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 <em>without an open bar</em>? 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.

On BLM: In The Academy, Dissent Must Hide Its Face

With a hat-tip to my e-pal David Duff, here is an open letter written by a black professor at UC Berkeley urging us not to be taken in by the infantilizing Democrat race-hustle known as Black Lives Matter.

The writer makes the essential points: that BLM promotes a malignant, paternalistic ideology that “strips black people of agency”; that explaining American black dysfunction in terms of white-supremacist oppression is absurd on its face, given that other groups — even other black groups — often outperform American whites in socioeconomic success; that the narrative of black helplessness, and dependence upon whites to alleviate their condition, is not only in itself a pernicious form of racism, but is deeply dispiriting and demoralizing for blacks, and that to teach black children this lesson of their own inadequacy predisposes them to a life of failure and sullen resentment.

The writer also points out that money given to BLM flows directly into Democratic Party coffers, and so works to preserve the political ascendancy of that party in precisely those places where black misery is at its worst — cities that have, in many cases, been under total Democrat hegemony for a half-century or more.

Black Lives Matter is a transparent affront against human dignity, and against the founding natural-rights principles of the American Founding. It is a Machiavellian scheme that, in a ruthless struggle for political power, pits one group of whites against another; the black people it purports to stand for are merely pawns on the chessboard. It is the tactical endgame of a decades-long strategic battle that began in the universities in the postwar era, preparing the ground for this final assault by conditioning generations of students to despise themselves, their nation, their history, and their culture.

I have reproduced the letter in its entirety, below. Thanks to Zero Hedge (itself under withering assault just now) for publishing it.

Read More »

The Conversation We Aren’t Having

Here are two black voices that have very little chance of being heard above the din. Both are tenured professors at Ivy League universities: Glenn C. Loury of Brown, and John McWhorter of Columbia. (Given, by the way, that Brown University was founded on slave-trade wealth, and Columbia was named after noted unperson Christopher Columbus, one wonders how much longer those institutions will keep their names.)

In this video the two men make a critical examination of the mass psychosis regarding race now engulfing America (and even Europe). Professor McWhorter also notes that this social convulsion is quite obviously religious in its nature, a point I’ve been hammering on in these pages for many years now. (There is some gratification, for those of us who have been writing about this for so long, in seeing this understanding — which is necessary for an accurate diagnosis of the disease that has been slowly wasting our civilization for decades now — gaining traction at last.)

The video is an hour long, but it is well worth your time. It must take a good deal of courage for these two men to speak such heresies as they do in this video, and go back to work every day right in the “belly of the beast”.

(A hat-tip to the indefatigable JK for this link.)

Et Tu, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts?

It was a busy day yesterday at the Supreme Court — and from over here on the Right, a disappointing one as well. I haven’t read the opinions, so I should refrain from analysis, but the results — in particular, blows against freedom of association, the Second Amendment, and enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws — are deeply dispiriting.

Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz comments here.

Matt Taibbi On The Death Of Journalism

I wrote a while back about the tidal forces straining the Left as it falls deeper into the gravity well surrounding an all-consuming singularity. In a sharp essay just published, Matt Taibbi looks at the disintegrating American press.

Let It Go

I’ve long supported subsidiarianism – the idea that government should be as local, and locally accountable, as possible. I’ve also been saying for years that the U.S. has become so large, and so diverse, as to be ungovernable by central authority. What’s worse, the power held by that central authority is so pathetically insecure that everyone imagines that if they try hard enough they can bite off a chunk of it. If sovereignty cannot secure its inventory of power, then public life becomes a feeding-frenzy, in which we end up biting pieces out of each other. In 2020, the water is dark with blood. (Simply put, we are watching sovereign power itself being looted.)

So if Seattle, etc., feel that they have so little in common with the historic American nation that they are unable to accept our traditions, mythos, and way of life, and unable to live an ordinary life in the United States without feeling driven at every moment by the need to bite off more power — then it would be better for everyone if they simply broke away. (Which they seem already to be doing.)

This isn’t a happy prospect, of course, for the people inside these places who still wish to live in the previously existing USA. We should do whatever is necessary to protect them as they depart, and – this won’t be easy – to make some arrangement in compensation for their property.

