Category: Christopher Chantrill

How to Teach the Young about 'Change'


I was talking to a young skull full of mush last week, opining on how I felt we were in a time of confusion. Then he uttered the word “Change.”

That’s when I made my mistake. I should have drawn him out on his understanding of the word Change instead of closing him down by saying that the only real recent change was from the agricultural era to the industrial era 200 years ago. Then I could have taught him a thing or two about his Change.

“Change,” we all know, is a totemic word for the left. It means the hope of transformation from the present hell under the oppressors and exploiters through the emancipation and liberation of left-wing activism. It is why Barack Obama ran under the banner of “Hope and Change” and named the website of his presidential transition Change.gov. It is the faith in the power of politics to change lives.

In fact, as Scott Adams suggests, politics is just a form of hypnotism, for hypnotism is a technique of persuading someone that wants to be persuaded.

[H]ypnotists rely on our irrational brain wiring to persuade. The most effective politicians do the same.

People believe in Change because their irrational brain wiring wants to believe in Change. That is why everyone was all excited when President Obama became the First Black President. African Americans, in particular, thought they had gone to heaven. Only they hadn’t. They had just been hypnotized.

It’s simple. Change doesn’t change your life: you just want to believe it will.

So the way to plant a little seed of doubt in that skull full of mush is to rehearse the hypnotic Changes of the last century or so.

There was wage-and-hour legislation to stop employers from forcing workers to work long hours. What a great idea! In Massachusetts they reduced the work week in 1912. But when the employers lowered the weekly wage to reflect the shorter hours, the textile workers in Lawrence were outraged and went on strike. Like today’s minimum wage activism, wage-and-hour legislation is a magic incantation. That’s Change for you.

There was union legislation, to allow employees to organize against their employer. Fabulous! So union workers thrived for a season, and then broke their private-sector employers with work rules that made their employers non-competitive and bankrupted them with unaffordable pensions. Today the only thriving labor unions are government-employee unions that are in the process of bankrupting the states and ruining little old ladies holding municipal bonds. But for now, public employees can retire on magnificent pensions. This is Change?

There was public education. Horace Mann told us back in the 1840s that the “common school” would reduce crime by 90 percent. That was just before the Irish headed up the big crime wave of the 1840s. And today’s schools are particularly bad in inner cities where poor people live. What kind of Change is that?

There was civil rights. Fifty years ago it was going to end race discrimination. Yet just last week a black college professor told the world in the New York Times that her children could not be friends with white kids and liberals keep telling us racism is alive and well. So what was the point of the Civil Rights Acts, affirmative action, diversity and inclusion? My liberal friends tell me that the cops are still out there killing black kids. If all this Change didn’t change things for the better, if all whites are still racists 50 years later, what was the point?

Oh yeah. Health care? How’s that ObamaCare doin’, kid? Change got your tongue?

Here’s a frightening thought. The problem is not racists, sexists, homophobes, and deplorables. The problem is a ruling class that keeps trying to do things that don’t work, keeps reinforcing failure for decades, and then screams Fascism! when a Donald Trump comes along and wants to drain the swamp.

That’s why my Perfect Plan is directed like a laser beam at our ruling class.

Part One: Hey ruling class! Just teach the migrants to the city how to become middle-class city people. Don’t bribe them with benefits; don’t poison them with identity politics; don’t mew them up with taxes and regulations; and don’t hypnotize them with talk about Change. And don’t buy their votes with free stuff. I’m talking to you, New York Times readers.

Part Two: Learn to be tolerant of ordinary middle-class deplorables, just as you insist that the deplorables tolerate your Rocky Horror freaks. I’m talking to you, ruling class.

Now I don’t pretend that my Change Talk will cure young millennials and Z-generationers of their ruling-class indoctrination. But it might shake them up a bit.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

I was talking to a young skull full of mush last week, opining on how I felt we were in a time of confusion. Then he uttered the word “Change.”

That’s when I made my mistake. I should have drawn him out on his understanding of the word Change instead of closing him down by saying that the only real recent change was from the agricultural era to the industrial era 200 years ago. Then I could have taught him a thing or two about his Change.

“Change,” we all know, is a totemic word for the left. It means the hope of transformation from the present hell under the oppressors and exploiters through the emancipation and liberation of left-wing activism. It is why Barack Obama ran under the banner of “Hope and Change” and named the website of his presidential transition Change.gov. It is the faith in the power of politics to change lives.

In fact, as Scott Adams suggests, politics is just a form of hypnotism, for hypnotism is a technique of persuading someone that wants to be persuaded.

[H]ypnotists rely on our irrational brain wiring to persuade. The most effective politicians do the same.

People believe in Change because their irrational brain wiring wants to believe in Change. That is why everyone was all excited when President Obama became the First Black President. African Americans, in particular, thought they had gone to heaven. Only they hadn’t. They had just been hypnotized.

It’s simple. Change doesn’t change your life: you just want to believe it will.

So the way to plant a little seed of doubt in that skull full of mush is to rehearse the hypnotic Changes of the last century or so.

There was wage-and-hour legislation to stop employers from forcing workers to work long hours. What a great idea! In Massachusetts they reduced the work week in 1912. But when the employers lowered the weekly wage to reflect the shorter hours, the textile workers in Lawrence were outraged and went on strike. Like today’s minimum wage activism, wage-and-hour legislation is a magic incantation. That’s Change for you.

There was union legislation, to allow employees to organize against their employer. Fabulous! So union workers thrived for a season, and then broke their private-sector employers with work rules that made their employers non-competitive and bankrupted them with unaffordable pensions. Today the only thriving labor unions are government-employee unions that are in the process of bankrupting the states and ruining little old ladies holding municipal bonds. But for now, public employees can retire on magnificent pensions. This is Change?

There was public education. Horace Mann told us back in the 1840s that the “common school” would reduce crime by 90 percent. That was just before the Irish headed up the big crime wave of the 1840s. And today’s schools are particularly bad in inner cities where poor people live. What kind of Change is that?

There was civil rights. Fifty years ago it was going to end race discrimination. Yet just last week a black college professor told the world in the New York Times that her children could not be friends with white kids and liberals keep telling us racism is alive and well. So what was the point of the Civil Rights Acts, affirmative action, diversity and inclusion? My liberal friends tell me that the cops are still out there killing black kids. If all this Change didn’t change things for the better, if all whites are still racists 50 years later, what was the point?

Oh yeah. Health care? How’s that ObamaCare doin’, kid? Change got your tongue?

Here’s a frightening thought. The problem is not racists, sexists, homophobes, and deplorables. The problem is a ruling class that keeps trying to do things that don’t work, keeps reinforcing failure for decades, and then screams Fascism! when a Donald Trump comes along and wants to drain the swamp.

That’s why my Perfect Plan is directed like a laser beam at our ruling class.

Part One: Hey ruling class! Just teach the migrants to the city how to become middle-class city people. Don’t bribe them with benefits; don’t poison them with identity politics; don’t mew them up with taxes and regulations; and don’t hypnotize them with talk about Change. And don’t buy their votes with free stuff. I’m talking to you, New York Times readers.

Part Two: Learn to be tolerant of ordinary middle-class deplorables, just as you insist that the deplorables tolerate your Rocky Horror freaks. I’m talking to you, ruling class.

Now I don’t pretend that my Change Talk will cure young millennials and Z-generationers of their ruling-class indoctrination. But it might shake them up a bit.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

As Usual, Patty Murray Doesn't Get It


Back in the dreadful days of the patriarchy and plantation slavery, Dr. Johnson famously said that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel.

But what do you say about Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) arguing that the ruling class should use its First Amendment rights to shut down extremists? She says:

Here is the issue worth discussing today: how can we protect this constitutional right [of the First Amendment] while also making sure that our colleges and universities are places where everyone can feel safe, learn, and respectfully debate ideas. And — as a part of that conversation, we need to discuss how elected leaders, community members, and college and university administrators, can best exercise their First Amendment right to do everything in their power to push back against those driving an agenda of extremism, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny. And — we also must speak out against groups and organizations that are looking to use their right to free speech to divide us, to attack the most vulnerable among us, and to feed on people’s fear in the service of hate.

I’d say that “scoundrel” is too mild a world for Sen. Patty.

Murray is making three points here, and every one of them is wrong. First, she seems to think that protecting the First Amendment somehow conflicts with feeling safe, learning, and respectful debate. No, Patty. We have the police to keep people safe. The problem with our schools is that you liberals won’t let the police police lefty thugs like Antifa and BLM.

Then Patty thinks that the First Amendment is needed for powerful leaders and administrators to lecture the deplorables. No, Patty. No ruling class ever needed a First Amendment. You will note, Senator, that in Europe where there is no First Amendment, the ruling class, bless its heart, has no problem getting the word out — or in prosecuting deplorables for hate speech.

Then Patty writes that the ruling class should unite against people that want to divide “us.” No, Patty. Divide and conquer is your game, the ruling-class game that every military or political leader sucks in with her mother’s milk. Your problem is that regime opponents are uniting to break up your game and hive off people that have unreflectingly supported Deep State politicians like you without realizing that you don’t care about people like them; you only care about “elected leaders, community members, and college and university administrators” and other bribed apologists of the ruling-class. People like you, Patty.

