Category: Christopher Chantrill

209152.png

Hello, Liberals: Can You Spell F-A-S-C-I-S-M?



Shouldn't the corporate chieftains bravely push back against politicians who want them to start discriminating against their customers on the basis of ideology?



Source link

209024.png

Our Lefty Friends' 'Spartacus Illusion'


For the last three years I have been developing a theory about the left’s “activism” culture. But I have failed miserably to come up with a catchy title for the whole thing.

Thank you, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). You are a champ!

I am here to say that the whole culture of left-wing “activism,” starting not later than Marx and Engels, is a “Spartacus Illusion,” the fantasy — or conceit, or outright lie — of little lefty rich kids from the ruling class thinking they are slaves taking it to The Man.

When a United States senator, protected by Capitol Hill police, says “I am Spartacus” he is delusional. When Good Little Liberal Girls get up in Handmaid’s Tale cosplay outfits they are not sex-slaves of the ruling class: they are the ruling class.

(Hey Handmaid girls! Have you ever thought that the sexual revolution plus abortion plus no-fault divorce plus hook-up culture has made you into sex-slaves? Didn’t think you had.)

As Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman: Everything she writes is a lie, including “and” and “the.” I know this is true because I once went to a performance of Hellman’s “Watch on the Rhine,” at the Berkeley Repertory Theater, no less. McCarthy has it exactly right. About “and” and “the.”

Everything the left says is a lie, including “I am Spartacus.”

It started with Marx and Engels declaring that heaven for the workers would be the government owning the means of production. Yeah, right. It led to poverty and starvation every time it was tried. Marxism is not justice, it is neo-slavery.

It continued with the Brit-kid Fabians and their plan for a welfare state. I don’t know what you call a state that spends 40-50 percent of GDP on government programs. The welfare state is not freedom from want, it is neo-feudalism.

Then the Frankfurt School rich kids came up with the cool idea to organize women and minorities in fake tribes all the better to divide and conquer the peoples of democratic capitalist states. Identity politics is not emancipation, it is neo-tribalism.

And don’t get me started on the Sixties Kidz and the “Resistance.”

The lefties call this progress. Or bending the arc of history. I call it the Great Reaction.

(By the way, the straight scoop on little rich kids is still War and Peace. Yeah. Poor little rich kid Pierre Besukhov. But at least Besukhov was shy and mild-mannered. And he got the girl.)

While all these rich kids have been acting out with their activism and their “I am Spartacus” delusions the market economy, unheralded and unplanned, merely increased real per capita income by 30 times in 200 years. I showed a nice liberal lady my Great Enrichment page the other day. She had no idea. How come, NPR and New York Times? How come nice liberal ladies have no idea about the most important fact of our time?

Hey I know! How about a Ken Burns documentary series on PBS featuring Ms. Great Enrichment herself, Deirdre McCloskey, taking the part of Shelby Foote. McCloskey is transgender so we could pile on anyone that criticized her and get xem thrown off social media as transphobic!  Whaddya say, Zuck’n’Jack?

Let me lay it to you straight, lefties.

When your side figures it can make a mockery of a U.S. Senate hearing, complete with staged “protests” from the back row and Spartacus moments from an elected senator, it means you are the ruling class. Republicans would never dare do such a thing.

When your side treats the assault on a government office, like ICE in Portlandia, OR, as a minor peccadillo, it means that your side is the ruling class. Imagine the panic if some alt-right tiki-torchers tried that with You Know Who at 8th Avenue and 42nd Street! Anonymous would be the least of it.

When a former President of the United States stands next to the most notorious racists in the USA at a celebrity funeral, it means that those racists are tolerated — nudge-nudge, wink-wink, know what I mean — by the ruling class.  Imagine any former president ever standing next to David Duke.

When Good Little Girls are showing up all over with cutesy-wootesy protest signs just like they were taught in Activism class, they are not speaking truth to power. The are rich kids strutting the latest fashion.

Real protest is the Captain Swing rioters in Britain in 1820 smashing the threshing machines that were taking away their livelihood. And nobody cared.

Real protest is the protesters you never hear about in Venezuela protesting against starvation. ‘Cos nobody cares.

Here is how to tell real protest from fake protest. The real thing is reactive, far too late, unheralded, the last futile punches of a punch-drunk boxer, And nobody cares.

Kinda like the original Spartacus Rebellion.

As opposed to the fake one, starring Cory Booker as Kirk Douglas.

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.

For the last three years I have been developing a theory about the left’s “activism” culture. But I have failed miserably to come up with a catchy title for the whole thing.

Thank you, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). You are a champ!

I am here to say that the whole culture of left-wing “activism,” starting not later than Marx and Engels, is a “Spartacus Illusion,” the fantasy — or conceit, or outright lie — of little lefty rich kids from the ruling class thinking they are slaves taking it to The Man.

When a United States senator, protected by Capitol Hill police, says “I am Spartacus” he is delusional. When Good Little Liberal Girls get up in Handmaid’s Tale cosplay outfits they are not sex-slaves of the ruling class: they are the ruling class.

(Hey Handmaid girls! Have you ever thought that the sexual revolution plus abortion plus no-fault divorce plus hook-up culture has made you into sex-slaves? Didn’t think you had.)

As Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman: Everything she writes is a lie, including “and” and “the.” I know this is true because I once went to a performance of Hellman’s “Watch on the Rhine,” at the Berkeley Repertory Theater, no less. McCarthy has it exactly right. About “and” and “the.”

Everything the left says is a lie, including “I am Spartacus.”

It started with Marx and Engels declaring that heaven for the workers would be the government owning the means of production. Yeah, right. It led to poverty and starvation every time it was tried. Marxism is not justice, it is neo-slavery.

It continued with the Brit-kid Fabians and their plan for a welfare state. I don’t know what you call a state that spends 40-50 percent of GDP on government programs. The welfare state is not freedom from want, it is neo-feudalism.

Then the Frankfurt School rich kids came up with the cool idea to organize women and minorities in fake tribes all the better to divide and conquer the peoples of democratic capitalist states. Identity politics is not emancipation, it is neo-tribalism.

And don’t get me started on the Sixties Kidz and the “Resistance.”

The lefties call this progress. Or bending the arc of history. I call it the Great Reaction.

(By the way, the straight scoop on little rich kids is still War and Peace. Yeah. Poor little rich kid Pierre Besukhov. But at least Besukhov was shy and mild-mannered. And he got the girl.)