But it should by now be obvious to all that the United States as currently constituted simply isn’t working. It is a violently dysfunctional marriage, and the only hope is some sort of divorce. There can be no comity without commonality.

As for the brand-new nation known as CHAZ, it will be interesting to see how this little experiment in sovereignty plays out. I wonder if Mr. Raz Simone can chew what’s he’s bitten off.

Kandahar On The Puget

Well! As I write an ISIS-style warlord, a rapper named Raz Simone, has declared a portion of a major American city — Seattle, Washington — to be an autonomous region no longer part of the United States of America. He is enforcing his rule over the Capitol Hill neighborhood of that city in the usual way, with violence and intimidation. Within this new nation are thousands of residents (I suppose they are now ex-pats), and dozens of businesses. Mr. Simone, who patrols his newly acquired fiefdom carrying an AK-47 and a sidearm, has already begun demanding “protection fees” from businesses within the occupied zone.

The new Marxist caliphate has the enthusiastic support of Seattle’s political class. From a recent item at City Journal:

Politically, the Seattle City Council has already begun to champion the protesters’ demands. Socialist Alternative councilwoman Kshama Sawant declared the takeover a “victory” against “the militarized police force of the political establishment and the capitalist state.” Three councilmembers have signaled support for a 50 percent reduction in the police budget, with additional councilmembers likely to support a similar policy in the coming weeks. Sawant also opened Seattle’s City Hall—which had been closed by the mayor—to protesters, who immediately occupied the building.

The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone [CHAZ] has set a dangerous precedent: armed left-wing activists have asserted their dominance of the streets and established an alternative political authority over a large section of a neighborhood. They have claimed de facto police power over thousands of residents and dozens of businesses—completely outside of the democratic process. In a matter of days, Antifa-affiliated paramilitaries have created a hardened border, established a rudimentary form of government based on principles of intersectional representation, and forcibly removed unfriendly media from the territory.

The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone is an occupation and taking of hostages: none of the neighborhood’s residents voted for Antifa as their representative government. Rather than enforce the law, Seattle’s progressive political class capitulated to the mob and will likely make massive concessions over the next few months. This will embolden the Antifa coalition—and further undermine the rule of law in American cities.

“A victory over the capitalist state”, says councilwoman Kshama Sawant. (Ms. Sawant, by the way, is an immigrant from India. How lucky we are to have her, and the blessings of her gratitude toward her adoptive home. Diversity is our strength!)

Imagine being a resident or business-owner in this place. Armed thugs come round to extort money. Shall you call the police? Well, there’s this:

Simone was filmed allegedly assaulting multiple protestors who disobeyed his orders, informing them that he was the “police” now.

He’s right. The Seattle police won’t be going into CHAZ anytime soon, if ever, so I guess you’d better pony up. (“Who ya gonna call? NO-BODY!”)

If I had told you a few years ago that in 2020 the heart of an important American city — an area home to thousands of American citizens — would have been captured and occupied by a swaggering Marxist black-separatist warlord, while the city, state, and federal governments looked on with bemusement, or outright enthusiasm, you’d probably have said I was off my rocker. But here we are.

And… where is Seattle, anyway? Why, it’s in the state of Washington, of course. How about if I told you today that in a year or two the name of George Washington would be stricken from polite society, and expunged from the thousands of places across America whose name honors his memory; that his statues and monuments will torn down and broken to rubble, and his image expunged from our currency?

Crazy, right?

Repost: On Our New Religion

I’ve said for years that the missionary Progressivism now in control of every aspect of our civilization can only be properly understood as a religion. And just as the Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th century were attended by great waves of repentance for our sins, and the fear of Hell, exactly so is the “Great Awokening” of recent years characterized by guilt and the horror of damnation:

 

Below is a repost of a piece on this topic, from 2017.

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Can Progressivism Really Be A Kind Of Religion?

 

William Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher, having read my own recent item on William Deresciewicz’s article about Progressivism-as-religion, has just offered a post expressing his disagreement.

Bill writes:

It is true that leftism is like a religion in certain key respects. But if one thing is like another it does not follow that the first is a species of the other. Whales are like fish in certain key respects, but a whale is not a fish but a mammal. Whales live in the ocean, can stay underwater for long periods of time and have strong tails to propel themselves. Just like many fish. But whales are not fish.