Now let us check the text of the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, Patty, on my view, your idea of the powerful pushing back against “extremism” is the reason we have the First Amendment in the first place: to make it difficult for the ruling class to silence dissenting voices. Every ruling class wants to silence their opponents. Some rulers call them deplorables and “extremists.” Others go straight to the point and call them “saboteurs and wreckers.” Every ruling class hates its critics.

And do you see that bit at the end, Patty, about “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?” It says nothing about exceptions in case of “extremism, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny.” In fact, I’d say that any anyone peaceably assembling, down the ages, has without exception had to face the scorn and the pejoratives of ruling-class place-men and place-women like you.

Let me repeat: words like “extremism, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny” are notable today only as pejoratives that ruling-class pooh-bahs like you, Patty Murray — and your violent Antifa and BLM stooges on the street — use to bully and silence any dissent from ruling-class ideology. 

If you believe, as I do, that there is no such thing as justice, only injustice, then the First Amendment makes complete sense. On this view, the point of the First Amendment is to give people that are experiencing injustice — no matter how deplorable and mistaken the ruling class judges them to be — a chance to make their grievances heard in the public square. And since Government is Force, it stands to reason that every ruling class in history presides over a blazing Triangle Shirtwaist manufactory of injustice.

Let me say this again. The point of the First Amendment is precisely to let “white supremacists” like Richard Spencer into the public square. It doesn’t matter that he is a monstrous extremist. The point is that “we” — whether the ruling class or worthier, nobler folks like AT readers — need to hear from people that think they are suffering under injustice, whether they are “right” or not.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

Back in the dreadful days of the patriarchy and plantation slavery, Dr. Johnson famously said that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel.

But what do you say about Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) arguing that the ruling class should use its First Amendment rights to shut down extremists? She says:

Here is the issue worth discussing today: how can we protect this constitutional right [of the First Amendment] while also making sure that our colleges and universities are places where everyone can feel safe, learn, and respectfully debate ideas. And — as a part of that conversation, we need to discuss how elected leaders, community members, and college and university administrators, can best exercise their First Amendment right to do everything in their power to push back against those driving an agenda of extremism, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny. And — we also must speak out against groups and organizations that are looking to use their right to free speech to divide us, to attack the most vulnerable among us, and to feed on people’s fear in the service of hate.

I’d say that “scoundrel” is too mild a world for Sen. Patty.

Murray is making three points here, and every one of them is wrong. First, she seems to think that protecting the First Amendment somehow conflicts with feeling safe, learning, and respectful debate. No, Patty. We have the police to keep people safe. The problem with our schools is that you liberals won’t let the police police lefty thugs like Antifa and BLM.

Then Patty thinks that the First Amendment is needed for powerful leaders and administrators to lecture the deplorables. No, Patty. No ruling class ever needed a First Amendment. You will note, Senator, that in Europe where there is no First Amendment, the ruling class, bless its heart, has no problem getting the word out — or in prosecuting deplorables for hate speech.

Then Patty writes that the ruling class should unite against people that want to divide “us.” No, Patty. Divide and conquer is your game, the ruling-class game that every military or political leader sucks in with her mother’s milk. Your problem is that regime opponents are uniting to break up your game and hive off people that have unreflectingly supported Deep State politicians like you without realizing that you don’t care about people like them; you only care about “elected leaders, community members, and college and university administrators” and other bribed apologists of the ruling-class. People like you, Patty.

Now let us check the text of the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, Patty, on my view, your idea of the powerful pushing back against “extremism” is the reason we have the First Amendment in the first place: to make it difficult for the ruling class to silence dissenting voices. Every ruling class wants to silence their opponents. Some rulers call them deplorables and “extremists.” Others go straight to the point and call them “saboteurs and wreckers.” Every ruling class hates its critics.

And do you see that bit at the end, Patty, about “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?” It says nothing about exceptions in case of “extremism, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny.” In fact, I’d say that any anyone peaceably assembling, down the ages, has without exception had to face the scorn and the pejoratives of ruling-class place-men and place-women like you.

Let me repeat: words like “extremism, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny” are notable today only as pejoratives that ruling-class pooh-bahs like you, Patty Murray — and your violent Antifa and BLM stooges on the street — use to bully and silence any dissent from ruling-class ideology. 

If you believe, as I do, that there is no such thing as justice, only injustice, then the First Amendment makes complete sense. On this view, the point of the First Amendment is to give people that are experiencing injustice — no matter how deplorable and mistaken the ruling class judges them to be — a chance to make their grievances heard in the public square. And since Government is Force, it stands to reason that every ruling class in history presides over a blazing Triangle Shirtwaist manufactory of injustice.

Let me say this again. The point of the First Amendment is precisely to let “white supremacists” like Richard Spencer into the public square. It doesn’t matter that he is a monstrous extremist. The point is that “we” — whether the ruling class or worthier, nobler folks like AT readers — need to hear from people that think they are suffering under injustice, whether they are “right” or not.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

Steve Bannon: It's a Conspiracy!


I don’t believe in conspiracy, except where Hollywood and HW and the Democratic Party are concerned. And anyway, it wasn’t a real conspiracy: everybody knew, except us rubes.

But I am interested in something that comes closer to a conspiracy, the notion that former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon was kinda, sorta shoved out the door at the White House in August.

I don’t believe it. I think that the “shoved out the door” meme was a cover story. After all, why signal the Democrats that something is up with: “Trump Sends Bannon Out to Elect Populists to Senate in 2018.” What would Sun Tzu say about that?

It’s much better to promote Bannon as an unguided missile that is a bit too hot to handle at the White House. That way, if he fails to elect a bunch of populist economic nationalists to the Senate in 2018 you can say that he was really too much of a wild man to help the president. But if he succeeds in nuking the GOP establishment types, then you can open your eyes in wonder and say: wow, I had no idea! It just shows that there are millions of patriotic Americans out there that want to help the president Make America Great Again.

So now we see a range of stories appearing in the media. There is the standard Breitbart fare that Bannon will rout the establishment Republicans. Here is Bannon wowing California Republicans with this message.

Then there is the AP darkly predicting another crop of whackjobs like in 2010 and 2012. Or the Los Angeles Times with the usual “some Republicans are nervous” approach.

Then there are confident Democratic predictions that Bannon is a gift to the Democrats that will deliver the Senate in 2018.

But think of the strategic situation of President Trump. The Democrats seem to be united in opposition to everything he does. But the Republicans are a looser coalition, and clearly many Republican officeholders in Washington don’t think they owe Trump anything. Last week President Bush and Sen. McCain (R-AZ) gave speeches just to remind us that they just don’t get it. So if you were Trump what would you do?

It’s obvious. You would send out your best man to put the fear of electoral defeat into the minds of your Republican opponents and fence-sitters. If his guy successfully primaries a couple of Mitch’s men and he picks up a few of the 21 Democratic seats that are up in 2018 the president changes the correlation of forces in Washington DC in 2019.

And while you are at it, you figure that it doesn’t hurt to burnish your best man’s reputation as a crazy wild man by hinting to the NeverTrumpers that Bannon reads the notorious fascist theorist Julius Evola.

Yeah. That’s the thing about Steve Bannon. He hasn’t just done a lot in his life, from the Navy to finance to Hollywood. He also reads a lot.

Now I am a guy that has not really done a lot; but I do read a lot. And my judgement is that you cannot change the world unless you have read enough to develop a worldview that is different from the usual conventional wisdom on offer. You cannot jump the tracks of the conventional wisdom unless you can outfit your vehicle with a nice set of tracks for cross-country travel. It’s the Andrew Breitbart doctrine: politics is downstream from culture.

The point of the right rebellion, from Trump to Brexit to the weekend’s elections in Austria and the Czech Republic, is that conventional right-wing culture and politics has failed, that gentlemanly conservatism and libertarianism doesn’t move the needle; it only perpetuates the “ratchet” whereby every left government moves the needle leftwards, but right governments don’t move the needle back as far.

The assumption that Breitbart made and Bannon makes is that you have to win the cultural battle before you can win the political battle.

Now, I assume that Steve Bannon’s mind is fizzing with ideas he has read. Great, so he has ideas. But Steve Bannon is also a fearless Man of Action, if not a Man of Steel.

And one thing Bannon knows is that we cannot continue to kow-tow and apologize when the liberals use their cultural hegemony to brand you as a racist or a “white supremacist” or the swamp brands you as an extremist. Politics is civil war by other means and the weapons of today’s politics were forged years ago by some guy writing a book.

And that is why I think that the GOP establishment, the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party operatives with bylines in the media should be very afraid.

Because if there is any man in America who can hand them their hats it is Sreve Bannon.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

I don’t believe in conspiracy, except where Hollywood and HW and the Democratic Party are concerned. And anyway, it wasn’t a real conspiracy: everybody knew, except us rubes.

But I am interested in something that comes closer to a conspiracy, the notion that former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon was kinda, sorta shoved out the door at the White House in August.

