even if companies didn't choose to relocate here, they could at least defray a little of the price it takes to keep this place running...

A rather massive caveat -- I'm not 100% sure that this is all actually true.  If I think about it in terms of Arnold Kling's null hypothesis (that, basically, pretty much no matter what you do, nothing matters, assuming I understand him right), it could be that all this stuff is already 'priced in' and all material adjustments already made.  So that a change in policy would simply result in a very large (and possibly painful) shifting and re-coordination of prices, with nothing materially changing as a result.

I don't really have an answer for that.  I would like to say that it couldn't hurt to try, but I don't really think that's true.  It probably could.

Also -- I'm hardly an expert on this stuff.  I have no idea what fraction of our imports even have a tariff of less than 4%.  The whole thing may not even be meaningful if it doesn't apply to very much trade volume.

Another idea I have seen floated -- create what are essentially uncapped IRA funds, so that any arbitrarily large amount of money could be invested with no tax consequences until the funds are withdrawn for other use.  That would also, no doubt, lead to a massive accumulation of capital; however, I suspect that the capital would not lead to actual investment in the US.  Most likely it would simply inflate asset bubbles in Asia, or some other place, as Americans used their 'IRA' funds to buy assets wherever the expected yield was highest, i.e., not here.

If Trump wants people to capitalize the US, he has to make it more profitable to do so.  Maybe try some of both?  As much as I like the idea of revamping the income tax code, though, I don't think it would help nearly as much, and I don't think he should use up too much political capital on it -- unless, of course, it was quite popular anyway.

Just an idea...

What’s At Hand? A Sunday Rumination

     John the Baptist, the Precursor to Christ, called the people of Judea to repent of their sins, that the Kingdom of God is “at hand.” Thousands, moved by his words, came to him to be baptized in the Jordan River...but what did they think he was telling them was “at hand?”

     A lot of folks alive today have trouble with it. Can we expect that the Judeans of the First Century found it crystal clear?


     Among the more interesting divergences between the doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and those of orthodox Christianity is this one: the Witnesses maintain that the Kingdom of God is to be achieved in this world. Given human free will and its implications for the persistence of evil, I can’t see it. Then again, I’m not a Witness, so perhaps I’d need to steep myself in the whole of Witness theology to get a purchase on it. At any rate, the more traditional Christian sects hold that the Kingdom of God, a.k.a. Heaven, is a supra-physical realm to be attained only after passing from this life. Even the Revelations of St. John are interpreted thus.

     However, it’s easy to imagine, especially given Judaic traditions concerning the Messiah, that many of those John baptized might have thought that a temporal Kingdom of God would soon be upon them. When Jesus began His public ministry and told of the Kingdom of God through parables, the clash with traditional Judaic belief were considerable. When He said to Pilate that “My kingdom is not of this world,” the clash became absolute: either Jesus was not the Messiah the Jews of Judea had expected for centuries, or the prophecies concerning an eventual Messiah were an enormous distance from the reality, for the Messiah had left them in thrall to the Roman occupiers and assorted evildoers.

     Given the Judaic scriptural tradition, it’s easy to see why many Jews were unable to accept Him as the one they had been promised.


     Just as with the First Century Judeans, the human desire for relief from predation and privation in this world is enough to persuade many persons that the Christian promise isn’t good enough for them. God’s love is all very well, they might say, but what about my mortgage, my property taxes, and my kids’ orthodontia bills? Can’t we have a little Divine relief while we’re still alive to enjoy it?

     Ultimately, it’s an argument over premises. Those who accept the Christian Covenant are unable to satisfy those who won’t be satisfied with anything short of Heaven on Earth; the premises of the two camps are diametrically opposed. And as I sit here pondering it, it occurs to me that there just might be some value in that for both groups.

     It’s a tenet of Christian faith that no good man will be denied his just reward in the afterlife. That’s a fairly recent revision of Christian doctrine, but an important one. If Christians can bear that firmly in mind, especially in our dealings with good men who don’t share our premises, we can be more effective in this world – and not merely as evangelists. It underlines the importance of living the faith. Saint Francis of Assisi’s possibly apocryphal exhortation – “At all times preach the Gospels; when necessary, use words” – improves the world around us as it improves our souls.

     Whether or not he actually said it, Saint Francis certainly lived it.


     Though the Kingdom of God is not to be realized under the veil of Time, it remains an ideal toward which to strive. The Advent season, during which we prepare ourselves for the Feast of the Nativity, should remind us of that.

     Secularists, unpersuaded that a Creator and a supra-temporal realm exist, are nevertheless as susceptible as anyone to the lure of the admirable. Everyone is naturally drawn toward those he admires. Admiration breeds emulation, in deed if not in creed. Evoking such emulation is the most positive thing anyone could do for the world around him. It’s a notion we should bear in mind at all times, not just in the four weeks before Christmas.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Ultra-left malevolence and mass immigration.

Item: "Sweden to Become a Third World Country by 2030, According to UN."

Item: "Germany: Invaders Stay on Welfare." – ". . . [N]one of the 50,000 officially recognized “asylum seekers” in the German state of North Rhine Westphalia are working, and all are living on welfare."