I should think that correct taxonomies in the realm of ideas are just as important as correct taxonomies in the realm of flora and fauna.

These are fair points. I think, however, that a historical study of Progressivism reveals a much closer cladistic relation between the modern Left and a certain strain of American Protestantism than exists between whales and fish: it is more, I think, like a lungfish that has learned to live out of water. The question “at what point is such an animal no longer a fish?” is an interesting one, and Bill would likely insist that living in water is essential to being a fish; but I’ll say that if the move is recent enough that the critter still has its scales and fins and gills — and if its mommy was a fish! — then the distinction is much less clear.

Bill continues:

Leftism is an anti-religious political ideology that functions in the lives of its adherents much like religions function in the lives of their adherents. This is the truth to which Prager alludes with his sloppy formulation, “leftism is a religion.” Leftism in theory is opposed to every religion as to an opiate of the masses, to employ the figure of Karl Marx. In practice, however, today’s leftists are rather strangely soft on the representatives of the ‘religion of peace.’ (What’s more, if leftism were a religion, then, given that leftism is opposed to religion, it follows that leftism is opposed to itself, except that it is not.)

Or you could say that leftism is an ersatz religion for leftists. ‘Ersatz’ here functions as an alienans adjective. It functions like ‘decoy’ in ‘decoy duck.’ A decoy duck is not a duck. A substitute for religion is not a religion. Is golf a religion? Animal rescue?

My quibble with this is that it appears, implicitly, to assign all of the taxonomic distinction to the single feature of religion that modern secular Progressivism explicitly rejects: theistic metaphysics. For this reason Bill applies the alienans adjective ‘ersatz’. I would, instead, describe Progressivism as a ‘non-theistic’ religion, or a crypto-religion. In this sense the adjective functions more in the way ‘electric’ does in ‘electric guitar’. The electric guitar is a cladistic descendant of the original ‘acoustic’ form of the instrument, and has so many features in common with it that it seems wrong not to think of it as a kind of guitar, despite its not having a hollow body shaped and braced to amplify and project its sound.

As for Leftism being ‘anti-religious’, it is of course overtly so, but with a peculiar fervor that is, I think, strongly reminiscent of the bitter sectarian enmities we see among conventional religions. If you see the secular Left as being itself a masked religion, then one begins to see it as anti-‘religious’ in the same way that Protestants are anti-Catholic, Sunnis are anti-Shi’ite, etc.

We might say that there is in the human cognitive apparatus a religious module that can handle a variety of inputs, but which produces similar output, and that there is a universal tendency for it to want to latch onto something.

Bill writes:

Now let’s consider the criteria that Deresiewicz adduces in support of his thesis that the elite liberal schools are religious. There seem to be two: these institutions (i) promulgate dogmas (ii) opposition to which is heresy. It is true that in religions there are dogmas and heresies. But communism was big on the promulgation of dogmas and the hounding of opponents as heretics.

Communism, however, is not a religion. At most, it is like a religion and functions like a religion in the lives of its adherents. As I said above, if X is like Y, it does not follow that X is a species of Y. If colleges and universities today are leftist seminaries — places where the seeds of leftism are sown into skulls full of fertile mush — it doesn’t follow that these colleges and universities are religious seminaries. After all, the collegiate mush-heads are not being taught religion but anti-religion.

On the view I’m offering above, Communism simply hijacked the religion module with some novel input. And while Bill is right that “if X is like Y, it does not follow that X is a species of Y”, it also does not follow that if X is like Y, X is not a species of Y. It may or may not be.

Bill mentions environmental extremism:

Pace Deresiewicz, there is nothing religious or “sacred” about extreme environmentalism.

No? I took up this point two years ago:

The mythos, from Genesis to Redemption, has been transplanted almost entirely without alteration:

In the beginning, there was only God.

From God arose Man.

Before his Fall, Man lived simply, and in perfect harmony with God. It was a Paradise on Earth.

Then a disaster happened. Man acquired a new kind of Knowledge: knowledge that he did not need, but that conferred upon him enormous temptation. In his unwisdom, and against God’s wishes, Man succumbed. His new Knowledge gave him great power, but at a terrible cost: he had turned his back on God, and his Paradise was lost. In his exile, he would wield his ill-gained power in prideful suffering and woe.