I don’t believe it. I think that the “shoved out the door” meme was a cover story. After all, why signal the Democrats that something is up with: “Trump Sends Bannon Out to Elect Populists to Senate in 2018.” What would Sun Tzu say about that?

It’s much better to promote Bannon as an unguided missile that is a bit too hot to handle at the White House. That way, if he fails to elect a bunch of populist economic nationalists to the Senate in 2018 you can say that he was really too much of a wild man to help the president. But if he succeeds in nuking the GOP establishment types, then you can open your eyes in wonder and say: wow, I had no idea! It just shows that there are millions of patriotic Americans out there that want to help the president Make America Great Again.

So now we see a range of stories appearing in the media. There is the standard Breitbart fare that Bannon will rout the establishment Republicans. Here is Bannon wowing California Republicans with this message.

Then there is the AP darkly predicting another crop of whackjobs like in 2010 and 2012. Or the Los Angeles Times with the usual “some Republicans are nervous” approach.

Then there are confident Democratic predictions that Bannon is a gift to the Democrats that will deliver the Senate in 2018.

But think of the strategic situation of President Trump. The Democrats seem to be united in opposition to everything he does. But the Republicans are a looser coalition, and clearly many Republican officeholders in Washington don’t think they owe Trump anything. Last week President Bush and Sen. McCain (R-AZ) gave speeches just to remind us that they just don’t get it. So if you were Trump what would you do?

It’s obvious. You would send out your best man to put the fear of electoral defeat into the minds of your Republican opponents and fence-sitters. If his guy successfully primaries a couple of Mitch’s men and he picks up a few of the 21 Democratic seats that are up in 2018 the president changes the correlation of forces in Washington DC in 2019.

And while you are at it, you figure that it doesn’t hurt to burnish your best man’s reputation as a crazy wild man by hinting to the NeverTrumpers that Bannon reads the notorious fascist theorist Julius Evola.

Yeah. That’s the thing about Steve Bannon. He hasn’t just done a lot in his life, from the Navy to finance to Hollywood. He also reads a lot.

Now I am a guy that has not really done a lot; but I do read a lot. And my judgement is that you cannot change the world unless you have read enough to develop a worldview that is different from the usual conventional wisdom on offer. You cannot jump the tracks of the conventional wisdom unless you can outfit your vehicle with a nice set of tracks for cross-country travel. It’s the Andrew Breitbart doctrine: politics is downstream from culture.

The point of the right rebellion, from Trump to Brexit to the weekend’s elections in Austria and the Czech Republic, is that conventional right-wing culture and politics has failed, that gentlemanly conservatism and libertarianism doesn’t move the needle; it only perpetuates the “ratchet” whereby every left government moves the needle leftwards, but right governments don’t move the needle back as far.

The assumption that Breitbart made and Bannon makes is that you have to win the cultural battle before you can win the political battle.

Now, I assume that Steve Bannon’s mind is fizzing with ideas he has read. Great, so he has ideas. But Steve Bannon is also a fearless Man of Action, if not a Man of Steel.

And one thing Bannon knows is that we cannot continue to kow-tow and apologize when the liberals use their cultural hegemony to brand you as a racist or a “white supremacist” or the swamp brands you as an extremist. Politics is civil war by other means and the weapons of today’s politics were forged years ago by some guy writing a book.

And that is why I think that the GOP establishment, the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party operatives with bylines in the media should be very afraid.

Because if there is any man in America who can hand them their hats it is Sreve Bannon.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

On Tax Cuts, Dear Establishment, We Don't Care


I was going to write about Steve Bannon today. Or maybe Harvey Weinstein. But I see that the usual suspects are writing about the fact that tax cuts won’t pay for themselves and won’t cut the deficit. So here goes.

First, My Man Kevin D. Williamson. He’s all wigged out because the House Budget Committee Chair Diane Black (R-TN) is proposing sensible spending cuts while the Senate is proposing $1.5 trillion in tax cuts and $1 billion (with a B) in spending cuts.

Back in the day, Kevin told ’em at the House Budget Committee:

I told them as plainly as I could that the decisions made by their panel and its Senate counterpart over the next several years would very likely mean the difference between a relatively manageable national fiscal crisis at some point in the future and an uncontrollable national fiscal catastrophe with worldwide consequences.

But actually, Kevin McScrooge, the chaps on the Budget Committees aren’t going to make a difference one way or another. That’s because of the basic fact of democratic politics, that you get elected by offering free stuff to the voters. Whether you pitch the free stuff as free health care, free college, free tax cuts, or great trade deals, it’s all the same. The game will continue until the music stops.

Then teacher Debra Saunders tells us to do the math on tax cuts, and wheels out all the usual suspects to tell us that tax cuts aren’t going to cut the deficit, despite the magical thinking of President Trump that his tax-cut package will be “rocket fuel” for the economy.

Yes, I get it. If we don’t do something about the deficit then “at some point in the future” there will be an “uncontrollable national fiscal catastrophe,” etc.

Oh great. And that will “cost millions of lives,” according to Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL).

I’m sorry, but this stuff misses the point. Of course we are going to run out of other people’s money. Of course there is going to be an uncontrollable national fiscal catastrophe, And then old guys like me will be, as they said in Eastern Europe, “eating the paint off the walls.”

But the amount of uncontrollablility in the fiscal catastrophe that is to come depends a lot on the amount of stupidity in the leaders of the time.

For instance, there is Venezuela, where the government looted the national oil company to pay entitlements to The Poor, and right now the national oil company is a mess and The Poor are starving. The trouble is that all The Rich have left for Miami, and The Workers in the national oil company have all gone to work for the oil industry in Colombia, and there is no relief in sight.

On the other hand, the Germans were completely wiped out by World War II, and educated German women were reduced to servicing Red Army officers — if they were lucky. But along came Ludwig Erhard in 1948 with his Wirtschaftwunder and the Germans soon became top dogs in Europe.

In the U.S., the last uncontrollable fiscal catastrophe, the Crash of 2008, was not caused by “the deficit” or entitlements but by a huge accumulation of bad mortgage debt that was created by deliberate government policy. See here. According to Walter Bagehot in Lombard Street, published in 1873, the credit system needs two things: properly collateralized debt and borrowers that can pay their bills. When one or the other is in question you are set up for a financial panic, as in 2008. So then you need a lender of last resort to use the “collateral” of the whole nation to stop the panic. In 2008 the collateral amounted to about $20 trillion. You could look it up.

Notice that in the two great crashes of our time, 1929 and 2008, the lords of creation at the Federal Reserve System failed to execute properly on the “lender of last resort” principle. In 1929 they let the little Jewish banks go bust first, because who cared about the Jews, and in 2008 little Ben Bernanke decided that he didn’t have the legal authority in September 2008 to bail out Lehmann Brothers. You’d think that at least the usual idiots would know how to do the “lender of last resort” thing right.

My point is that it really doesn’t matter in 2017 whether we cut taxes too much, or cut spending too little. What matters is whether idiots are in charge, Ben, when the crash comes.

Who cares about deficits and debt? Just like the Democrats in 2010, we should whip the congressional waverers into line, enact our tax cuts, and screw ‘em, just like Harvey Weinstein.

Vox Day is right. The only response to establishment wailing and gnashing of teeth is to say: We. Don’t. Care.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

I was going to write about Steve Bannon today. Or maybe Harvey Weinstein. But I see that the usual suspects are writing about the fact that tax cuts won’t pay for themselves and won’t cut the deficit. So here goes.

First, My Man Kevin D. Williamson. He’s all wigged out because the House Budget Committee Chair Diane Black (R-TN) is proposing sensible spending cuts while the Senate is proposing $1.5 trillion in tax cuts and $1 billion (with a B) in spending cuts.

Back in the day, Kevin told ’em at the House Budget Committee:

I told them as plainly as I could that the decisions made by their panel and its Senate counterpart over the next several years would very likely mean the difference between a relatively manageable national fiscal crisis at some point in the future and an uncontrollable national fiscal catastrophe with worldwide consequences.

But actually, Kevin McScrooge, the chaps on the Budget Committees aren’t going to make a difference one way or another. That’s because of the basic fact of democratic politics, that you get elected by offering free stuff to the voters. Whether you pitch the free stuff as free health care, free college, free tax cuts, or great trade deals, it’s all the same. The game will continue until the music stops.

Then teacher Debra Saunders tells us to do the math on tax cuts, and wheels out all the usual suspects to tell us that tax cuts aren’t going to cut the deficit, despite the magical thinking of President Trump that his tax-cut package will be “rocket fuel” for the economy.

Yes, I get it. If we don’t do something about the deficit then “at some point in the future” there will be an “uncontrollable national fiscal catastrophe,” etc.

Oh great. And that will “cost millions of lives,” according to Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL).

I’m sorry, but this stuff misses the point. Of course we are going to run out of other people’s money. Of course there is going to be an uncontrollable national fiscal catastrophe, And then old guys like me will be, as they said in Eastern Europe, “eating the paint off the walls.”

But the amount of uncontrollablility in the fiscal catastrophe that is to come depends a lot on the amount of stupidity in the leaders of the time.