But, notwithstanding these representative facts, the ultra-leftist (communist, progressive, multicultural) mantra is unchanged. There must be yet more massive third-world immigration:

While any culture can absorb some people over time, there is a pace above which only shock and splintering can occur. It seems to me that the bureaucrats of Europe have overlooked the impacts of their decisions, allowed in too many people at once without any good plan for dealing with them (as evidenced by the legions of refugees and migrants camped out on the rue [French for street]).[1]
The above too-casually accepts the value of any immigration. There shouldn't be any "good plan for dealing with" immigrants because there shouldn't be any immigration in the first place. At a minimum, there should be a 50-year near-total halt to immigration.

However the author's basic point is correct. You can't exceed a certain rate of absorption of foreigners.

The author also says this inundation occurs because "bureaucrats" don't have to suffer the consequences of their letting in masses of foreigners. This raises the question, however, Why do these "bureaucrats" encourage immigration in the first place?

Leftist gift to Western civilization.

The answer to that question is that the hidden ultra-left game plan is to overload, inundate, and destroy every Western nations with hordes of hostile, primitive, arrogant, obscurantist, parasitical foreigners and all the while sell it as something that will be a cultural and economic benefit to each host country.

These people are satanic in their malevolence disguised as compassion.

Such is the hatred of the ultra-left for Western culture and the white race.

Notes
[1] "France On Fire." By Chris, IWB, 12/2/16 (bracketed text in original).

H/t: Gates of Vienna for both items.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

A Brilliant Capsule Analysis

     Savor this:

     Consider: First, the Democratic elite dutifully steered voters to Hillary Clinton, virtually clearing the field for her in the primaries despite what should have arguably been—in retrospect, at least—a disqualifying scandal. And then, after four years of electoral carnage and virtual decimation of the party outside its coastal urban precincts, the Democrats have re-installed a veteran San Francisco liberal as the face of their party’s congressional agenda. To the extent that the rank-and-file has rebelled, it has not been very successful.

     As we wrote the day after the election: “Donald Trump won the Republican nomination because the GOP elite’s control over their party was weak. But he won the presidency because the Democratic elite’s control over their party was strong”—so strong that it didn’t need to listen to heed the warning signs about its preferred nominee. Pelosi’s re-election suggests that even the 2016 disaster has not yet weakened the establishment’s iron grip over Democratic power centers.

     It cannot be said better than that.

“Bring Back Our Country!”

     First, a blast from the past: a piece I posted at the old Palace Of Reason about fifteen years ago:

     Ever seen Federico Fellini's movie Amarcord (I Remember)? It's not the muddled mess so many of his other films were. It's a memoir of his childhood in a small Italian town, during the years before World War II. It's simple in focus and execution, beautifully written, and acted, directed, and filmed with an artless grace that raises it to the pinnacle of the film-maker's art.

     The Italians have a word for it: sprezzatura. The art that conceals art.

     Why Fellini made this movie, I can't say. I can say that, having seen it recently for the first time in thirty years, it's prompted me to do a little remembering of my own.

     I did most of my growing-up in Orangeburg, a small town in Rockland County, New York, in the Fifties and early Sixties. It was a place most modern children would disbelieve in, unconditionally.

     The doors had locks: snap locks that you could force with a credit card. However, this was before credit cards, and the locks didn't get that much use anyway, because who on Earth would intrude into someone else's home uninvited?

     A home with a television in it wasn't a rich man's home, but two televisions marked a household as well-to-do, and perhaps a little more materially indulgent than was really good for a family with minor children. A color television was an object of wonder. I've never forgotten the thrill of seeing Bonanza in color for the first time.

     Yards were kept neat and clean. Maintaining them was regarded as a civic duty. One homeowner let his lawn go unmowed for three weeks, and thereby earned a visit from a group of his neighbors, who wanted to know what had happened that he couldn't keep up with his responsibilities.

     Children of all ages wandered the neighborhood without fear. Parents were confident that their neighbors, and their neighbors' older children, would look out for the young that hadn't yet come into their full senses. A driver that honked at a child who was a little slow to cross the street risked being shucked out of his automotive armor and disciplined in public.

     I remember one universally beloved little girl, named Janie, whose innocent enthusiasm for life was the delight of our block. I once caught Janie toddling across my back yard, looking for my younger sister Donna, bursting with eagerness to tell Donna something that had just occurred to her. She'd hopped out of her bathtub and scampered across her back yard and into our own to do so. She was wearing what one usually wears in the bath. Archimedes might have blushed; Janie didn't.

     It was an overwhelmingly Catholic community. There were five Masses each Sunday morning, and all of them were attended to capacity and beyond. The parish priests were regarded as higher authorities than any elected functionary. When our pastor was elevated to Monsignor, we young ones were stunned that the town didn't hold a parade.

     Most of the children attended the parish's grammar school, St. Catherine of Alexandria. Despite St. Catherine's huge class sizes -- classes of fifty were the norm -- standards were high, and the pressure to get in never slackened. The local public grammar school was regarded as a refuge for the children of lazy parents, who didn't care how their kids were taught; it had many unoccupied desks. Competition among the latter-grade students at St. Catherine's was intense; we all wanted to go to the local Catholic high school, Albertus Magnus, and we knew there weren't places enough for all of us.

     The big excitement in my life was school. I didn't understand kids who hated school. It was a place I almost couldn't stand to leave at the end of the day. I wasn't alone in that.

     The town's "bad apples" swore, smoked behind the local convenience store, and flung spitballs in class when they thought they weren't being watched. The rest of us were told they were bad apples. We weren't told they were misunderstood or had self-esteem problems. When detected, they were corrected, in no uncertain terms. Their parents came in for even more opprobrium than they did.