But then came a Messenger, offering the possibility of Redemption: if Man were to renounce his awful Knowledge, and learn once again to surrender himself to the love of God, he would be forgiven, and could find his way back to Paradise. It would not be easy ”” it would require that he make terrible sacrifices, atone for his many sins, and give up his worldly comforts and much that he had come to love ”” but if his faith was strong, his Salvation could become a reality, and he could once again live in Paradise, in sweet communion with God.

In order to move from the old religion to the new one, we need only substitute “Nature’ for “God’ in the passages above. That the two conceptions are almost perfectly isomorphic, and that both are manifestations of the same underlying impulse, should be plainly evident. But perhaps one must be a heretic oneself to notice it.

Very shortly afterward, I had further confirmation from a top-tier environmentalist, Rajendra Pachauri, the director of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who said the following thing:

[T]he protection of planet earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.

Pace Bill, that seems pretty religious to me.

But the objections raised are good ones. If I want to say that X is a species of Y, then I should have some good reasons for doing so. Here are some that I had just offered in a response to our commenter Jacques, just before I saw Bill’s post:

In characterizing Progressivism as a religion I have in mind several things, for example:

1) The sacralization of various objects and concepts, such that an insufficiently worshipful attitude toward them is considered blasphemous;

2) The soteriological aspect of Progressivism, which aims always at some unattainable Utopia that is forever just out of reach;

3) The characterizing of dissenters as not just intellectual opponents, but as sinners and heretics embodying actual evil;

4) The important role of faith;

5) The suppression of factual inquiry in areas where articles of faith may be threatened;

6) The extent to which political and cultural norms and aims are expressed in terms of sin and atonement;

7) The historical (and behavioral) continuity of modern Progressivism with early American Protestantism, in a traceable sequence that retains the Puritan “mission into the wilderness’ while gradually becoming more and more secularized and worldly.

I would agree that the religious impulse is well-nigh universal, and in that sense a great many outwardly secular worldviews might be seen as religious. I think, however, that Progressivism needs “outing’ as such, especially given how many of the features of religion it instantiates, and how often it manifests outspoken hostility to traditional religions. (If nothing else, once you see it clearly as a crypto-religion the whole thing makes a lot more sense, and I like to help make sense of things.)

Finally, Bill lists some individual qualities that he considers essential to religion. They are:

1. The belief that there is what William James calls an “unseen order.” (Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 53) This is a realm of absolute reality that lies beyond the perception of the five outer senses and their instrumental extensions. It is also inaccessible to inner sense or introspection. It is also not a realm of mere abstracta or thought-contents. So it lies beyond the discursive intellect. It is a spiritual reality. It is accessible from our side via mystical and religious experience. An initiative from its side is not to be ruled out in the form of revelation.

I’m not sure that Progressivism fails to meet this criterion. In particular I think that the Progressive belief in a kind of supernatural moral telos is plainly evident in phrases like “the right side of history” and “the arc of the moral universe bends toward Justice”.

2. The belief that there is a supreme good for humans and that “our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves” to the “unseen order.” (Varieties, p. 53)

See above. See also where failing to “adjust” will get you on a college campus these days. (Or ask Charles Murray.) If adjusting to the unseen order is the supreme good, then willfully refusing to do so is to choose evil. This is clearly consistent with the way heretics like Murray are treated.

3. The conviction that we are morally deficient, and that this deficiency impedes our adjustment to the unseen order. Man is in some some sense fallen from the moral height at which he would have ready access to the unseen order. His moral corruption, however it came about, has noetic consequences.

Is this not plainly evident, for example, in the ethnomasochistic self-abasement of liberal whites for their own racism? Is this charge of moral deficiency not made on every page of Howard Zinn’s Progressive Bible, A People’s History of the United States? Is it not at the core of radical environmentalism, as noted above?

4. The conviction that our moral deficiency cannot be made sufficiently good by our own efforts to afford us ready access to the unseen order.

This is exactly, for example, what whites are now told about their racism: that no matter how hard they try, they will always be racist, in ways they can never see or fully understand, simply because they are white.