For instance, there is Venezuela, where the government looted the national oil company to pay entitlements to The Poor, and right now the national oil company is a mess and The Poor are starving. The trouble is that all The Rich have left for Miami, and The Workers in the national oil company have all gone to work for the oil industry in Colombia, and there is no relief in sight.

On the other hand, the Germans were completely wiped out by World War II, and educated German women were reduced to servicing Red Army officers — if they were lucky. But along came Ludwig Erhard in 1948 with his Wirtschaftwunder and the Germans soon became top dogs in Europe.

In the U.S., the last uncontrollable fiscal catastrophe, the Crash of 2008, was not caused by “the deficit” or entitlements but by a huge accumulation of bad mortgage debt that was created by deliberate government policy. See here. According to Walter Bagehot in Lombard Street, published in 1873, the credit system needs two things: properly collateralized debt and borrowers that can pay their bills. When one or the other is in question you are set up for a financial panic, as in 2008. So then you need a lender of last resort to use the “collateral” of the whole nation to stop the panic. In 2008 the collateral amounted to about $20 trillion. You could look it up.

Notice that in the two great crashes of our time, 1929 and 2008, the lords of creation at the Federal Reserve System failed to execute properly on the “lender of last resort” principle. In 1929 they let the little Jewish banks go bust first, because who cared about the Jews, and in 2008 little Ben Bernanke decided that he didn’t have the legal authority in September 2008 to bail out Lehmann Brothers. You’d think that at least the usual idiots would know how to do the “lender of last resort” thing right.

My point is that it really doesn’t matter in 2017 whether we cut taxes too much, or cut spending too little. What matters is whether idiots are in charge, Ben, when the crash comes.

Who cares about deficits and debt? Just like the Democrats in 2010, we should whip the congressional waverers into line, enact our tax cuts, and screw ‘em, just like Harvey Weinstein.

Vox Day is right. The only response to establishment wailing and gnashing of teeth is to say: We. Don’t. Care.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

You Won't Believe These Income Tax Facts!


They tell me that our wise leaders are presently working on a tax reform or cut, or something. So I thought I’d add a new Income Tax Analysis page to my usgovernmentrevenue.com site. The page has a chart showing the federal individual income tax and the corporate income tax going back to 1913. This is what it looks like, as percent of GDP, with individual in blue and corporate in red.

Do you see what I see? In the early days about half of the income tax was collected from corporations, but over the years the corporations have managed to keep reducing their share of the tax. Thanks, Congress. But then the game stopped, for the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s kept the corporate share to 20 percent of the total take. Let’s take a look at that:

And it’s the same thing with the state income taxes. Yay lobbyists!

On the other hand, if you go back to the first chart, there seems to be a ceiling on the individual income tax. Whenever it gets above 8 percent of GDP then Congress comes in and cuts it. So that’s all right.

But here’s another thing. Given the sky-high tax rates, it’s amazing how little the taxes rise. Total personal income in the U.S. is $16 trillion, and the top rate is just under 40 percent; yet the personal income tax at $1.9 trillion in 2016 raises 12 percent of total personal income. Total corporate profits are $2.2 trillion, but the corporate income tax raises $300 billion a year, or 14 percent of profits, despite the fact that corporate profits are taxed at 35 percent.

What is going on? You know as well as I do. A low tax rate that applies to all provides no opportunity for graft. It’s much better for the politicians to set high rates and then charge a fee to lobbyists and interest groups that want a special exemption.

Obviously, the corporations have done a number on the corporate income tax. When the feds yanked the corporate income tax take from about 1 to 1.5 percent of GDP in the 1920s and 1930s to the 5 percent of GDP that obtained in the mid-1950s, the CEOs and their lobbyists went to work, and slowly reduced the federal bite down to the present 1.5 to 2.0 percent of GDP. You have to admire their slow persistence.

But enough about the real world: what about an ideal world where the arc of history has bent away from brutal leftist tax-everything-that-moves injustice towards the gentle and kindly world of the bourgeois citizen? In that world, people wouldn’t be grabbing the exemptions and deductions for themselves and screwing the rest; they would say that the individual income tax should be the same for all, and if everyone paid their fair share, the income tax rate could be 12 percent. The same would go for corporations.

Okay, why stop there? In my ideal world we would only collect income tax during wars, because the Fourth Amendment and unreasonable search and seizure. Yes, and pensions and health care would be privatized and the poor relieved by billionaires out of their pride and ordinary people out of their own charitable kindness.

Now back to the real world and what I miss about the Trump presidency. I loved that back in the Reagan-era Ronnie and Maggie were banging their Constitution of Liberty on the table and saying “this is what we believe.” Crazy kids like Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski were running around infuriating liberals and making the argument for smaller government. Today I am not hearing a principled argument for repealing ObamaCare; I am not hearing a principled argument about reducing taxes. Instead it is just a question of the votes in Congress: will the wimps have the guts to vote for what they promised?

I understand why. Back in the 80s we thought we were setting a new direction towards smaller, limited government. We thought that the example of the successful Reagan boom would convert hearts and minds. We were wrong.

And another thing. Today in America we are doing hurricane relief, trying to help the folks whose lives have been wrecked by a century of class, gender, and race politics. I am thinking of everyone from the white working class to middle-aged cat ladies and the African Americans angried up by Obama. You don’t lecture those folks on the wonders of individual responsibility and the price system. You just do what you can to help them. That is what Trump was elected to do, and that is what he is doing, with 906,000 new jobs in September.

Wow! A million jobs here and a million jobs there: pretty soon the Obama years will just be a sad memory.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

They tell me that our wise leaders are presently working on a tax reform or cut, or something. So I thought I’d add a new Income Tax Analysis page to my usgovernmentrevenue.com site. The page has a chart showing the federal individual income tax and the corporate income tax going back to 1913. This is what it looks like, as percent of GDP, with individual in blue and corporate in red.

Do you see what I see? In the early days about half of the income tax was collected from corporations, but over the years the corporations have managed to keep reducing their share of the tax. Thanks, Congress. But then the game stopped, for the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s kept the corporate share to 20 percent of the total take. Let’s take a look at that:

And it’s the same thing with the state income taxes. Yay lobbyists!

On the other hand, if you go back to the first chart, there seems to be a ceiling on the individual income tax. Whenever it gets above 8 percent of GDP then Congress comes in and cuts it. So that’s all right.

But here’s another thing. Given the sky-high tax rates, it’s amazing how little the taxes rise. Total personal income in the U.S. is $16 trillion, and the top rate is just under 40 percent; yet the personal income tax at $1.9 trillion in 2016 raises 12 percent of total personal income. Total corporate profits are $2.2 trillion, but the corporate income tax raises $300 billion a year, or 14 percent of profits, despite the fact that corporate profits are taxed at 35 percent.

What is going on? You know as well as I do. A low tax rate that applies to all provides no opportunity for graft. It’s much better for the politicians to set high rates and then charge a fee to lobbyists and interest groups that want a special exemption.

Obviously, the corporations have done a number on the corporate income tax. When the feds yanked the corporate income tax take from about 1 to 1.5 percent of GDP in the 1920s and 1930s to the 5 percent of GDP that obtained in the mid-1950s, the CEOs and their lobbyists went to work, and slowly reduced the federal bite down to the present 1.5 to 2.0 percent of GDP. You have to admire their slow persistence.

But enough about the real world: what about an ideal world where the arc of history has bent away from brutal leftist tax-everything-that-moves injustice towards the gentle and kindly world of the bourgeois citizen? In that world, people wouldn’t be grabbing the exemptions and deductions for themselves and screwing the rest; they would say that the individual income tax should be the same for all, and if everyone paid their fair share, the income tax rate could be 12 percent. The same would go for corporations.

Okay, why stop there? In my ideal world we would only collect income tax during wars, because the Fourth Amendment and unreasonable search and seizure. Yes, and pensions and health care would be privatized and the poor relieved by billionaires out of their pride and ordinary people out of their own charitable kindness.

Now back to the real world and what I miss about the Trump presidency. I loved that back in the Reagan-era Ronnie and Maggie were banging their Constitution of Liberty on the table and saying “this is what we believe.” Crazy kids like Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski were running around infuriating liberals and making the argument for smaller government. Today I am not hearing a principled argument for repealing ObamaCare; I am not hearing a principled argument about reducing taxes. Instead it is just a question of the votes in Congress: will the wimps have the guts to vote for what they promised?

I understand why. Back in the 80s we thought we were setting a new direction towards smaller, limited government. We thought that the example of the successful Reagan boom would convert hearts and minds. We were wrong.

And another thing. Today in America we are doing hurricane relief, trying to help the folks whose lives have been wrecked by a century of class, gender, and race politics. I am thinking of everyone from the white working class to middle-aged cat ladies and the African Americans angried up by Obama. You don’t lecture those folks on the wonders of individual responsibility and the price system. You just do what you can to help them. That is what Trump was elected to do, and that is what he is doing, with 906,000 new jobs in September.