While all these rich kids have been acting out with their activism and their “I am Spartacus” delusions the market economy, unheralded and unplanned, merely increased real per capita income by 30 times in 200 years. I showed a nice liberal lady my Great Enrichment page the other day. She had no idea. How come, NPR and New York Times? How come nice liberal ladies have no idea about the most important fact of our time?

Hey I know! How about a Ken Burns documentary series on PBS featuring Ms. Great Enrichment herself, Deirdre McCloskey, taking the part of Shelby Foote. McCloskey is transgender so we could pile on anyone that criticized her and get xem thrown off social media as transphobic!  Whaddya say, Zuck’n’Jack?

Let me lay it to you straight, lefties.

When your side figures it can make a mockery of a U.S. Senate hearing, complete with staged “protests” from the back row and Spartacus moments from an elected senator, it means you are the ruling class. Republicans would never dare do such a thing.

When your side treats the assault on a government office, like ICE in Portlandia, OR, as a minor peccadillo, it means that your side is the ruling class. Imagine the panic if some alt-right tiki-torchers tried that with You Know Who at 8th Avenue and 42nd Street! Anonymous would be the least of it.

When a former President of the United States stands next to the most notorious racists in the USA at a celebrity funeral, it means that those racists are tolerated — nudge-nudge, wink-wink, know what I mean — by the ruling class.  Imagine any former president ever standing next to David Duke.

When Good Little Girls are showing up all over with cutesy-wootesy protest signs just like they were taught in Activism class, they are not speaking truth to power. The are rich kids strutting the latest fashion.

Real protest is the Captain Swing rioters in Britain in 1820 smashing the threshing machines that were taking away their livelihood. And nobody cared.

Real protest is the protesters you never hear about in Venezuela protesting against starvation. ‘Cos nobody cares.

Here is how to tell real protest from fake protest. The real thing is reactive, far too late, unheralded, the last futile punches of a punch-drunk boxer, And nobody cares.

Kinda like the original Spartacus Rebellion.

As opposed to the fake one, starring Cory Booker as Kirk Douglas.

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

208844.png

Patriotism vs. Nationalism: Both Are Fake Tribalism


I was to the local Safeway on the Saturday morning of the Labor Day weekend, and I noticed a number of red, white, and blue “patriotic bouquets” in the floral department.  But what would it mean if instead Safeway had advertised the bouquets as “national holiday bouquets”?

I got to read a couple of articles over the last week that purported to tell me the difference between “patriotism” and “nationalism.”  The difference is clear.  Patriotism good; nationalism bad.  But what really is the difference?  Neither Jonah Goldberg nor Ralph Benko was able to tell me, except to note that the late John McCain was a patriot while Donald Trump is a nationalist.

After a couple of days of deep thinking, I think I can say what the difference is.  Patriotism is when the ruling class keeps tribal feeling in reserve, to crank it up only when it is necessary to send a generation of young men onto the killing fields against an enemy.  Nationalism is when the ruling class loses control of the narrative to some yahoo like Trump.

Okay.  Now let’s get down to the science.  All humans are tribal; we like our own kind best.  Tribes were invented by the hunter-gatherer band of the kindred to mobilize all the men to defend their “patch of land” alongside their brothers against the enemy.

But ever since the dawn of agriculture, humans have lived in communities that extend beyond the limits of blood relationships.  What to do?  How to motivate young men to defend the homeland against the enemy?  Answer: fake tribalism.  “The priests” advertise the notion that God has selected the pharaoh to rule over us and guide us, or that the Twelve Tribes of Israel are really one tribe, God’s Chosen People.  And what are “races” or “ethnicities” but more fake tribes?

Also, “the priests” have been a major part of the movement down the centuries to discourage cousin marriage, and that thins out the blood relationships in real tribes.

All politics, ever since, has needed a cunning way to create a fake – or more politely, abstract – notion of the blood brotherhood of the tribe.  And it has needed an enemy.  Often enough, the fake tribe has been the peasants ruled by a king.  And the king’s enemies were our enemies.

Enter the rising bourgeoisie.  We middle-class deplorables decided that the divine right of kings was for the birds; we wanted in on the political action, and that meant revising the fake kingly tribalism in favor of a new fake tribe of middle-class people getting and spending in a sacred homeland and a history to be defended against a world of enemies.

Now you see what Ronald Reagan’s last speech to Americans about the city on the hill is all about:

And how stands the city on this winter night?  More prosperous, more secure and happier than it was eight years ago[.] … And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the Pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

This sort of thing gives me chills on my spine, as it is supposed to.

Now, our lefty friends also play at this game, only their fake tribe is Anything But Nation.  Look at all the fake tribes they have created over the last 150 years.  First there was the fake tribe of the workers: workers of the world, unite.  Now we have the fake tribe of the feminists: the future is female.  And the tribe of the former African slaves: black is beautiful.  And the LGBT tribe: we’re here, we’re queer.  And death to the racist, sexist homophobes of the world!

But notice something about lefty tribalism.  It is not about defending the homeland, which is what tribalism was invented to do.  It is about setting people in the homeland against each other, so the lefty ruling class can divide and conquer.  There is an enemy, but the enemy is us.

Our globalist friends are just as tribal as the rest of us.  They have this notion of a fake global tribe, united to defend the planetary homeland against…climate change!

Gosh, what geniuses they are!

I know!  Let’s look at Google Ngram for nationalism, patriotism, and populism:

Well, well: Who knew?  But what does it mean?  I’d say it means that after sending a generation of young men to their deaths in World War I, our ruling class kinda soured on high-class patriotism and so left the stage empty for low-class nationalists like Hitler and Mussolini.

But I tell you, if our ruling class should ever decide they need a generation of young men to go out and defend the homeland, all of a sudden, nationalism and patriotism will become the best things since sliced bread.

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

I was to the local Safeway on the Saturday morning of the Labor Day weekend, and I noticed a number of red, white, and blue “patriotic bouquets” in the floral department.  But what would it mean if instead Safeway had advertised the bouquets as “national holiday bouquets”?

I got to read a couple of articles over the last week that purported to tell me the difference between “patriotism” and “nationalism.”  The difference is clear.  Patriotism good; nationalism bad.  But what really is the difference?  Neither Jonah Goldberg nor Ralph Benko was able to tell me, except to note that the late John McCain was a patriot while Donald Trump is a nationalist.