5. The conviction that adjustment to the unseen order requires moral purification/transformation.

Such as this. Or this.

6. The conviction that help from the side of the unseen order is available to bring about this purification and adjustment.

Well, God is off-limits. But we can get pretty close.

7. The conviction that the sensible order is not plenary in point of reality or value, that it is ontologically and axiologically derivative. It is a manifestation or emanation or creation of the unseen order.

I don’t think you could speak seriously about “the arc of the moral universe” without believing something like that.

In sum: the only salient difference, as far as I can see, between 21st-century Progressivism and conventional definitions of ‘religion’ is the absence of an explicit and supernatural concept of God — a concept that, if we look back at the centuries-long evolution and mutation of New England Protestantism in America, was gradually leached out (and, I would say, did not die, but went underground), leaving the sense of a sacred and urgent “mission” completely intact.

While we may dispute what does and doesn’t constitute a correctly defined “religion”, Progressivism is, in effect, a religion to the people who espouse it: it activates all the same behaviors, dispositions, and cognitive postures. What we might call the “religious stance” is, I believe, the most accurate way for the rest of us to confront it.

I doubt I will change Bill’s mind here (never an easy thing to do!), but I hope I’ve at least shown that there’s room for reasonable disagreement.

My Mind’s Made Up. Please Don’t Confuse Me With The Facts.

We hear a lot these days (possibly the understatement of the year) about bias; in particular “implicit bias”. In a recent article about racism, though, a young black writer mentions some other kinds of bias:

First, our intuitions about whether trends have increased or decreased are shaped by what we can easily recall—news items, shocking events, personal experience, etc. Second, we are more sensitive to negative stimuli than we are to positive ones. These two bugs of human psychology—called the availability bias and the negativity bias, respectively—make us prone to doomsaying, inclined to mistake freak news events for trends, and blind to the slow march of progress.

“News items” tops the list for the first category. It should go without saying — I’ll say it anyway — that what becomes a “news item” and what doesn’t is a very selective process; the press has, perhaps, no greater power than deciding what it will ignore. (How many people know the name, for example, of Justine Damond?)

You can read this article — “The Racism Treadmill” — here. (And on a related note, see also this, about the ongoing mass slander against law enforcement.)

Rear-View Mirror

The late Yuri Bezmenov explains. (To bring this fully up to date, we would swap out “Marxism”.)

America, 2020

Repost: Death Of A Nation

I’m browsing my old posts, to see how much of our current state of affairs was visible in prospect years ago. Here’s a long excerpt from something I published back in 2012.

 

  *   *   *   *   *   *   *

 

… Democracy works well enough for a while, I suppose, while a nation is young and virile enough to value opportunity over security, and while its people can muster up enough self-confidence, social cohesion and unity of purpose to agree upon national goals, and to make a serious effort to achieve them.

We are not such a nation any more — lean, athletic, vigorous and hungry. No, we are now in late middle age: weary, obese, weakened by cultural self-doubt and existential guilt, too fond of comfort, too wary of risk, exhausted by corrosive metabolic disease and the collapse of our immune system, sapped by parasites, and all but immobilized by all the clutter we’ve created and accumulated. We can hardly get off the couch even to look after our own most basic needs, and resent the idea that we should have to. We can hardly bear to look in the mirror.

What are the exceptions? They are to be found in small, agile, self-organizing entities that are lightweight enough, and focused enough, and cohesive enough, and intelligent enough, to move, to act, to create, to <em>do</em>. They must be nimble enough to live in the shadows of tottering behemoths without being trampled, or eaten — but the great, slow beasts are dying now; their time is nearly over.

When I visited Singularity University in April, one of the speakers (I think it was Paul Saffo) said that he thought that modern nation-states were becoming obsolete, and wouldn’t be around much longer. I can’t recall if he mentioned that this is particularly true of democracies, but to me it seems it must be. Will there still be a United States of America, as presently constituted, thirty years from now? How? Why?

How’s It Going?

Haven’t looked at the news much for a week or so. Did I miss anything?

Going Green

Next time you hear someone refer to carbon dioxide as a “pollutant”, mention this:

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Carbon dioxide is plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide, make human food, and release oxygen. Humans breathe oxygen, eat plants, and release carbon dioxide. Simple and elegant.