     There were unpleasant episodes, of course. A family not far from us had domestic troubles. She slapped him one night, and he responded by shoving her through a screen door, which occasioned a visit to the local hospital for her, a visit from an impromptu decency committee for him, and departure from town for the two of them, soon afterward.

     Then there was The Divorce. It shocked the entire community. The idea that parents wouldn't find ways to bridge their differences and keep their home together for their kids wasn't just unthinkable; it was an insult to the whole concept of marriage and family. It bespoke a lack of self-discipline and incomprehensible priorities.

     I suppose I should mention that the parents that divorced were mine.

     The highest honor any child could aspire to was to be picked for the chorus that went to Rockland State Hospital to entertain during the Christmas holidays. Success in Little League was a distant second.

     In those years, Orangeburg's residents were working-class white and Hispanic families. I don't remember any blacks. I don't know what to make of that. Draw what conclusions you will.

     I was considered a little odd, because I had no interest in learning how to shoot.

     I remember the milk truck, the bakery truck, the dry cleaner's truck, the sharpener truck, and the Charles Chips truck, all of which came to our door, and all of whose drivers were treated like old friends. In some cases, they were old friends.

     I remember cap guns, and games of Cowboys and Indians, and huge snowball fights conducted with an innocent ferocity by pugilists from eight to eighty.

     I remember thinking that the Palisades Interstate Parkway must surely be one of the Seven Wonders of the World, and that heaven itself could hardly exceed the delights of Palisades Amusement Park.

     I remember my father, down on his luck and himself after my mother left him, spending much too much time in a local gin mill. I remember him cashing check after check at that saloon, and the owner, who knew those checks would bounce right over the Moon, accepting them anyway, putting them into his cash register and never saying a word. That saloon owner eventually got every penny my father owed him. I wonder if he'd known that he would.

     I remember adults who had standards they weren't afraid to enforce without needing to invoke the authority of the law. I remember lawyers who tried to counsel their prospective clients not to sue. I remember journalists who could be trusted.

     I remember loving America wholeheartedly and with no reservations. We were the good guys. I remember fearing nothing and no one, certainly not the government. I remember being confident that the world could only get better, now that the good guys were in charge.

     I remember coming home after five years in college and two years in Hell, and looking at my town, and knowing it had changed out from under me, that I no longer belonged to it, nor it to me. And I went away, and did not return.

     And I, who have set these things down, have wept many bitter tears for my country and what she has forsaken. I am of the last generation that remembers our days of strength and virtue, and my years are growing long. I and my contemporaries are entering the twilight of life. When our memories fade, there will be nothing but the cold and the dark.

     But for now, I remember.

     That was the America I remember from my youth: the Fifties through about 1964. Take a moment to recover from it, if you like. It always takes me a while.


     The political season in which we’re currently immersed features two visibly opposed camps: one ascendant, one despondent. Yet despite the differences between them politically and the contrast between them effectually, they have an important commonality: both are the consequences of a desire to bring something back. Moreover, both camps think of what they want to bring back as “our country.”

     The ascendant camp looks at present-day America and sees a nation near to terminal ruin. What it wants to bring back bears many similarities to the remembrance I resuscitated above: an America in which Americans – particularly white Christians – could feel safe, valued, and free.

     There’s precious little safety for anyone, these days. Precious little freedom, too. Have an early-Saturday-morning irony on me, if you will: my remembrance is of a time shortly before proprietary communities, gated and secured enclaves which promulgate their own regulations and enforce them upon their residents, began to proliferate. Those who move to such communities know they’re sacrificing still more of their freedom. They do so for the incremental improvement in safety, particularly for their children, that those communities seem to offer.

     Of course, by the lights of today’s Main Stream Media and its editorial voices, a white Christian American is responsible – personally – for essentially all the troubles of the world. Lower than pond scum. Practically a Nazi. He has no right to his opinions; indeed, he should be punished for them. He must be made to cringe before his betters and humbly beg pardon for his sins. He should be grateful that they don’t relieve him of his life after they’ve stripped him of his rights and property.

     But I mustn’t get off course. The despondent camp wants to bring something back, too: the America when the Left dominated all mass communications. The era when its pronouncements went unchallenged because there was no medium through which to challenge them.


     Have a few links:

  1. Cillizza and Other Journos Whine
  2. Virginia Schools Ban “To Kill A Mockingbird” and “Huckleberry Finn”
  3. The Left’s Doomed Effort To Coerce The Right
  4. The Empire Strikes Back: The MSM’s 3-Point Plan to Recapture The Narrative

     And of course, we have the pogroms in progress against conservative sentiments on Facebook and Twitter, and the innumerable corporations being pressured – in many cases successfully – to refrain from advertising at sites that have a right-of-center editorial posture.

     The temper of the Left, particularly among the members of its media annex, is plain: they believe that to return to power, they must recapture their earlier dominance of mass communications. In this, the Left is almost certainly correct. It’s a thread that runs through more than just their whining. And as you can see from the links above, they clearly mean to do it.

     Link #4 provides a few details:

     First, a blatant attempt to pathologize dissent–especially the Alt Right. Soon after the election, the Leftist Think Progress blog announced that the Alt Right should only be called “white nationalist” or “white supremacist”. [Think Progress will no longer describe racists as “alt-right”, November 22, 2016] The AP dutifully echoed this pronouncement days later, warning journalists not to use the term and instead to stick to pejoratives. [AP issues guidelines for using the term ‘alt-right,’ by Brent Griffiths, Politico, November 28, 2016]...