After a couple of days of deep thinking, I think I can say what the difference is.  Patriotism is when the ruling class keeps tribal feeling in reserve, to crank it up only when it is necessary to send a generation of young men onto the killing fields against an enemy.  Nationalism is when the ruling class loses control of the narrative to some yahoo like Trump.

Okay.  Now let’s get down to the science.  All humans are tribal; we like our own kind best.  Tribes were invented by the hunter-gatherer band of the kindred to mobilize all the men to defend their “patch of land” alongside their brothers against the enemy.

But ever since the dawn of agriculture, humans have lived in communities that extend beyond the limits of blood relationships.  What to do?  How to motivate young men to defend the homeland against the enemy?  Answer: fake tribalism.  “The priests” advertise the notion that God has selected the pharaoh to rule over us and guide us, or that the Twelve Tribes of Israel are really one tribe, God’s Chosen People.  And what are “races” or “ethnicities” but more fake tribes?

Also, “the priests” have been a major part of the movement down the centuries to discourage cousin marriage, and that thins out the blood relationships in real tribes.

All politics, ever since, has needed a cunning way to create a fake – or more politely, abstract – notion of the blood brotherhood of the tribe.  And it has needed an enemy.  Often enough, the fake tribe has been the peasants ruled by a king.  And the king’s enemies were our enemies.

Enter the rising bourgeoisie.  We middle-class deplorables decided that the divine right of kings was for the birds; we wanted in on the political action, and that meant revising the fake kingly tribalism in favor of a new fake tribe of middle-class people getting and spending in a sacred homeland and a history to be defended against a world of enemies.

Now you see what Ronald Reagan’s last speech to Americans about the city on the hill is all about:

And how stands the city on this winter night?  More prosperous, more secure and happier than it was eight years ago[.] … And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the Pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

This sort of thing gives me chills on my spine, as it is supposed to.

Now, our lefty friends also play at this game, only their fake tribe is Anything But Nation.  Look at all the fake tribes they have created over the last 150 years.  First there was the fake tribe of the workers: workers of the world, unite.  Now we have the fake tribe of the feminists: the future is female.  And the tribe of the former African slaves: black is beautiful.  And the LGBT tribe: we’re here, we’re queer.  And death to the racist, sexist homophobes of the world!

But notice something about lefty tribalism.  It is not about defending the homeland, which is what tribalism was invented to do.  It is about setting people in the homeland against each other, so the lefty ruling class can divide and conquer.  There is an enemy, but the enemy is us.

Our globalist friends are just as tribal as the rest of us.  They have this notion of a fake global tribe, united to defend the planetary homeland against…climate change!

Gosh, what geniuses they are!

I know!  Let’s look at Google Ngram for nationalism, patriotism, and populism:

Well, well: Who knew?  But what does it mean?  I’d say it means that after sending a generation of young men to their deaths in World War I, our ruling class kinda soured on high-class patriotism and so left the stage empty for low-class nationalists like Hitler and Mussolini.

But I tell you, if our ruling class should ever decide they need a generation of young men to go out and defend the homeland, all of a sudden, nationalism and patriotism will become the best things since sliced bread.

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



Source link

208711.png

Burying Us Won't Work, Liberals


Remember when Nikita Khrushchev, general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, said “we will bury you” to the Western ambassadors in Moscow?  Me, neither.  I was ten at the time.  Here is the full quote from La Wik.

About the capitalist states, it doesn’t depend on you whether or not we exist.  If you don’t like us, don’t accept our invitations, and don’t invite us to come to see you.  Whether you like it or not, history is on our side.  We will bury you!

Ah, yes: history, God bless it.  But I would say a declaration of war like that is not good strategy.  I’m sure that the great mavens of strategy, from Sun Tzu to Machiavelli to Bismarck, or even the strategic bureaucrats of the German General Staff, would disapprove.

For the best way to win, if I read the geniuses correctly, is to induce the loser to give up without firing a shot.

So I don’t think the Gramsci idea of the march through the institutions, or the Marcuse strategy of repressive tolerance toward right-wing thought, or the SPLC strategy of silencing conservatives on the internet by branding David Horowitz as “hate speech,” is really a good idea.  Not if you advertise it to all the world.

At some point, we deplorables are going to wake up out of our innocent slumber and realize that the left means to wipe us out: culturally, politically, economically, or maybe even…  Well, never mind.  We already did.

If you are the mother of a schoolchild, the schools are determined to let boys into the girls’ bathroom.

If you are the parent of a college girl, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) isn’t too concerned about your daughter being killed by an illegal alien.

If you are an ordinary conservative who reads Dennis Prager or David Horowitz or Salena Zito, you wake up to find social media censoring their anodyne remarks.

At a time when young men are struggling to get through college, you read of lefty academics and administrators determined to cure young men of their toxic masculinity.

If you watch the news, you rage about the proctological justice meted out to associates of Donald Trump as opposed to the “she didn’t mean it” excuses awarded to Democrats.

Now, if you read the thumb-suckers at The Atlantic, you read Eliot A. Cohen telling how Trump the dictator will end up, like Mussolini and Macbeth, deserted by his followers.

As usual, our betters have got the wrong end of the stick.  It is never the followers who abandon ship; it is the courtiers.

If Trump does go down, it will be because GOP honchos in Congress drive down Pennsylvania Avenue and tell him he’s got to go, as Sens. Scott and Goldwater and Rep. Rhodes told Nixon in 1974.

Only this time, they won’t, because they know that if they do, the Republican voters will repudiate them before they repudiate President Trump.

This is not that complicated.  There is only one practical response to the left’s attack on everything we hold dear, and that is to cleave to the politician who promises to protect us, however flawed and corrupt he might be.

There is nothing mysterious about this.  The whole purpose of politics, from the local village Big Man to George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower, is to defend “us” against “them.”

If there is no existential threat to “us,” then there is no need for leadership, no need for defense budgets, no need to rally all good men to fight the foe.

But that is not the case today, thanks to our lefty friends who openly tell us we are racist, sexist, homophobic scum who deserve whatever is coming to us.  Thus, there is an existential threat, and we do need a leader to protect us.

Really, we should thank our lefty friends for their strategic innocence, that all along, beginning with Marx, they “openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies.”