Wow! A million jobs here and a million jobs there: pretty soon the Obama years will just be a sad memory.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

Hey Irwin! How About Politics Lessons for Liberals?


In the New York Daily News, liberal warhorse and law school dean Irwin Chemerinksy teams with Howard Gillman to plead with fellow liberals in “First Amendment lessons for liberals” not to fall for the right-wing’s cunning plan to trick them. What with all the marchin’ and protestin’ on campus these days there is, writes Irwin:

a widespread perception that liberals are keeping conservatives from being able to speak on campus and that conservatives are the champions of free speech.

No!

That’s false. Liberals we know — at least, most of them — are forceful advocates for the free exchange of ideas.

So we’ve noticed, Irwin. Not.

In reality, conservatives such as Yiannopoulos and Coulter are thrilled when they are kept from speaking. It lets them portray themselves as victims, vilify the left as intolerant, and accuse campuses of being more concerned about indoctrination than the robust exchange of ideas.

Oh no! The worst thing in the world would be to thrill vile conservatives and allow them to successfully “portray themselves as victims!” Only liberals are allowed to play the victim game in America. It’s in some penumbra of the Constitution.

The real point of the First Amendment, we all know from college freshman indoctrination, is to let liberals protest and advocate for their little darlings, the folk that have been established, by act of liberals, to be genuine marginalized and oppressed victims needing the firm hand of government to bend the arc of history towards justice.

Which just gets us back to where we first started, Irwin, about liberals needing a lesson.

Really, what this country needs is a good five-cent Politics course, to explain to liberals why the limited government shtick of the American Founders is the last best hope for mankind — and for liberals.

Because this is the great age of dumbing things down to fit in a 140-character tweet, I have done the same thing for politics, in catchphrases that even liberals can understand.

First, Government is Force. By that I mean that every act of government is backed by men with guns. So the most benign act of government, such as Medicare’s free hospice care, is backed by force. You are forced to pay for it, and when grandma is at end-of-life she is forcibly subject to its protocols. And then there is the tax-collecting side of things, with the noble and virtuous IRS collecting $3.5 trillion from Americans in FY 2017 by force.

And when government uses force, there is a real danger that some people may experience it as injustice.

Second, Politics is Division, and the art of the politician and the activist is the art of dividing people. You know, like “taking the knee” at NFL games on the one hand and tweeting about firing the sons-of-bitches on the other. That is why the architects of modern politics proposed periodic elections. The idea was to confine the art and practice of division to an election season, and then have the running dogs in the media declare, once the election was over, that we are all Americans with one flag and one people.

But when you end up on the losing side of the political division game, it is easy to think that you are the victim of injustice, just like liberals in 2016.

Third, System is Domination. Every government program is some kind of bureaucratic system that defines and enforces, with a bureaucratic hierarchy just like an army, how certain government revenues are to be spent in support of the government’s political objectives. I need hardly remind you, Irwin, that the purpose of an army hierarchy is to put young men in a position where they are forced to risk their young lives under the command of some politician ordering an officer ordering a sergeant to force the them to advance into a maelstrom of shot and shell. Whether they like it or not.

When government is dominating you and forcing you to do things that may get you killed, it is easy to think that you are the victim of injustice, just like the liberal kids in the Sixties.

Now, one of the things I have noticed over my life is that nothing equals the outrage of a liberal being forced to pay for a government program he doesn’t like, or being accused of being unpatriotic, or dominated by some gap-toothed conservative “legislating morality.”

So my question, Irwin, is this. Given that you liberal chaps are so very sensitive when on the receiving end of government force, political division, and systemic domination, how come you chaps are so eager to inflict it all on others?

And why, Irwin, is your concern about the present “perception” of liberals being opposed to free speech read more about putting liberals in a bad light than just saying that free speech is in the Constitution, Period?

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

In the New York Daily News, liberal warhorse and law school dean Irwin Chemerinksy teams with Howard Gillman to plead with fellow liberals in “First Amendment lessons for liberals” not to fall for the right-wing’s cunning plan to trick them. What with all the marchin’ and protestin’ on campus these days there is, writes Irwin:

a widespread perception that liberals are keeping conservatives from being able to speak on campus and that conservatives are the champions of free speech.

No!

That’s false. Liberals we know — at least, most of them — are forceful advocates for the free exchange of ideas.

So we’ve noticed, Irwin. Not.

In reality, conservatives such as Yiannopoulos and Coulter are thrilled when they are kept from speaking. It lets them portray themselves as victims, vilify the left as intolerant, and accuse campuses of being more concerned about indoctrination than the robust exchange of ideas.

Oh no! The worst thing in the world would be to thrill vile conservatives and allow them to successfully “portray themselves as victims!” Only liberals are allowed to play the victim game in America. It’s in some penumbra of the Constitution.

The real point of the First Amendment, we all know from college freshman indoctrination, is to let liberals protest and advocate for their little darlings, the folk that have been established, by act of liberals, to be genuine marginalized and oppressed victims needing the firm hand of government to bend the arc of history towards justice.

Which just gets us back to where we first started, Irwin, about liberals needing a lesson.

Really, what this country needs is a good five-cent Politics course, to explain to liberals why the limited government shtick of the American Founders is the last best hope for mankind — and for liberals.

Because this is the great age of dumbing things down to fit in a 140-character tweet, I have done the same thing for politics, in catchphrases that even liberals can understand.

First, Government is Force. By that I mean that every act of government is backed by men with guns. So the most benign act of government, such as Medicare’s free hospice care, is backed by force. You are forced to pay for it, and when grandma is at end-of-life she is forcibly subject to its protocols. And then there is the tax-collecting side of things, with the noble and virtuous IRS collecting $3.5 trillion from Americans in FY 2017 by force.

And when government uses force, there is a real danger that some people may experience it as injustice.

Second, Politics is Division, and the art of the politician and the activist is the art of dividing people. You know, like “taking the knee” at NFL games on the one hand and tweeting about firing the sons-of-bitches on the other. That is why the architects of modern politics proposed periodic elections. The idea was to confine the art and practice of division to an election season, and then have the running dogs in the media declare, once the election was over, that we are all Americans with one flag and one people.

But when you end up on the losing side of the political division game, it is easy to think that you are the victim of injustice, just like liberals in 2016.

Third, System is Domination. Every government program is some kind of bureaucratic system that defines and enforces, with a bureaucratic hierarchy just like an army, how certain government revenues are to be spent in support of the government’s political objectives. I need hardly remind you, Irwin, that the purpose of an army hierarchy is to put young men in a position where they are forced to risk their young lives under the command of some politician ordering an officer ordering a sergeant to force the them to advance into a maelstrom of shot and shell. Whether they like it or not.

When government is dominating you and forcing you to do things that may get you killed, it is easy to think that you are the victim of injustice, just like the liberal kids in the Sixties.

Now, one of the things I have noticed over my life is that nothing equals the outrage of a liberal being forced to pay for a government program he doesn’t like, or being accused of being unpatriotic, or dominated by some gap-toothed conservative “legislating morality.”

So my question, Irwin, is this. Given that you liberal chaps are so very sensitive when on the receiving end of government force, political division, and systemic domination, how come you chaps are so eager to inflict it all on others?

And why, Irwin, is your concern about the present “perception” of liberals being opposed to free speech read more about putting liberals in a bad light than just saying that free speech is in the Constitution, Period?

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

'Fake Protest' is When Regime Supporters Do It


Instead, I had an epiphany. This protest, I realized, with a Good Little Girl leading a well-rehearsed chant exactly as she was presumably taught by her government-paid professor at her government university, was “Fake Protest.”

What it was not was the genuine cry of the wretched of the Earth. How do I know that? First, because Good Little Girls do not do revolution. Second, because the Good Little Girl was advocating in a cause supported by the ruling class as Good Little Girls do. Third, because the Great and the Good did not immediately dump on the protesters as evil pond scum.

This latest epiphany comes after an earlier epiphany I had about the Left right after the 2016 election. The left is always advocating for people outside of the system. Why? Because that is the warrant for Revolution, baby.

In 1850 in Britain, about the time the left was invented, the people outside the system were the working class, straggling out of the starving countryside to lifesaving jobs in the factories. But the workers were outside the system, so they marched in the streets to get the attention of the ruling class. It was the genius of Marx to realize that rich kids like him could make their lives meaningful by protesting on behalf of these workers-outside-the-system, or even better, leading them in bloody revolution. So this was Genuine Protest.

But the bourgeoisie, after suppressing the Chartist movement in Britain, gave the workers the vote and started enacting the workers’ political agenda. Why? Because the bourgeoisie is not that interested in power. So no need for revolution, no need, really, for Protest, not any more.

This was proved in the 1950s during the civil-rights revolution. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood, from Gandhi and the Indian National Movement, that he didn’t need to riot in the streets to get the attention of the bourgeoisie. “Non-violent protest” was sufficient. Also, the ruling class of the time was all in favor of Dr. King’s movement. But blacks were outside the system in the Jim Crow South, so Selma’s Bloody Sunday was a good way to get the attention of the nation. Call it Semi-Fake Protest.