     Secondly, a meme has been invented about so-called “Fake News,” which will be used to shut down dissident media outlets....

     Thirdly, the Trump victory is clearly leading to increased attempts at outright repression. Or, as VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow told the NPI conference: “What we are going to see in the next few years is an intensified Reign Of Terror.”

     This is a must-read article. It provides a wealth of supportive links, and deep insight into the adversary’s objectives, via the technique I’ve repeatedly prescribed.

     From the above, we can see quite plainly the shape of the America the Left wants to bring back. That America, one needn’t be as old as I to remember.


     President George W. Bush once created a furor by telling a gaggle of reporters that they shouldn’t assume he got the news from them. He was characteristically gentle about it, even more so than in the justly famous whack across the chops he gave David Gregory:

     ''I wonder why it is you think there are such strong sentiments in Europe against you and against this administration?'' Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Bush in English, ''Why, particularly, there's a view that you and your administration are trying to impose America's will on the rest of the world, particularly when it comes to the Middle East and where the war on terrorism goes next?'' Turning to Mr. Chirac, Mr. Gregory broke into French and asked him to comment on the same question.
     Perhaps Mr. Bush thought the French question was directed at him, or perhaps he thought Mr. Gregory was showing off. Whatever the case, Mr. Bush, his voice dripping with sarcasm, said ''Very good, the guy memorizes four words, and he plays like he's intercontinental.'' (Mr. Gregory offered to go on in French, but that only made things worse.)
     ''I'm impressed -- que bueno,'' said Mr. Bush, using the Spanish phrase for ''how wonderful.'' He added: ''Now I'm literate in two languages.''

     It was a moment to savor...yet it pales in comparison to the demolition job President-elect Donald Trump has been doing on the pretensions of the Main Stream Media. And it’s imperative that Trump continue his campaign, unto those media’s total destruction.

     The Left’s three most potent weapons are the entertainment industry, the educational institutions, and the so-called news media. If these can be neutralized, and a sufficiency of alternatives can be provided, the incoming Trump Administration will have a much better chance of carrying through on its agenda. But make no mistake: the Left will defend its bastions with total ferocity, while doing everything it can to delegitimize the alternatives the Internet, talk radio, and low-cost cablecasting have made possible.


     Two visions of America are locked in mortal combat. One at most can prevail. Indeed, it’s possible neither will survive, given the possibility of a fragmentation of the Republic. What would follow might include a mass movement of population between “red” and “blue” regions, akin to the mass exodus of Bengalis into India after the political upheavals of 1970 and 1971.

     Each vision is founded on a conception of a past America. Both are largely accurate. (That says nothing about either one’s desirability.) And both have millions of allegiants. What those allegiants are willing to do – and to sacrifice – to have the America they yearn to restore will determine the sort of future America we and our descendants will enjoy or endure.

Friday, December 2, 2016

For Those Who Have Wondered...

     ...what sort of war commander General James Mattis, retired commandant of the United States Marines who's President-elect Donald Trump's choice for Secretary of Defense, really was: The following went out to the 1st Marine Division on the eve of its action in Iraq in March, 2003:

     I’d say that settles it, wouldn’t you?

Communication Breakdown

     Two entities cannot communicate without a common language. Neither can they communicate unless they agree on the meanings of the terms in that language. And when one party has decided that he gets to redefine every term in the lexicon, according to his preferences and entirely without restrictions, it becomes clear that he doesn’t want to communicate. What he does want is likely rather sinister.

     Consider this case:

     “If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician, I am proud to have lost,” fumed Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, who traded verbal jabs with Trump campaign manager-turned-transition strategist Kellyanne Conway and others during day 2 of the Harvard Institute of Politics’ quadrennial Campaign Managers Conference.

     “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did,” she said, noting how the billionaire’s campaign chief executive, Stephen K. Bannon, was an alleged racist.

     Conway fired back, “Do you think I ran a campaign where white supremacists had a platform?”

     At which point, Palmieri replied: “You did, Kellyanne. You did.”

     “Do you think you could have just had a decent message for white, working-class voters?” Conway asked. “How about, it’s Hillary Clinton, she doesn’t connect with people? How about, they have nothing in common with her? How about, she doesn’t have an economic message?”

     Joel Benenson, Clinton’s chief strategist, disagreed — saying it was obvious that Trump’s campaign was run on hate and bigotry.

     “There were dog whistles sent out to people,” he said to Conway. “Look at your rallies. He delivered it.”

     There’s no communication going on there, is there? What the Clinton representatives sought wasn’t to convey a message, nor was it to receive one. Their objective was – and quite likely will remain, for as long as they can hold the public’s attention – to defame the candidate that defeated them and his campaign manager and strategist.

     Quite a lot of Americans are already onto the scam, though the “technical details” might be of no interest to them. Look at the Clinton camp’s serial abuses of the language: “white supremacists;” “hate;” “bigotry;” “dog whistles.” This is now a fixed part of Leftists’ “outreach” strategy. But by sawing at the reins so long and so savagely, they’ve given the horse a callused mouth. Millions of us simply shrug off their slanders, wait for them to run down, and resume listening only when someone speaks who has something to say and says it in plain English.