When humans detect a threat to their well-being, then we instinctively look for a leader to protect us.  So even if they are making a strategic blunder, we should thank our lefty friends for being so up front with us: they mean to destroy us, and we have to stop them.

So what do we do?  The NeverTrump right has said it is not going to fight for us; the Deep State has told us that it is not going to help us; and the left has told us in no uncertain terms, “We will bury you.”

In that kind of America, what kind of a fool would give up on Donald Trump?

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

Remember when Nikita Khrushchev, general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, said “we will bury you” to the Western ambassadors in Moscow?  Me, neither.  I was ten at the time.  Here is the full quote from La Wik.

About the capitalist states, it doesn’t depend on you whether or not we exist.  If you don’t like us, don’t accept our invitations, and don’t invite us to come to see you.  Whether you like it or not, history is on our side.  We will bury you!

Ah, yes: history, God bless it.  But I would say a declaration of war like that is not good strategy.  I’m sure that the great mavens of strategy, from Sun Tzu to Machiavelli to Bismarck, or even the strategic bureaucrats of the German General Staff, would disapprove.

For the best way to win, if I read the geniuses correctly, is to induce the loser to give up without firing a shot.

So I don’t think the Gramsci idea of the march through the institutions, or the Marcuse strategy of repressive tolerance toward right-wing thought, or the SPLC strategy of silencing conservatives on the internet by branding David Horowitz as “hate speech,” is really a good idea.  Not if you advertise it to all the world.

At some point, we deplorables are going to wake up out of our innocent slumber and realize that the left means to wipe us out: culturally, politically, economically, or maybe even…  Well, never mind.  We already did.

If you are the mother of a schoolchild, the schools are determined to let boys into the girls’ bathroom.

If you are the parent of a college girl, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) isn’t too concerned about your daughter being killed by an illegal alien.

If you are an ordinary conservative who reads Dennis Prager or David Horowitz or Salena Zito, you wake up to find social media censoring their anodyne remarks.

At a time when young men are struggling to get through college, you read of lefty academics and administrators determined to cure young men of their toxic masculinity.

If you watch the news, you rage about the proctological justice meted out to associates of Donald Trump as opposed to the “she didn’t mean it” excuses awarded to Democrats.

Now, if you read the thumb-suckers at The Atlantic, you read Eliot A. Cohen telling how Trump the dictator will end up, like Mussolini and Macbeth, deserted by his followers.

As usual, our betters have got the wrong end of the stick.  It is never the followers who abandon ship; it is the courtiers.

If Trump does go down, it will be because GOP honchos in Congress drive down Pennsylvania Avenue and tell him he’s got to go, as Sens. Scott and Goldwater and Rep. Rhodes told Nixon in 1974.

Only this time, they won’t, because they know that if they do, the Republican voters will repudiate them before they repudiate President Trump.

This is not that complicated.  There is only one practical response to the left’s attack on everything we hold dear, and that is to cleave to the politician who promises to protect us, however flawed and corrupt he might be.

There is nothing mysterious about this.  The whole purpose of politics, from the local village Big Man to George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower, is to defend “us” against “them.”

If there is no existential threat to “us,” then there is no need for leadership, no need for defense budgets, no need to rally all good men to fight the foe.

But that is not the case today, thanks to our lefty friends who openly tell us we are racist, sexist, homophobic scum who deserve whatever is coming to us.  Thus, there is an existential threat, and we do need a leader to protect us.

Really, we should thank our lefty friends for their strategic innocence, that all along, beginning with Marx, they “openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies.”

When humans detect a threat to their well-being, then we instinctively look for a leader to protect us.  So even if they are making a strategic blunder, we should thank our lefty friends for being so up front with us: they mean to destroy us, and we have to stop them.

So what do we do?  The NeverTrump right has said it is not going to fight for us; the Deep State has told us that it is not going to help us; and the left has told us in no uncertain terms, “We will bury you.”

In that kind of America, what kind of a fool would give up on Donald Trump?

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



Source link

Why Don't We Turn Populist?


There are two types of populism, writes Victor Davis Hanson, that go back to classical times.  There’s the populism of the mob, which wants redistribution and to tax the rich.  Then there is the populism of the small property-owners and small businessmen, little people with a retirement nest egg threatened by the ruling class.

Although it is usual to marginalize both these populisms as reactions of the simple-minded to necessary “creative destruction,” it is perhaps important to remember an underappreciated factor: the backwash of the ruling class’s wars and incompetent manipulations.

Here’s what I mean.

Sure, the French Revolution unleashed the mob, but it was the mess of French government finance that brought on the revolution and the subsequent revolutionary inflation that radicalized the whole country.  The Old Regime was incompetent; the new regime was evil.

The working-class ructions in Britain after the Napoleonic Wars are inseparable from the deflation working Brits suffered, after a generation of war, as their government returned gold to its pre-war parity.

The Jacksonian populism in the U.S. cannot be separated from Old Hickory’s demolition job on the Hamiltonian financial system, and the late 19th-century rural populism and industrial strife follows the U.S. deflation after the Civil War.

Let us say, for argument’s sake, that the 1920s boom and crash were the fault of Andrew Mellon, who woke up every morning with a new tax cut, and President Coolidge, who spent several mornings a month looking for ways to cut spending.  Still, the ruling class made a complete mess of taming the animal spirits loosed by Andy and Cal Show.  And then the ruling class mucked up on its response to the 1929 Crash and doubled the disaster with stupidities like the National Industrial Recovery Act.

We all know that the 2000s boom and crash were all about stupid Dodds and Franks putting the pedal to the metal to push mortgages out to under-collateralized and sub-prime borrowers.  And the subsequent crash was about Gentle Ben failing to do his job as lender of last resort.

Remember Harry Truman’s boast: the buck stops here?  My plan is for Congress to write a law, that the chairman of the Federal Reserve shall display upon his desk a sign, that reads: “Lender of Last Resort.  This Means You, Chump.”  I mean Champ.

Sure, whenever the ruling class screws the economy, with its wars or its financial incompetence, the little people are going to be hardest hit.  The only question is whether it will be the propertyless – the swinish multitude – or the small-time rentiers and the white working class – the deplorables.

But what about the rest of us?  Sure, we don’t end up jobless and end up on disability when the ruling class screws up, and we don’t get wiped out by the once-in-a-generation financial crash.  But why do we put up with these incompetents?