Now we have Good Little Girls advocating for a new group outside the system. But there is a problem. Everyone from blacks to gays is already inside the system fully franchised and efficiently represented by the Democratic Party, Democratic elected officials, the mainstream media, government education, and Hollywood jesters acting like kings. So who can genuine activists represent? Of course, illegal immigrants! They don’t have a vote, and they are forced to work in the shadows, at least they do when they live in nonsanctuary cities without a proper sprinkling of “We’re Glad You’re Our Neighbor” yard signs. They are the truly wretched of the earth, outside the system! Yay!

But these Dreamers are not really outside the system; their cause is the cause of the ruling class, which is working night and day, using fair means or foul, to advance their agenda. This is Fake Protest, ginned up by regime supporters, with the tacit approval of the ruling class.

Do you want to know what Genuine Protest today would look like? It would be a protest condemned by all right-thinking people, condemned in a resolution by a unanimous vote of Congress and signed by the President. Because those people would be the genuine wretched of the earth, born of sorrows and rejected of men.

To point up the total fake-arama of left-wing politics today, I give you the lefties’ ABC book for little lefty kiddies: A is for Activist by Innosanto Nagara. Yes,

F is for Feminist

But actually, feminists are mostly well-born women. No people outside the system here.

J is for Justice

Yeah. No Justice, No Peace. That’s why I say there is no such thing as justice, only injustice. And you won’t believe what “T” is for.

It’s a funny thing, but there is no entry in A is for Activist for

M is for Mao; millions of dead

S is for Stalin; he died in his bed.

And I think that is really a shame.

This Fake Protest thing is really not that hard. When liberal parents are buying cute little board books to teach ABCs to future activists, and when tenured government-paid professors are teaching Activism 101, and when Good Little Girls are reprising the “hey, hey, ho ho, (fill in the blank) has got to go” chants of the Sixties, then you are staring right into the face of Fake Protest.

Genuine Protest? That’s when all the right people are getting their knickers in a twist about some low-rent losers that just want a little respect.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

I suppose a part of me died a week ago when Nancy Pelosi’s speech was interrupted by activist Dreamers.

Oh wait! Wrong Narrative!

Instead, I had an epiphany. This protest, I realized, with a Good Little Girl leading a well-rehearsed chant exactly as she was presumably taught by her government-paid professor at her government university, was “Fake Protest.”

What it was not was the genuine cry of the wretched of the Earth. How do I know that? First, because Good Little Girls do not do revolution. Second, because the Good Little Girl was advocating in a cause supported by the ruling class as Good Little Girls do. Third, because the Great and the Good did not immediately dump on the protesters as evil pond scum.

This latest epiphany comes after an earlier epiphany I had about the Left right after the 2016 election. The left is always advocating for people outside of the system. Why? Because that is the warrant for Revolution, baby.

In 1850 in Britain, about the time the left was invented, the people outside the system were the working class, straggling out of the starving countryside to lifesaving jobs in the factories. But the workers were outside the system, so they marched in the streets to get the attention of the ruling class. It was the genius of Marx to realize that rich kids like him could make their lives meaningful by protesting on behalf of these workers-outside-the-system, or even better, leading them in bloody revolution. So this was Genuine Protest.

But the bourgeoisie, after suppressing the Chartist movement in Britain, gave the workers the vote and started enacting the workers’ political agenda. Why? Because the bourgeoisie is not that interested in power. So no need for revolution, no need, really, for Protest, not any more.

This was proved in the 1950s during the civil-rights revolution. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood, from Gandhi and the Indian National Movement, that he didn’t need to riot in the streets to get the attention of the bourgeoisie. “Non-violent protest” was sufficient. Also, the ruling class of the time was all in favor of Dr. King’s movement. But blacks were outside the system in the Jim Crow South, so Selma’s Bloody Sunday was a good way to get the attention of the nation. Call it Semi-Fake Protest.

Now we have Good Little Girls advocating for a new group outside the system. But there is a problem. Everyone from blacks to gays is already inside the system fully franchised and efficiently represented by the Democratic Party, Democratic elected officials, the mainstream media, government education, and Hollywood jesters acting like kings. So who can genuine activists represent? Of course, illegal immigrants! They don’t have a vote, and they are forced to work in the shadows, at least they do when they live in nonsanctuary cities without a proper sprinkling of “We’re Glad You’re Our Neighbor” yard signs. They are the truly wretched of the earth, outside the system! Yay!

But these Dreamers are not really outside the system; their cause is the cause of the ruling class, which is working night and day, using fair means or foul, to advance their agenda. This is Fake Protest, ginned up by regime supporters, with the tacit approval of the ruling class.

Do you want to know what Genuine Protest today would look like? It would be a protest condemned by all right-thinking people, condemned in a resolution by a unanimous vote of Congress and signed by the President. Because those people would be the genuine wretched of the earth, born of sorrows and rejected of men.

To point up the total fake-arama of left-wing politics today, I give you the lefties’ ABC book for little lefty kiddies: A is for Activist by Innosanto Nagara. Yes,

F is for Feminist

But actually, feminists are mostly well-born women. No people outside the system here.

J is for Justice

Yeah. No Justice, No Peace. That’s why I say there is no such thing as justice, only injustice. And you won’t believe what “T” is for.

It’s a funny thing, but there is no entry in A is for Activist for

M is for Mao; millions of dead

S is for Stalin; he died in his bed.

And I think that is really a shame.

This Fake Protest thing is really not that hard. When liberal parents are buying cute little board books to teach ABCs to future activists, and when tenured government-paid professors are teaching Activism 101, and when Good Little Girls are reprising the “hey, hey, ho ho, (fill in the blank) has got to go” chants of the Sixties, then you are staring right into the face of Fake Protest.

Genuine Protest? That’s when all the right people are getting their knickers in a twist about some low-rent losers that just want a little respect.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

What? No Emerging Democratic Majority?


Back in the Oughts, John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira hit the big time with The Emerging Democratic Majority. They told liberals exactly what they wanted to hear: that women, minorities, educated, and young people were voting Democratic, and there would be more of them every year. The future was ours, comrades.

But now Judis, writing in the New Republic, says he was wrong. Why?

The answer is really rather simple. His prophecy relied on a Census Bureau assumption, that Moses supposed erroneously.

[The Bureau] projects that the same percentage of people who currently identify themselves as “Latino” or “Asian” will continue to claim those identities in future generations. In reality, that’s highly unlikely. History shows that as ethnic groups assimilate into American culture, they increasingly identify themselves as “white.”


Oh no!


Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice.

Remember when “Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites?” Probably not, because they were “other” a century ago.

“In the 2010 Census, 53 percent of Latinos identified as ‘white,’ as did more than half of Asian Americans of mixed parentage.” And that percentage is bound to grow.

So no Emerging Democratic Majority after all, because everyone ends up wanting to be white. Who knew?

But surely there is hope. Surely, Asian Americans at least can be tempted into the “educated” voting category and bribed with government-funded academic sinecures so that they identify with the urbanist metrosexual Creative Class rather than the international capitalist conspiracy.

Only now, according to Richard Florida, the Creative Class and its “ideopolises” are Very Bad Things that increase inequality.

The way for Democrats to win, writes Judis, is the way that Democrats from Andrew Jackson to Barack Obama won, not by identity politics but by “portraying themselves as the candidates of “the common folk” and “the middle class” against Wall Street and other special interests.”

There is no need, in short, for Democrats to choose between appealing to white workers and courting people of color. By making a strong and effective case for economic justice, they can do both at the same time.

Allow me to translate. Democrats should fight elections based upon offering the greatest amount of free stuff to the greatest possible number of voters, and not limit their appeal by offering free stuff to small subsets of the electorate.

But, for me, the notion of “economic justice” bears a frosty sound. It is eternally forward-looking from a Year Zero, imagining and implementing what Frankfurt School’s Max Horkheimer called “the right kind of society.”

What the “economic justice” believers do not begin to confront is the accumulated injustice of over a century of “economic justice” politics.

  • They do not care about the white working class, that they cast aside half a century ago.
  • They do not care about ordinary middle-class citizens, that obey the law, go to work, and follow the rules.
  • They do not care about a generation of college students, that were impoverished by student debt slavery so that university administrators might diversify and include.

And yet John B. Judis is all about selling the American people on “economic justice.”

I say there is no such thing as justice, only injustice. The most that government can do is ameliorate some of the injustice, the road-kill it has carelessly cast aside through its blind pursuit of economic justice.

The recent hurricanes in Texas and Florida point this up. What price “economic justice” when your home is flooded and the power and water are shut off? People don’t care about economic justice then, they only care about surviving, and then, helping other people survive.

Black Swan guy Nassim Nicholas Taleb understands this when he writes:

Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later[.]

And “economic justice” comes after that. Because economic justice isn’t worth a nickel to me unless I survive.

I am reading an analysis of the Frankfurt School — so you don’t have to — and the maddening thing is the way that these lefty intellectuals sneer at “the preservation of contemporary society” and lust for “its transformation into the right kind of society.”