     The residual irritation can be shrugged off...for now. Winners don’t need to justify themselves. But beware; there are plenty of other emotionally loaded words in the English language the Left can contrive to abuse. As soon as you detect it, snort in derision, wave a hand dismissively, and walk away. Perhaps you might enjoy a little serenity-restoring music. Something soothing, with no ragged edges on it:

     (Come on! What did you expect me to post?)

Deflections And Redirections

     You’d need to be old -- really old; roughly a centenarian – to have any personal memories of the operations and tactics of Communists in America in the Twenties and Thirties. It was a tumultuous time for several reasons, not the least of which was that the United States had recently taken part in a foreign war for the first time. Though we’d been on the winning side, popular opinion of that involvement was mixed, to say the least. Many Americans regarded Woodrow Wilson’s intervention into purely European troubles as a huge breach of American ideals. They had some good arguments for their view, and the concurrence of one of the most notable figures of the Twentieth Century: Winston Churchill.

     No, I have no personal memories of that period; I’m not that old. What I know about it is from my reading. But the pictures that reading has drawn, particularly of Communist agitation and the themes it employed, are vivid.

     By the mid-Twenties, even before the death of Lenin, the Soviet experiment was already failing. Communist agitators in the U.S. were aware of that; it spurred them to redouble their efforts. (Cf. “fanatic”) The steady deterioration of conditions in Russia made it clear to them that they couldn’t tout the Soviet Union as a model for the future in fact. Tactics that skirted any mention of the economic collapse of Russian socialism were required.

     The Communists’ principal tactics during the interwar period were:

  • Promotion of pacifism;
  • Infiltration of the labor-union movement;
  • Exploitation of the racial tensions swelling in American cities;
  • Soliciting the attention and affection of prominent writers and artists.

     It was during that period that Communist axioms and overall habits of thought most successfully infected American life, particularly in government, the schools, and the arts.


     The lesson to be drawn from Communist operations during that period is simple: Infer strategy from tactics, and objectives from strategy. This is just as imperative in studying hostile political movements as it is in warfare. The Communists wanted to inject socialism into the American political bloodstream. Their planners knew they couldn’t do it by pointing to the collapsing economy of the Soviet Union. They had to focus their target’s attention on more attractive ideas. The tactics they chose were well suited to the task and to American attitudes in that time.

     The very same principle is on display in today’s operations on the Left. Warden at Ace of Spades HQ provides a video example. As unpleasant as it is, I urge you to watch it nevertheless.

     There’s a wealth of vital information here. What American actually likes feeling hatred or revulsion? Who actively wants to feel hostility toward others, for whatever reason? Americans aren’t like that. When we feel ourselves growing angry toward someone or something, our natural inclination is to seek out the reasons and put an end to them. Thus, appealing to that inclination is a far more positive tactic for the Left, which seeks to redirect our energies away from the threat Islam presents to the U.S., than any imaginable argument for Islam’s “innocence.”

     Of course, when there are sound objective reasons for hating someone, the proper course is to put an end to him. But the Left would prefer that you not think about that.


     The desirability of the Left’s goals and the wholesomeness of its intentions are so frequently contradicted by the evidence of our senses that it must put special effort into deflecting our attention from them. When that approach fails it, the Left strains to redirect our responses from paths that disfavor its agendas. Sometimes, its tactics are easily spotted and dismissed; at other times, it takes more of a mental effort.

     The point to bear in mind is that the tactics flow from the strategy, which in turn flows from the objectives. For example, the Left seeks to persuade us that we, the normal, decent persons of America, are the offenders – bigots and xenophobes – in our current struggles with Islam. Why? Because Islam is a highly useful weapon to the Left; its menace promotes fear, which causes us to seek protectors. This is a typical strategy for the enlargement of government power. But why does the Left seek to enlarge government power? Because it wants totalitarian power over all things, and the larger governments grow, the more susceptible they are to Leftist takeover. But obviously, freedom-loving Americans must not be permitted to think about that, so it strains to deflect our attention with phantasms, side issues, and tu quoque ripostes, and to redirect our attention into more positive-seeming paths, such as social harmony. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

     Look for this pattern in the ongoing disturbances on our college campuses.


     Please stop by a bit later, as I expect to have an announcement that will please...well, that I hope will please some of you. It’s not quite ripe yet. Until then, adieu.

Pearls of expression.

It is well known that Idi Amin lived to such an old age because he only ate vegetarians.
Comment by Jason Calley on "Time to Say Goodbye…" By Francis Marion, The Burning Platform, 11/30/16.

A different breed of cat.

It never ceases to fascinate me why our Western elites have broken loose from any moorings that pass for common sense. Reading articles on the web and the many intelligent comments, I see that many other people struggle to deal with families divided along ideological lines. I even have a dear friend who said a couple of years ago that the reason why Obama's not been as successful as he could be is because he's "too conservative." Quote unquote. He's hardly a ruling class moron and is simply a great guy but where is there common ground on the subject of politics?

Francis Marion wrote a great article at The Burning Platform from which the excerpt below is taken. It just struck me as a particularly insightful look at what a huge gulf there is between normal people and the people who inhabit our supposed cultural and political centers. When you talk yourself blue in the face trying to reason with leftists, this article should be kept in mind. The people who inhabit the urban centers of our land are batting for a different team indeed, and I don't mean in the usual sense of that witticism:

This is a pattern that has been repeating itself with more and more frequency all cross the western world over a period of decades. The liberals and the elites that grow up around these patterns of ‘decadence and dependency’ are a different breed than those of use from the conservative and normally productive heartlands of our nations. Indeed, I wonder, what do people like this, a product of liberal moral nihilism living in a densely populated urban enclave have in common with the rest of us these days? And they have the nerve to call those of us in flyover country “deplorable”?