What finally put me over the top was this.  I went to a fundraiser concert over the weekend, and the M.C. for the event was a drag queen who got us all on to our feet to sing the National Anthem, which, as you all know, is “Somewhere over the Rainbow.”

You will be truly shocked to read that no safe spaces were provided for the transgendered, who might have been offended and microaggressed by the drag queen appropriating their culture.

What I want to know is, why does the dig-in-our-pockets-for-charity crowd put up with this abuse?  How about we regular guys get all riled up and mad at the world and get up and say we are not going to take it anymore?

How about we sit gays down and tell them how tolerant we are to have gone along with their “gay marriage” baloney?

How about we insist that politicians bow and scrape a lot more for our checks that keep them in the game?

How about we sit the professors and the teachers down and tell ’em how we want our kids educated?  And hey, pal!  Stop pumping Our Kids full of lefty activism rubbish.

How about the FBIs and DOJs do their jobs and stop playing FISA roulette with presidential candidates?

How about the tech titans start to think they need to truckle a bit to people like us rather than the usual liberal suspects?

Here’s the point.  The only way these various members of the national Idiocracy are going to pay attention to us is if they start to fear us.  And the only way they are going to fear us is if we start acting up and causing a ruckus.

Maybe it’s time for you and me to show ’em what populism looks like when done by professionals.

It is probably the only way to get these spoiled children of liberal land to show people like us a little respect.

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

There are two types of populism, writes Victor Davis Hanson, that go back to classical times.  There’s the populism of the mob, which wants redistribution and to tax the rich.  Then there is the populism of the small property-owners and small businessmen, little people with a retirement nest egg threatened by the ruling class.

Although it is usual to marginalize both these populisms as reactions of the simple-minded to necessary “creative destruction,” it is perhaps important to remember an underappreciated factor: the backwash of the ruling class’s wars and incompetent manipulations.

Here’s what I mean.

Sure, the French Revolution unleashed the mob, but it was the mess of French government finance that brought on the revolution and the subsequent revolutionary inflation that radicalized the whole country.  The Old Regime was incompetent; the new regime was evil.

The working-class ructions in Britain after the Napoleonic Wars are inseparable from the deflation working Brits suffered, after a generation of war, as their government returned gold to its pre-war parity.

The Jacksonian populism in the U.S. cannot be separated from Old Hickory’s demolition job on the Hamiltonian financial system, and the late 19th-century rural populism and industrial strife follows the U.S. deflation after the Civil War.

Let us say, for argument’s sake, that the 1920s boom and crash were the fault of Andrew Mellon, who woke up every morning with a new tax cut, and President Coolidge, who spent several mornings a month looking for ways to cut spending.  Still, the ruling class made a complete mess of taming the animal spirits loosed by Andy and Cal Show.  And then the ruling class mucked up on its response to the 1929 Crash and doubled the disaster with stupidities like the National Industrial Recovery Act.

We all know that the 2000s boom and crash were all about stupid Dodds and Franks putting the pedal to the metal to push mortgages out to under-collateralized and sub-prime borrowers.  And the subsequent crash was about Gentle Ben failing to do his job as lender of last resort.

Remember Harry Truman’s boast: the buck stops here?  My plan is for Congress to write a law, that the chairman of the Federal Reserve shall display upon his desk a sign, that reads: “Lender of Last Resort.  This Means You, Chump.”  I mean Champ.

Sure, whenever the ruling class screws the economy, with its wars or its financial incompetence, the little people are going to be hardest hit.  The only question is whether it will be the propertyless – the swinish multitude – or the small-time rentiers and the white working class – the deplorables.

But what about the rest of us?  Sure, we don’t end up jobless and end up on disability when the ruling class screws up, and we don’t get wiped out by the once-in-a-generation financial crash.  But why do we put up with these incompetents?

What finally put me over the top was this.  I went to a fundraiser concert over the weekend, and the M.C. for the event was a drag queen who got us all on to our feet to sing the National Anthem, which, as you all know, is “Somewhere over the Rainbow.”

You will be truly shocked to read that no safe spaces were provided for the transgendered, who might have been offended and microaggressed by the drag queen appropriating their culture.

What I want to know is, why does the dig-in-our-pockets-for-charity crowd put up with this abuse?  How about we regular guys get all riled up and mad at the world and get up and say we are not going to take it anymore?

How about we sit gays down and tell them how tolerant we are to have gone along with their “gay marriage” baloney?

How about we insist that politicians bow and scrape a lot more for our checks that keep them in the game?

How about we sit the professors and the teachers down and tell ’em how we want our kids educated?  And hey, pal!  Stop pumping Our Kids full of lefty activism rubbish.

How about the FBIs and DOJs do their jobs and stop playing FISA roulette with presidential candidates?

How about the tech titans start to think they need to truckle a bit to people like us rather than the usual liberal suspects?

Here’s the point.  The only way these various members of the national Idiocracy are going to pay attention to us is if they start to fear us.  And the only way they are going to fear us is if we start acting up and causing a ruckus.

Maybe it’s time for you and me to show ’em what populism looks like when done by professionals.

It is probably the only way to get these spoiled children of liberal land to show people like us a little respect.

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



Source link

Whatever Happened to the Feminists' 'Hear Me Roar'?



What do true-believing activists do when the inevitable victory is unaccountably delayed?

 



Source link

'I Can't Believe He Signed That Omnibus Bill!'


Come on, you conservatives and Trumpists.  Stop behaving like special snowflakes!  Because when you complain, “I can’t believe that President Trump signed that horrible omnibus bill!,” you are descending into what I call the Women’s Culture of Complaint.

Yes, you are going along with what German sociologist Georg Simmel predicted would be a public square with a pronounced “feminine sensibility.”  The whole point of Donald Trump is that he is a man’s man.  That’s why so many women dislike him; that’s why we voted for him.

Okay, so President Trump got out-Schumered on this one.  And the wall ain’t gonna be started this year.  And Chuck’s going to get his tunnel.  But do we whine about a microaggression from those mean-girl jelly-beanies on Capitol Hill, or do we suck it in and soldier on?

Hey, fellas: this was just a battle, a minor battle in the great war we are fighting against the left, the tyrannous experts, the venal politicians, and the foolish women who believe what they are taught in school.  Wanna give up already?  Or do we retreat a ways, figure out lessons learned, and regroup for the next battle?  OODA and all that?

Let’s get clarity on who we are, what we want, and why we won’t give up.