They think that the economic problem has been solved, and that all that remains is to award the prizes to the deserving. In fact the economy, like all life, must constantly renew and revive itself, from the individual to the family, to community and nation, and a society that forgets this basic fact of survival is heading straight for the fate of the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

I tell you what I think. I think it is a crime against humanity that we normals have not made “economic justice” as much a pejorative as “white supremacist.”

Maybe the Hispanics and Asians will figure it all out for us as they explore their essential whiteness in the years to come.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

Back in the Oughts, John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira hit the big time with The Emerging Democratic Majority. They told liberals exactly what they wanted to hear: that women, minorities, educated, and young people were voting Democratic, and there would be more of them every year. The future was ours, comrades.

But now Judis, writing in the New Republic, says he was wrong. Why?

The answer is really rather simple. His prophecy relied on a Census Bureau assumption, that Moses supposed erroneously.

[The Bureau] projects that the same percentage of people who currently identify themselves as “Latino” or “Asian” will continue to claim those identities in future generations. In reality, that’s highly unlikely. History shows that as ethnic groups assimilate into American culture, they increasingly identify themselves as “white.”


Oh no!


Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice.

Remember when “Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites?” Probably not, because they were “other” a century ago.

“In the 2010 Census, 53 percent of Latinos identified as ‘white,’ as did more than half of Asian Americans of mixed parentage.” And that percentage is bound to grow.

So no Emerging Democratic Majority after all, because everyone ends up wanting to be white. Who knew?

But surely there is hope. Surely, Asian Americans at least can be tempted into the “educated” voting category and bribed with government-funded academic sinecures so that they identify with the urbanist metrosexual Creative Class rather than the international capitalist conspiracy.

Only now, according to Richard Florida, the Creative Class and its “ideopolises” are Very Bad Things that increase inequality.

The way for Democrats to win, writes Judis, is the way that Democrats from Andrew Jackson to Barack Obama won, not by identity politics but by “portraying themselves as the candidates of “the common folk” and “the middle class” against Wall Street and other special interests.”

There is no need, in short, for Democrats to choose between appealing to white workers and courting people of color. By making a strong and effective case for economic justice, they can do both at the same time.

Allow me to translate. Democrats should fight elections based upon offering the greatest amount of free stuff to the greatest possible number of voters, and not limit their appeal by offering free stuff to small subsets of the electorate.

But, for me, the notion of “economic justice” bears a frosty sound. It is eternally forward-looking from a Year Zero, imagining and implementing what Frankfurt School’s Max Horkheimer called “the right kind of society.”

What the “economic justice” believers do not begin to confront is the accumulated injustice of over a century of “economic justice” politics.

  • They do not care about the white working class, that they cast aside half a century ago.
  • They do not care about ordinary middle-class citizens, that obey the law, go to work, and follow the rules.
  • They do not care about a generation of college students, that were impoverished by student debt slavery so that university administrators might diversify and include.

And yet John B. Judis is all about selling the American people on “economic justice.”

I say there is no such thing as justice, only injustice. The most that government can do is ameliorate some of the injustice, the road-kill it has carelessly cast aside through its blind pursuit of economic justice.

The recent hurricanes in Texas and Florida point this up. What price “economic justice” when your home is flooded and the power and water are shut off? People don’t care about economic justice then, they only care about surviving, and then, helping other people survive.

Black Swan guy Nassim Nicholas Taleb understands this when he writes:

Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later[.]

And “economic justice” comes after that. Because economic justice isn’t worth a nickel to me unless I survive.

I am reading an analysis of the Frankfurt School — so you don’t have to — and the maddening thing is the way that these lefty intellectuals sneer at “the preservation of contemporary society” and lust for “its transformation into the right kind of society.”

They think that the economic problem has been solved, and that all that remains is to award the prizes to the deserving. In fact the economy, like all life, must constantly renew and revive itself, from the individual to the family, to community and nation, and a society that forgets this basic fact of survival is heading straight for the fate of the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

I tell you what I think. I think it is a crime against humanity that we normals have not made “economic justice” as much a pejorative as “white supremacist.”

Maybe the Hispanics and Asians will figure it all out for us as they explore their essential whiteness in the years to come.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

Hillary Clinton and What Happened to the Nature of Woman


The title of Hillary Clinton’s post-deplorable book tells it all: What Happened.

Notice the lack of agency.

But wait! I thought that the whole point of feminism and women’s liberation was that finally, after the age-old oppression of the patriarchy, women were going to come out into the world and be free and responsible agents of their own destiny.

Hey girls! What Happened?

Okay. I admit it. I have not read Hillary Clinton’s post-election non mea culpa — that’s Latin for Not My Fault — and I don’t intend to. In fact, I have never read any of Hillary Clinton’s books and I hope I never will.  It is nothing personal. I just think, without a particle of evidence, that I could learn a lot more about life, the universe, and everything from plugging through Andrew Roberts’ 935-page doorstopper on the life of British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury than anything I might glean from the scintillating mind of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But what I gather from what other people say about Hillary Clinton’s book is that Hillary blames her loss on just about everybody from President Obama to Matt Lauer to her campaign staff to the deplorables.

Years ago I had a male acquaintance who announced that whenever he does something that annoys his wife she recites The Catalog: everything mean that he had ever done to her since they first met 50 years ago. They shoulda called Hillary’s book The Catalog.

I am not surprised about Hillary’s book. I believe that there is something fundamental about the Nature of Woman that that makes it almost impossible for a human female to let go of anything, ever. She remembers What Happened to her as if it were yesterday, and never ceases to “share” with her friends that the other person is to blame and must apologize to her before normal relations can resume.

So what happened to women’s liberation, girls? What happened to that seminal Chapter XXV in Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex titled “The Independent Woman”?

The answer is as simple as it is obvious. Women don’t want to be independent. That is what everything from What Happened to safe spaces to microaggressions to the rape crisis is all about. Women want to be able to blame everyone else for What Happened, and they don’t really want to be independent and responsible.

Now I do not hold this against women, not at all. I take it as a confirmation of the Nature of Woman, and a reminder that the Nature of Woman is profoundly different from the nature of men.

This profound difference between men and women is illustrated by the question of the Mistake. No woman can look down upon the little Mistake playing at her feet and blame herself for her stupidity in getting involved with that loser or charmer or beta male, and then finding out that he was a vile chancer. Because that Mistake cannot really be a mistake. It must all be somebody else’s fault.

You see this in the campus rape hysteria, just recapped by John Hawkins. When a man is falsely accused of rape it often seems to issue from the need of the woman in question to avoid admitting that she made a mistake.

Now, it is my belief that the essence of being a man is to get up every day and clear the decks of past mistakes and regrets. It is the nature of human life that the past is littered with mistakes. But unless you can get past the mistakes you will be immobilized by guilt and regret and unable to move forward and act. Just like Hillary Clinton.

In other words, you cannot advance to agency and responsibility unless you are able to deal with and move on from your mistakes. That is why the tech startup culture is overwhelmingly male. Most startups are failures, so you cannot survive for long unless you can slough off your mistakes as a snake sloughs off its skin.

Of course, none of this applies to our glorious conservative women who are as loving and brave and independent and responsible as any man in Illyria. I suspect that the reason for this is that many conservative women are Christians and Christianity has a curious culture of the Forgiveness of Sins. If you make a mistake, you confess it to God and pray for forgiveness and Absolution. Next morning you are up and at ‘em, just like a man.

But liberal women don’t have that culture, and so they marinate in their mistakes and their cats and wonder What Happened, and blame the patriarchy for everything.

They should try Christianity; they might get to experience the pleasure of having anti-religious bigots in the Senate asking them if they are now, or have ever been, a Christian.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

The title of Hillary Clinton’s post-deplorable book tells it all: What Happened.

Notice the lack of agency.

But wait! I thought that the whole point of feminism and women’s liberation was that finally, after the age-old oppression of the patriarchy, women were going to come out into the world and be free and responsible agents of their own destiny.

Hey girls! What Happened?

Okay. I admit it. I have not read Hillary Clinton’s post-election non mea culpa — that’s Latin for Not My Fault — and I don’t intend to. In fact, I have never read any of Hillary Clinton’s books and I hope I never will.  It is nothing personal. I just think, without a particle of evidence, that I could learn a lot more about life, the universe, and everything from plugging through Andrew Roberts’ 935-page doorstopper on the life of British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury than anything I might glean from the scintillating mind of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But what I gather from what other people say about Hillary Clinton’s book is that Hillary blames her loss on just about everybody from President Obama to Matt Lauer to her campaign staff to the deplorables.

Years ago I had a male acquaintance who announced that whenever he does something that annoys his wife she recites The Catalog: everything mean that he had ever done to her since they first met 50 years ago. They shoulda called Hillary’s book The Catalog.

I am not surprised about Hillary’s book. I believe that there is something fundamental about the Nature of Woman that that makes it almost impossible for a human female to let go of anything, ever. She remembers What Happened to her as if it were yesterday, and never ceases to “share” with her friends that the other person is to blame and must apologize to her before normal relations can resume.

So what happened to women’s liberation, girls? What happened to that seminal Chapter XXV in Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex titled “The Independent Woman”?