Now that’s not to say that there aren’t exceptions to all these patterns, of course there are, but as a rule of thumb the trend has been one of division and distancing ourselves from one another along the lines of both philosophy and geography for at least the last 50 years or more. The last two elections, both south and north of the 49th parallel, prove it.

The photos at the page linked to under the phrase "people like this" above show people with whom I have nothing in common. They show something that's a lot like a get together of Mia Farrow's neighbors in the movie "Rosemary's Baby." The people recently revealed to be aficionados of "spirit cooking" are in the same class. Unmoored and twisted people. And they vote Democrat.

Where is the common ground?

Notes
"[1] Time to Say Goodbye…" By Francis Marion, The Burning Platform, 11/30/16.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

A Little Late Afternoon Irony

     (Doesn't everyone need a little irony in his diet?)

     Kellyanne Conway is the first woman ever to manage a successful presidential campaign. Given that it was the campaign of the legendarily tough-to-manage Donald Trump, and that she needed to spar regularly with the honchos of two male-dominated industries – media and politics – that’s an achievement of note for a woman. But Mrs. Conway’s achievements don’t end there. She’s also a lawyer, a business owner, a mother of four, and possesses a seemingly inexhaustible cheerfulness.

     Not a bad candidate for a role model for young American women, eh? I’d certainly say so. All the same, I wouldn’t advise Mrs. Conway to hold her breath waiting for an endorsement from American feminists:

     But modern-day feminists are still wringing out their “I’m With Her” crying towels and snubbing Conway’s historic victory because, well, she’s a Republican.

     Without any sense of irony, they ignore the achievements of a self-made woman (Conway), while lamenting the loss of a candidate who earned fame and power largely because of her husband. If she were a Democrat, Conway would be the toast of women’s groups across the country, feted in the media, splashed across the pages of Vogue and Cosmo. She would be touted as a future candidate herself. Maybe even Lena Dunham would’ve thrown out a tweet or two after her Election Night shower-cry.

     But I suspect there’s even more to this than partisan politics. After all, you can’t accuse a man of misogyny—which literally means “hatred of women”—if he puts a female in charge of the riskiest, most important endeavor of his life. Trump can’t be a sexist pig who hates women if he fires two men and replaces them with a woman, right? Acknowledging, even celebrating, Conway’s success would undermine that entire plotline.

     The Federalist’s Julie Kelly has even more bad news for the feminist Left:

     Now that President-Elect Trump is appointing women to key posts such as UN Ambassador, Secretary of Education, and Deputy National Security Advisor, [feminists’] anger is rising rather than abating. If anything, this election has further revealed the hypocrisy of the left—particularly modern-day feminists—who despite all their talk of empowerment, are now exposed as a weak and whiny sisterhood of victims.

     No one likes to be revealed as a hypocrite. To be weak and whiny victimists as well? I’ll let you form your own conclusions.

The Ultimate Monopolist

     There are days I find myself wondering, “Would the aftermath of a full-scale nuclear war be any worse than this?” It can take me a while to dispel such a mood. It was brought on this morning by the realization that Frederic Bastiat, though he was right, lacked imagination enough to envision the horrors that would one day come:

     Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it....Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim—when he defends himself—as a criminal....

     But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

     That’s simple enough, isn’t it? It’s a test any halfwit can apply. Its answer would be unequivocal, impossible to “reinterpret.” Nevertheless, it overlooks a sheaf of important cases.

     There’s a species of legal plunder in which the stolen goods have no recipient.


     Here’s the story that triggered my apocalypticism:

     The American Royal’s World Series of Barbecue is a longstanding tradition for community members of Kansas City, Missouri. Since 1899, the event has attracted the most talented barbecue chefs from all corners of the state, who gather annually to show off their skills. With so many BBQ experts in one place, there tends to be a fair amount of leftover food once the festivities come to a close.

     Hating to waste such a vast amount of quality barbecue, some of the event’s BBQ gurus got together and founded the charitable group, Kookers Kare. Partnering with the Harvesters Community Food Network, Kookers Kare has made a tradition of donating the leftover food to local homeless shelters at the end of each annual event.

     This year, the two groups collected over 3,000 pounds of meat and 1,200 pounds of sides, all bound for a local nonprofit organization called Hope City, where it was to be served to over 3,000 homeless citizens in need.

     That sounds extra-tasty good, doesn’t it? Not only would this private, wholly voluntary organization feed the needy, it would feed them first-class barbecue! That’s not quite enough to make me wish I were one of the intended beneficiaries, but reading it did give me a warm glow. However, we’re not quite done with the story:

     However, the Kansas City Health Department put the kibosh on Kookers Kare’s attempts to feed the homeless before anyone was even able to enjoy the food.

     Claiming they had no fore knowledge of this charitable tradition, the health department forbid the food from being served to the needy. Suspiciously, the inspectors just happened to be doing a random inspection of Hope City the day the BBQ arrived.

     “All of that food was uninspected, so that makes it from an unapproved source, it cannot be served to the public,” Kansas City Health Department Operations Manager Joe Williamson said in response to the department’s decision to stop the food from being consumed.

     The health department did not stop at simply forbidding the food from being served, they demanded that it be destroyed immediately. Those who had worked diligently to collect the food were forced to douse over 3,000 pounds of award-winning barbecue food with bleach, in order to ensure its destruction and appease the local health department. Meanwhile, 3,000 homeless individuals went without a meal that day.