We are the people who are not wedded to the big state.  That means we are not the educated, who vote big government because it means jobs for educated people: doing research the government wants, working up new programs the government wants, attacking the government’s opponents.  That means we are not single women, who expect the government to fill in for the absent husband.  And it means we are not the poor, who, since time immemorial, have looked to a powerful patron to provide for them.  We think society should be based on the principle of voluntary cooperation, not on a neo-feudalism of sucking up to the Big Man.

We think human society should be founded upon a moral and cultural story that promotes order but that every moment worries about order sliding toward tyranny.  We think the current political order is profoundly unjust and that, as the Chinese might say, its mandarin class has lost the Mandate of Heaven.  We think it is unjust because it is too big; unjust because it does things like education and relief of the poor that we should really do for ourselves; unjust because it has encouraged a socially destructive culture, from abortion to the sexual revolution to divorce on demand, that appeals to the worst instincts in men and is profoundly soul-destroying for women.

The most wonderful thing is that our current liberal ruling class has no notion of the injustice of its rule.  They think their “activism” is revolution from below rather than regime hate squads doing the bidding of the ruling class from above.  The people they have determined to subjugate and humiliate with their political power are men: ordinary, unexceptional men who follow the rules, go to work, and obey the laws.

Obviously, it matters not whether President Trump gets hornswoggled by a cabal of Deep State creatures, or indeed whether the Democrats manage to catch him in a perjury trap and dispatch him to Outer Slobbovia.  What matters is to continue the head of rebellion against a cruel and unjust ruling class that on the one hand allows itself every privilege and every sinecure dreamed up by the courtiers of the absolute monarchs and, on the other hand, deploys its regime hate squads throughout the land to humiliate and degrade ordinary people with the vile accusation of “white privilege.”

In a recent piece, Joel Kotkin decrees the end of the neoliberal world order and proposes that its successor will be an autocratic order, made in Beijing.  But that assumes that a ruler is ruling a nation of robots moronically following orders.

On the contrary, whatever comes next will be drenched in the moral drama of good versus evil, just like the moral drama of the monotheistic religions and the modern totalitarian religions of Marx and Gramsci.

The problem of 19th-century capitalism and 20th-century conservatism is that they failed to present a moral drama that could inspire and motivate ordinary people while the left put everything in an absolutist moral frame: each of us “is either all good, or all bad” in Zman’s formulation.  If you are not a woke activist, then you must be a fascist.

It is scandalous that Donald Trump, a flawed businessman, should have been the one to speak to the people in mythological terms as a national drama of good versus evil and make the ordinary American the hero and the swamp creatures the villains.

But because Trump isn’t perfect, you want to give up on the whole thing?

For shame!

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

Come on, you conservatives and Trumpists.  Stop behaving like special snowflakes!  Because when you complain, “I can’t believe that President Trump signed that horrible omnibus bill!,” you are descending into what I call the Women’s Culture of Complaint.

Yes, you are going along with what German sociologist Georg Simmel predicted would be a public square with a pronounced “feminine sensibility.”  The whole point of Donald Trump is that he is a man’s man.  That’s why so many women dislike him; that’s why we voted for him.

Okay, so President Trump got out-Schumered on this one.  And the wall ain’t gonna be started this year.  And Chuck’s going to get his tunnel.  But do we whine about a microaggression from those mean-girl jelly-beanies on Capitol Hill, or do we suck it in and soldier on?

Hey, fellas: this was just a battle, a minor battle in the great war we are fighting against the left, the tyrannous experts, the venal politicians, and the foolish women who believe what they are taught in school.  Wanna give up already?  Or do we retreat a ways, figure out lessons learned, and regroup for the next battle?  OODA and all that?

Let’s get clarity on who we are, what we want, and why we won’t give up.

We are the people who are not wedded to the big state.  That means we are not the educated, who vote big government because it means jobs for educated people: doing research the government wants, working up new programs the government wants, attacking the government’s opponents.  That means we are not single women, who expect the government to fill in for the absent husband.  And it means we are not the poor, who, since time immemorial, have looked to a powerful patron to provide for them.  We think society should be based on the principle of voluntary cooperation, not on a neo-feudalism of sucking up to the Big Man.

We think human society should be founded upon a moral and cultural story that promotes order but that every moment worries about order sliding toward tyranny.  We think the current political order is profoundly unjust and that, as the Chinese might say, its mandarin class has lost the Mandate of Heaven.  We think it is unjust because it is too big; unjust because it does things like education and relief of the poor that we should really do for ourselves; unjust because it has encouraged a socially destructive culture, from abortion to the sexual revolution to divorce on demand, that appeals to the worst instincts in men and is profoundly soul-destroying for women.

The most wonderful thing is that our current liberal ruling class has no notion of the injustice of its rule.  They think their “activism” is revolution from below rather than regime hate squads doing the bidding of the ruling class from above.  The people they have determined to subjugate and humiliate with their political power are men: ordinary, unexceptional men who follow the rules, go to work, and obey the laws.

Obviously, it matters not whether President Trump gets hornswoggled by a cabal of Deep State creatures, or indeed whether the Democrats manage to catch him in a perjury trap and dispatch him to Outer Slobbovia.  What matters is to continue the head of rebellion against a cruel and unjust ruling class that on the one hand allows itself every privilege and every sinecure dreamed up by the courtiers of the absolute monarchs and, on the other hand, deploys its regime hate squads throughout the land to humiliate and degrade ordinary people with the vile accusation of “white privilege.”

In a recent piece, Joel Kotkin decrees the end of the neoliberal world order and proposes that its successor will be an autocratic order, made in Beijing.  But that assumes that a ruler is ruling a nation of robots moronically following orders.

On the contrary, whatever comes next will be drenched in the moral drama of good versus evil, just like the moral drama of the monotheistic religions and the modern totalitarian religions of Marx and Gramsci.

The problem of 19th-century capitalism and 20th-century conservatism is that they failed to present a moral drama that could inspire and motivate ordinary people while the left put everything in an absolutist moral frame: each of us “is either all good, or all bad” in Zman’s formulation.  If you are not a woke activist, then you must be a fascist.

It is scandalous that Donald Trump, a flawed businessman, should have been the one to speak to the people in mythological terms as a national drama of good versus evil and make the ordinary American the hero and the swamp creatures the villains.

But because Trump isn’t perfect, you want to give up on the whole thing?

For shame!