The answer is as simple as it is obvious. Women don’t want to be independent. That is what everything from What Happened to safe spaces to microaggressions to the rape crisis is all about. Women want to be able to blame everyone else for What Happened, and they don’t really want to be independent and responsible.

Now I do not hold this against women, not at all. I take it as a confirmation of the Nature of Woman, and a reminder that the Nature of Woman is profoundly different from the nature of men.

This profound difference between men and women is illustrated by the question of the Mistake. No woman can look down upon the little Mistake playing at her feet and blame herself for her stupidity in getting involved with that loser or charmer or beta male, and then finding out that he was a vile chancer. Because that Mistake cannot really be a mistake. It must all be somebody else’s fault.

You see this in the campus rape hysteria, just recapped by John Hawkins. When a man is falsely accused of rape it often seems to issue from the need of the woman in question to avoid admitting that she made a mistake.

Now, it is my belief that the essence of being a man is to get up every day and clear the decks of past mistakes and regrets. It is the nature of human life that the past is littered with mistakes. But unless you can get past the mistakes you will be immobilized by guilt and regret and unable to move forward and act. Just like Hillary Clinton.

In other words, you cannot advance to agency and responsibility unless you are able to deal with and move on from your mistakes. That is why the tech startup culture is overwhelmingly male. Most startups are failures, so you cannot survive for long unless you can slough off your mistakes as a snake sloughs off its skin.

Of course, none of this applies to our glorious conservative women who are as loving and brave and independent and responsible as any man in Illyria. I suspect that the reason for this is that many conservative women are Christians and Christianity has a curious culture of the Forgiveness of Sins. If you make a mistake, you confess it to God and pray for forgiveness and Absolution. Next morning you are up and at ‘em, just like a man.

But liberal women don’t have that culture, and so they marinate in their mistakes and their cats and wonder What Happened, and blame the patriarchy for everything.

They should try Christianity; they might get to experience the pleasure of having anti-religious bigots in the Senate asking them if they are now, or have ever been, a Christian.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

Education and the $330,000 Kid


A month ago our liberal friends at Vox published a piece by Andrew Granato, a middle-class kid who got to go to private high school and college on $330,000 in financial aid and scholarships.

Granato allowed as how this privilege had vaulted him into the meritocratic elite. As we know, that has been the pattern since the Ivy League started moving from legacy WASP admissions to SAT-based admissions shortly after World War II. All of a sudden, the nation’s colleges started selecting only the brightest students, segregating them, as it were, from the rest of the population, putting them all together in a high IQ hot-house. Perhaps that could be a problem.

Gosh. I have a vague idea that some racist sexist homophobe has been writing books about this for years. And liberals have paid no attention at all. Indeed, when he wrote The Bell Curve back in the 1990s, they called him a racist. And when he visiting rich-kid Middlebury College they called him everything under the sun.

What Charles Murray wrote back in 1994 was that the elite policy of selection by IQ was going to segregate out the most intelligent from the rest of the nation, and that would restructure the nation into a new class structure based on IQ. That’s why he and co-author Richard Herrnstein subtitled their book “Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.” That is why they argued that an IQ-based education policy would fall hardest on blacks, because whether you like it or not, the black bell curve for IQ shows that blacks test lower for IQ than whites. Or at least it did up till the 1990s.

And the liberal response? Raaacist!

That’s what liberals said at the time, and that’s what their little armed thugs shouted at Middlebury back in March.

But the fact is that Murray warned, 20 years ago, that the nation’s current education policy is segregating the American people into bubbles based on IQ. And that, Charles Murray warned 20 years ago, is not good.

So here, finally, we have a young head full of mush innocently backing up the vile racist trash that Charles Murray, right-wing extremist, wrote all those years ago. If only the poor kid knew…

Of course, liberals always cry racist when they don’t want to discuss the grubby realities of their unjust domination and hegemony.

But if the segregation of students by IQ is a problem, because then we segregate society by IQ, with all the smart Jewish kids mixing it up together with the smart Asian kids and leaving the WASP legacy kids and the deplorables and lesser breeds without the law to pick up the scraps, then what?

You can see why liberals have segued from using IQ as a metric for supervising the education of children to the current ruling-class doctrine of diversity and inclusion. It completely smudges over the embarrassing aspects of IQ segregation and pretends to substitute a completely opaque policy of race and gender mixology where liberals can do whatever they want and scream raaacist at anyone that objects.

But you and I might have a different idea. We might come to believe that it is time to get education out of its current culture of top-down administrative domination that features ten-thousand government child custodial facilities guarded by a million lifer bureaucrats and instead let a hundred flowers bloom, from home schools to trade schools to child labor to apprenticeships

Yes, you read that right. I’m all in favor of child labor. Today we force children to work all day in government child custodial facilities and we pay them nothing. At least in the bad old days they paid children when they worked all day.

Seriously, whose bright idea was it that children should spend their waking hours learning not very much at government schools? What exactly are we trying to accomplish, other than creating mind-numbed robots?

We know what people want that pay for their children’s education. They mostly want their children to get into selective colleges so that they can get good jobs in the professions or prepare for artistic and creative work. But what about the ordinary middle class? Did anyone ask them? What about the white working class, dying of despair? What do they want for their children? And what about Hispanics, African Americans, and others that are just expected to vote for the Democrat and await the glorious future as the arc of history bends towards justice?

The wonderful thing about our modern society is that on the one hand we have business ceaselessly beavering away thinking every moment about how to create new products and services for consumers. And on the other we have government in charge of make-or-break functions like education busily thinking about how not to do it.

At least young Andrew Granato realizes that there is a problem.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

A month ago our liberal friends at Vox published a piece by Andrew Granato, a middle-class kid who got to go to private high school and college on $330,000 in financial aid and scholarships.

Granato allowed as how this privilege had vaulted him into the meritocratic elite. As we know, that has been the pattern since the Ivy League started moving from legacy WASP admissions to SAT-based admissions shortly after World War II. All of a sudden, the nation’s colleges started selecting only the brightest students, segregating them, as it were, from the rest of the population, putting them all together in a high IQ hot-house. Perhaps that could be a problem.

Gosh. I have a vague idea that some racist sexist homophobe has been writing books about this for years. And liberals have paid no attention at all. Indeed, when he wrote The Bell Curve back in the 1990s, they called him a racist. And when he visiting rich-kid Middlebury College they called him everything under the sun.

What Charles Murray wrote back in 1994 was that the elite policy of selection by IQ was going to segregate out the most intelligent from the rest of the nation, and that would restructure the nation into a new class structure based on IQ. That’s why he and co-author Richard Herrnstein subtitled their book “Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.” That is why they argued that an IQ-based education policy would fall hardest on blacks, because whether you like it or not, the black bell curve for IQ shows that blacks test lower for IQ than whites. Or at least it did up till the 1990s.

And the liberal response? Raaacist!

That’s what liberals said at the time, and that’s what their little armed thugs shouted at Middlebury back in March.

But the fact is that Murray warned, 20 years ago, that the nation’s current education policy is segregating the American people into bubbles based on IQ. And that, Charles Murray warned 20 years ago, is not good.

So here, finally, we have a young head full of mush innocently backing up the vile racist trash that Charles Murray, right-wing extremist, wrote all those years ago. If only the poor kid knew…

Of course, liberals always cry racist when they don’t want to discuss the grubby realities of their unjust domination and hegemony.

But if the segregation of students by IQ is a problem, because then we segregate society by IQ, with all the smart Jewish kids mixing it up together with the smart Asian kids and leaving the WASP legacy kids and the deplorables and lesser breeds without the law to pick up the scraps, then what?

You can see why liberals have segued from using IQ as a metric for supervising the education of children to the current ruling-class doctrine of diversity and inclusion. It completely smudges over the embarrassing aspects of IQ segregation and pretends to substitute a completely opaque policy of race and gender mixology where liberals can do whatever they want and scream raaacist at anyone that objects.

But you and I might have a different idea. We might come to believe that it is time to get education out of its current culture of top-down administrative domination that features ten-thousand government child custodial facilities guarded by a million lifer bureaucrats and instead let a hundred flowers bloom, from home schools to trade schools to child labor to apprenticeships

Yes, you read that right. I’m all in favor of child labor. Today we force children to work all day in government child custodial facilities and we pay them nothing. At least in the bad old days they paid children when they worked all day.

Seriously, whose bright idea was it that children should spend their waking hours learning not very much at government schools? What exactly are we trying to accomplish, other than creating mind-numbed robots?

We know what people want that pay for their children’s education. They mostly want their children to get into selective colleges so that they can get good jobs in the professions or prepare for artistic and creative work. But what about the ordinary middle class? Did anyone ask them? What about the white working class, dying of despair? What do they want for their children? And what about Hispanics, African Americans, and others that are just expected to vote for the Democrat and await the glorious future as the arc of history bends towards justice?

The wonderful thing about our modern society is that on the one hand we have business ceaselessly beavering away thinking every moment about how to create new products and services for consumers. And on the other we have government in charge of make-or-break functions like education busily thinking about how not to do it.

At least young Andrew Granato realizes that there is a problem.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link