     If that doesn’t enrage you to the threshold of violence, check your pulse: you may have died and not noticed.


     I once encountered a young man who claimed that “government is for doing the things we can’t do for ourselves.” I have no idea where he got that notion, though I have my suspicions. I wonder what he would think of the actions of the Kansas City Health Department as chronicled above.

     The original rationale for involving government agencies in charity was that private action is insufficient: i.e., that only government could guarantee that all needy persons would receive the assistance they require. We were entertained with imagery of the most macabre sort: streets filled with the corpses of beggars who’d starved to death, because the private charities that had always filled needy bellies had run out of food, or had otherwise “missed them.” Complementary to the horror images were images of clean, efficient government offices to which everyone could go for sustenance at need. Somehow these organs of the State would succeed in discriminating between the importunate idler and the genuinely deserving sufferer, such that none of the former would be served yet none of the latter would be turned away.

     It’s quite possible that those who proposed government involvement in charitable action were moved entirely by wholesome motives. It’s even more likely that, like Bastiat, they lacked enough imagination to foresee what would follow. For the State is ruled by a particular dynamic: to grow without limit. When it enters into an enterprise already occupied by private individuals and organizations, its natural tendency is to expel them by force.

     In commenting on the antitrust laws, Isabel Paterson made the plainest case imaginable:

     Government cannot "restore competition" or "ensure" it. Government is monopoly; and all it can do is to impose restrictions which may issue in monopoly, when they go so far as to require permission for the individual to engage in production. This is the essence of the Society-of-Status.

     Governments view a monopoly over charitable action as no less desirable than a monopoly over the use of coercive force. Indeed, such a monopoly is exceedingly valuable to a government, for it furthers every government’s fondest dream: to insert itself into every variety of human interaction, such that private citizens are unable to communicate or trade without State mediation.

     If generosity itself is a subject for government “regulation,” what aspect of human life is omitted from its scope?


     I’ve cited more than once the efforts of government worshippers to take over all retirement funds. The rationale proffered for such a move differs little from that for a government takeover of all soup kitchens: “You can’t trust private actors. You can only trust the State.” That after six thousand years of recorded history there are still persons who accept that statement is striking counterevidence to the claims of the Darwinists. Yet such persons do exist; I’ve met them.

     “Redistribution of the wealth” has been a rallying cry of the government worshippers for a century and more. Did those of Marx’s time envision a point at which, rather than “redistributing” extra food, governments would command its destruction rather than allow the penurious to have it? For no more than fifty years after Marx’s death, our federal government did exactly that...under the pretense of “price support” for agricultural products.

     What a government once did supposedly to “help the farmers,” it now does to “protect the public” from the danger of award-winning barbecue. One rationale will serve quite as well as the other. What really matters is that the State possess a monopoly undreamed of by any corporate titan: unbounded and irresistible power over all things. Not even charitable action will it permit to escape its aegis.

     Perhaps it’s time for me to lie down and close my eyes for a bit.

The worship of theft.

When I lived in Seattle, I observed with dismay, British Columbia, becoming more socialist every year. I never really understood what it was with Canadians. Perhaps they were infected like many others with the idea that something for free was really FREE! That is the immorality of Socialist thought. The lie behind Socialist thought. Of course, it isn’t. Someone always pays.

The Socialist promise of FREE to be accepted requires one to relinquish rational thought to maintain a sense of being a moral person. In their mistaken understanding of what moral means, Socialists elevates theft to a moral imperative. . . .[1]

This brings to mind the trenchant observation that you can't persuade someone of something if his job depends on his believing the opposite. It's no wonder that millions embrace the untruths of socialism. Self interest clouds moral judgment.

Notes
[1] Comment by Homersays on "Time to Say Goodbye…" By Francis Marion, The Burning Platform, 11/30/16.

Best headline of the month.

"BBC on Suicide Watch After Aleppo Civilians Seek Safety of Syrian Army."

In the embedded video civilians liberated by the Syrian Army exclaim "God bless the Syrian Army." They must be ignorant of the fact that Assad is a brutal dictator. Boy, are they in for a rude awakening.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

From Hypothesis To Premise To Piety

     The mystery of where the milk went to was soon cleared up. It was mixed every day into the pigs' mash. The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others.
     "Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?"
     Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone.

     [George Orwell, Animal Farm]

     If there’s a mandatory-reading article anywhere on the Web this morning, it would be John Tierney’s excellent, nearly encyclopedic survey of the Left’s exploitation of “science.” The Left’s “war on science” claims about the Right have been a critical part of the American political discourse for several decades. Yet – surprise, surprise – virtually no media attention has gone to the identities and tactics of the real perpetrators of the attack on science and scientific thought.

     To unearth those identities and tactics, it’s mandatory that we first be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about when we discuss “science.” It’s been long enough since I was in school that I cannot say whether the nature of the scientific method is still taught there:

  1. Note a pattern in observable natural phenomena.
  2. Formulate a hypothesis that might explain that pattern.
  3. Examine the hypothesis for its causal implications.
  4. Design experiments to test all those implications.
  5. Perform experiments:
    • Under carefully controlled initial conditions;
    • With safeguards against “experimenter interactions” and “confirmation bias;”
    • And full attention to the time intervals involved.
  6. Match the observed results of the experiments to the causal implications of the hypothesis:
    1. If the results conform to what the implications predict, the hypothesis survives. (alternately, “is confirmed.”)
    2. If the results fail to conform to those predictions, the hypothesis is disproved.