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



Source link

Let's Call Liberal Activists 'Regime Hate Squads'


Remember the good old days of the Latin American “death squads”?  Every liberal chanted with one voice to end these extrajudicial paramilitaries used by right-wing Latin American dictators to do the dirty work that they didn’t want the regular armed forces, police, and justice system to do.

Liberals invented the term to differentiate between noble lefty revolutionary guerrillas who were good and evil right-wing regime thugs who were bad.  As any child could tell.

I strongly feel that our liberal friends’ devotion to activism, the notion of the marginalized and the oppressed rising up in righteous rage against the ruling class, has gone sadly awry.  That is because the whole point of riots and rebellions and protests is that people outside the system are demanding to be included in the political division of spoils.  Our modern culture of voting and elected governments and universal franchise was created precisely to provide that every adult (except illegal aliens) was inside the system and represented by someone in the councils of power and therefore did not need to riot, rebel, or protest to get his cut.

On this notion, the idea of blacks and women and gays and transgenders needing to do activism and peaceful protest in the year 2018 is baloney.  As signed and sealed liberal “little darlings,” these formerly marginalized groups are now fully represented in the system.  Therefore, there is no warrant for them to flood into the streets.  That’s what the history of 19th-century Britain teaches us, too.  By the 1890s in England, the violence of the early to mid-19th century – the rick-burnings, the riots, the Chartism – had all died down.  The workers now had the vote, and their grievances were being addressed in the councils of power, and so they stopped rioting.

But liberals are attached to “activism” as to a religion.  Activism is what gives their lives meaning, so each graduate of a selective college must find a marginalized group, somewhere, somehow, and organize them and lead their “mostly peaceful protests” along the arc of history toward justice.  That is why liberal activism now features illegal aliens and Muslims.  They are outside the system and can be represented only by Soros money and well born activists from selective colleges.

An example of this craving for the crunch of beef and the bray of the bullhorn is Vanity Fair’s excited piece on the 17-minute silence on Wednesday, March 14 at Parkland, Florida.  It was so wonderful that the kids wanted something more than the official 17-minute silence approved by the ruling class, so they transformed themselves into a mob and had a bit of a rumble.  Mostly peaceful, of course, but almost orgasmic for the Vanity Fair writer.

But this is only half of the story.  Our liberal friends, following the advice of Herbert Marcuse, have determined that only they are allowed to organize and protest, and anyone organizing against the ruling class is a hate group and not to be allowed to protest, and anyone speaking against the beliefs of the ruling class is guilty of hate speech and not to be endured.

Suppose you are a student preparing your application to a selective college like Yale, and you know that the key to acceptance is activism in ruling class-approved protest.  How do you know what kind of protest is approved by the ruling class and what is utterly beyond the pale as fascistic hate speech?  For instance, is it okay to protest against the Parkland massacre?  Don’t worry, kids: as Walter Olsen explains in the Wall Street Journal, you eager progressive beavers have your young Millennial senior assistant director of admissions, Hannah Mendlowitz, who has kindly written a blog post to assure all applicants that protesting gun violence is A-OK.

“For those students who come to Yale, we expect them to be versed in issues of social justice,” Ms. Mendlowitz writes.  “I have the pleasure of reading applications from San Francisco, where activism is very much a part of the culture.  Essays ring of social justice issues.”

The message couldn’t be clearer.  Social justice activism is a Good Thing, as long as it aligns with the trendy progressivism of your average San Francisco resident.  But hey, don’t get caught doing peaceful protest in the waiting room of an abortion facility.  Different strokes for different folks.

This liberal activism stuff stinks.  Activism approved by the ruling class is not real activism, which would be representing the folks outside the system, beyond the pale of ruling class approval.  In fact, today’s activists are nothing but ruling class toadies, as the nice young lady at Yale admissions makes clear.  So it is time to name and shame all lefty think-tanks, protest groups, activist organizations, and ambitious young activists-in-training as “regime hate squads.”

Because that is what they are.

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

Remember the good old days of the Latin American “death squads”?  Every liberal chanted with one voice to end these extrajudicial paramilitaries used by right-wing Latin American dictators to do the dirty work that they didn’t want the regular armed forces, police, and justice system to do.

Liberals invented the term to differentiate between noble lefty revolutionary guerrillas who were good and evil right-wing regime thugs who were bad.  As any child could tell.

I strongly feel that our liberal friends’ devotion to activism, the notion of the marginalized and the oppressed rising up in righteous rage against the ruling class, has gone sadly awry.  That is because the whole point of riots and rebellions and protests is that people outside the system are demanding to be included in the political division of spoils.  Our modern culture of voting and elected governments and universal franchise was created precisely to provide that every adult (except illegal aliens) was inside the system and represented by someone in the councils of power and therefore did not need to riot, rebel, or protest to get his cut.

On this notion, the idea of blacks and women and gays and transgenders needing to do activism and peaceful protest in the year 2018 is baloney.  As signed and sealed liberal “little darlings,” these formerly marginalized groups are now fully represented in the system.  Therefore, there is no warrant for them to flood into the streets.  That’s what the history of 19th-century Britain teaches us, too.  By the 1890s in England, the violence of the early to mid-19th century – the rick-burnings, the riots, the Chartism – had all died down.  The workers now had the vote, and their grievances were being addressed in the councils of power, and so they stopped rioting.

But liberals are attached to “activism” as to a religion.  Activism is what gives their lives meaning, so each graduate of a selective college must find a marginalized group, somewhere, somehow, and organize them and lead their “mostly peaceful protests” along the arc of history toward justice.  That is why liberal activism now features illegal aliens and Muslims.  They are outside the system and can be represented only by Soros money and well born activists from selective colleges.

An example of this craving for the crunch of beef and the bray of the bullhorn is Vanity Fair’s excited piece on the 17-minute silence on Wednesday, March 14 at Parkland, Florida.  It was so wonderful that the kids wanted something more than the official 17-minute silence approved by the ruling class, so they transformed themselves into a mob and had a bit of a rumble.  Mostly peaceful, of course, but almost orgasmic for the Vanity Fair writer.

But this is only half of the story.  Our liberal friends, following the advice of Herbert Marcuse, have determined that only they are allowed to organize and protest, and anyone organizing against the ruling class is a hate group and not to be allowed to protest, and anyone speaking against the beliefs of the ruling class is guilty of hate speech and not to be endured.