     Note that according to step 6.2 in the above, one nonconforming result is sufficient to disprove a hypothesis. There are no exceptions to this rule. In contrast, though the hypothesis survives any number of conforming results, no accumulation of conforming results is sufficient to prove the hypothesis for all time. In shorter and much more imperative terms:

The Science Is Never Settled.

     That is the foundation of all scientific inquiry.


     My years in the sciences acquainted me intimately with the problem of faith as a substitute for science. Faith is relevant only to propositions that can never be either proved or disproved. Yet faith has been critically important to the flacksters of the “anthropogenic global warming” hypothesis. Those...persons, frustrated with their lack of success at getting sufficient “buy-in” from the general public to support their political ambitions, are the ones best known for the use of the phrase “The science is settled.”

     In this connection, refer back to the previous segment. “Anthropogenic global warming” is a hypothesis. It has several clear causal implications. However, the predictions founded on those implications have been contradicted by real-world observations. By the rules of real science, that’s sufficient to disprove the hypothesis. That’s why the warmistas harp on the results emitted by their beloved “models.”

     But that hypothesis is too precious for the Left to allow it to be discarded. It supports their fondest aspiration: accession to total control of the world economy...and therefore, of the world. So they repeat that “The science is settled” in every available venue, hoping to win the day for their cause by exploiting the widespread ignorance about the nature of science through repetitious browbeating.

     This is the first step: the recasting of what started as a scientific hypothesis – a proposition with causal implications to be tested through experimentation – into an unchallengeable premise.


     In a number of cases, no amount nor intensity of repetitious browbeating will suffice to “close the deal.” The hypothesis cannot be made into a premise for a simple reason: the evidence of its falsity is too widely available and is too easily observed and comprehended. If the proposition is to survive, more will be required of those who insist upon it. The faith must be “established:” i.e., made into a social piety of which no discussion will be tolerated.

     Social pieties are dangerous things to question. As I wrote in that earlier essay:

     One cannot challenge the pieties of a society without provoking condemnation or ostracism. To question a piety, even along its margins, is to ask to be thrown out of the church. This is an absolute that applies to all peoples and times.

     Pieties have their dangers. The unquestioned belief, in late 17th Century France, that Catholics were morally superior to Huguenots allowed Louis XIV to revoke the Edict of Nantes, the decree of religious tolerance for the Protestant minority. The resulting mass emigration of Huguenots to Belgium weakened France severely, as the Huguenots were among the most industrious and educated persons of northern France. Indeed, part of the Catholic animosity toward them was that they worked on Sundays, and thus had a competitive edge over Catholics in business and commerce.

     If we are in thrall to a piety contrary to the actual facts of our society, we are in danger too. The question is only of degree.

     Thus the Left sees the elevation of a cherished hypothesis to a social piety as a supreme achievement – a supreme political achievement. It’s a close parallel to the creation of an established church in which membership is mandatory for all subjects. No one wants to be thrown out of such a church; the foreseeable consequences are too dreadful to contemplate. Heretics have all too often been burned at the stake.

     The transformation of hypothesis into a piety requires two steps:

  • The association of dissent with something near-unanimously regarded as shameful;
  • The placement of any contradicting facts, no matter how widely available and easily comprehended, beyond polite examination or discussion (i.e., “tabooing” the subject).

     Note how the Left has achieved this in its promotion of “racial equality” – and note how complete is the contrast with the observable facts.


     I could go on about this for many pages, but I’ll spare you. For most Americans, the essential part is to be aware of the process that converts a hypothesis to a premise and / or to a piety, the reasons for it, and the steps the Left and its fellow travelers take to achieve it.

     At this time, the Left is in retreat politically. However, its aims will not permit it to back away; therefore, it has “doubled down” on the methods above, and has chosen to treat new subjects to those methods. Consider in this light the Left’s treatment of particular figures in the incoming Trump Administration as “fascists” or “Nazis.”

     But to return to John Tierney’s core thesis, the greatest of ironies can be found in this: The Left alleges that it’s the Right that’s conducting a “war on science.” It’s attempted by repetition to make that proposition as unchallengeable a premise as “anthropogenic global warming.” The campaign has largely failed, for which reason we may expect the Left to attempt to make “the Right’s war on science” into a piety, for example by associating conservatives’ observations about differences in academic performance among the races, sexes, and ethnicities with “a desire to bring back slavery.”

     You might want to bookmark this essay. Forewarned is forearmed. The weapons are your keenness of observation and willingness to dispute Leftists’ assertions with sharp, evidence-based questions. I hope I’ve provided a sufficiency of ammunition.

Gays, Muslims, and feminists – keepin' it real.

In April 2017, Fillon, an Anglophile and practicing Catholic, could conceivably confront Marine Le Pen, the anti-Islamist leader of the National Front, in the second and conclusive round of the French presidential election. If so, the pundits will find that their old mental maps have been rendered useless in a conflict between two “conservative” candidates. That’s because the working-class vote, once claimed by the Left, has been abandoned by the French Socialists, who, like their counterparts in America, have run off in pursuit of an incoherent alliance of gay, Muslim, and feminist voters.
"French Twist. How Marine Le Pen quietly became the left-wing candidate in the French elections." By Fred Siegel, City Journal, 11/30/16.