Suppose you are a student preparing your application to a selective college like Yale, and you know that the key to acceptance is activism in ruling class-approved protest.  How do you know what kind of protest is approved by the ruling class and what is utterly beyond the pale as fascistic hate speech?  For instance, is it okay to protest against the Parkland massacre?  Don’t worry, kids: as Walter Olsen explains in the Wall Street Journal, you eager progressive beavers have your young Millennial senior assistant director of admissions, Hannah Mendlowitz, who has kindly written a blog post to assure all applicants that protesting gun violence is A-OK.

“For those students who come to Yale, we expect them to be versed in issues of social justice,” Ms. Mendlowitz writes.  “I have the pleasure of reading applications from San Francisco, where activism is very much a part of the culture.  Essays ring of social justice issues.”

The message couldn’t be clearer.  Social justice activism is a Good Thing, as long as it aligns with the trendy progressivism of your average San Francisco resident.  But hey, don’t get caught doing peaceful protest in the waiting room of an abortion facility.  Different strokes for different folks.

This liberal activism stuff stinks.  Activism approved by the ruling class is not real activism, which would be representing the folks outside the system, beyond the pale of ruling class approval.  In fact, today’s activists are nothing but ruling class toadies, as the nice young lady at Yale admissions makes clear.  So it is time to name and shame all lefty think-tanks, protest groups, activist organizations, and ambitious young activists-in-training as “regime hate squads.”

Because that is what they are.

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



Source link

Real Inclusion Means Everyone Feels Included


Up in Canada, some lefties are holding an “It’s Okay to Be (against) White(ness)” event, and they seemed shocked that anyone should find this problematic.  Lindsay Yates, an event organizer, had this to say:

This event is about recognizing privilege that is granted based on racial identity and helping students who do have access to white privilege think more about how to be allies to racialized communities[.] … The event is focused on diversity, inclusion and conversations about how we can all work together to help achieve racial justice.

Yes, but just you try going to the event and suggesting that lefties like Lindsay Yates are going about helping to “achieve racial justice” all wrong.  Speaking for myself, I’d say I don’t get to have access to “white privilege” because that’s available only to white liberals: conservatives need not apply.  Conversations?  In a year when all across the world, lefties are de-platforming anyone who disagrees with them?

Hey, lefties!  Sometimes you should listen to people who disagree with you.  You might learn something!

Still, I get the point about white privilege and the dirge of multiculturalism.  It really is too bad that northwestern European white guys got to invent science and capitalism and democracy and central banking and global commerce and got to take all the credit while most of the rest of us were serfs on some lord’s estate.  But I suggest that a better approach involves not conferences about whiteness and fantasies of “racial justice,” but whimsical cultural appropriations like Robert Colescott’s “George Washington Carver Crossing the Delaware.”  Yes, even I can enjoy a painting of black guys in revolutionary uniforms rollicking about in a boat on the storm-tossed waters of the mighty Delaware River in 1776, just as it is good fun to interpret Hamilton as rap.  It’s a lot more fun than the dull recitations of postmodernist pedantry.

But really, has anything changed?  Many of Shakespeare’s comedies were set in Italy.  What was that about, Will?  Weren’t there enough rich, careless Brit youngsters for you to satirize back in the day?  I can’t believe that the only shrews that needed taming lived in far off Padua.

I was dining with an older Jewish couple recently.  She had been reading Parallel Lives, about five British Victorian marriages.  I thought about the limited cultural residue of Jewish life in eastern Europe, which in the popular narrative does not extend too much beyond Fiddler on the Roof, Barbara Streisand’s Yentl, and the harrowing narratives of the Holocaust.  Meanwhile, I, as a transplanted Brit, can happily own the entire Anglo-Saxon cultural narrative, everything from Shakespeare to Dickens to Disraeli, and happily weave it in with my man Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, John D. Rockefeller, and the Wright Brothers while humming “What a Wonderful World” to myself.

Life is hard.  If you came to America directly from a tribal or agricultural world, you don’t have a big civilized cultural narrative to help make you feel important.  And no amount of liberal shenanigans about all cultures being equal is going to change that.  You are going to have to appropriate the Western cultural canon, so why not get on with it?

But there is a problem.  The American national narrative, all the stuff about the Free and the Brave, Manifest Destiny, Go West Young Man, Morning in America, Make America Great Again, has no place for liberals.  You can’t create a post-national politics all about the creative compassion of progressives and their glorious vision of diversity, inclusion, and racial justice until you have divided the nation-state into a dozen petty identities ruled by the conceit of a wise global elite.

Then there is another problem.  The world that liberals want to build has starring roles only for liberals: a wise Latina here, a community organizer there, the world of well educated creatives and organizers of progressive “conversations.”  What has that to do with ordinary people, from the immigrants working hard to find a foothold in the modern economy to the ordinary deplorables navigating the permanent revolution of the workplace, people just looking for a way to get a decent job, buy a home, raise a family, and save something for retirement?

The point of a great cultural narrative is to give everyone a role, to make it broad enough that everyone can find meaning in it.  That is the genius of Make America Great Again.  It is a vision of America open for everyone who calls himself American.

The liberals from Hollywood to Washington, D.C. know nothing but their own miserable arc of history.  There is even this guy profiled in the New York Times who has cut himself off from all media since the dreadful day of November 9, 2016.  He puts on noise-canceling headphones to make sure he doesn’t hear the news.

And these are the people who believe in inclusion and diversity?

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

Up in Canada, some lefties are holding an “It’s Okay to Be (against) White(ness)” event, and they seemed shocked that anyone should find this problematic.  Lindsay Yates, an event organizer, had this to say:

This event is about recognizing privilege that is granted based on racial identity and helping students who do have access to white privilege think more about how to be allies to racialized communities[.] … The event is focused on diversity, inclusion and conversations about how we can all work together to help achieve racial justice.

Yes, but just you try going to the event and suggesting that lefties like Lindsay Yates are going about helping to “achieve racial justice” all wrong.  Speaking for myself, I’d say I don’t get to have access to “white privilege” because that’s available only to white liberals: conservatives need not apply.  Conversations?  In a year when all across the world, lefties are de-platforming anyone who disagrees with them?

Hey, lefties!  Sometimes you should listen to people who disagree with you.  You might learn something!

Still, I get the point about white privilege and the dirge of multiculturalism.  It really is too bad that northwestern European white guys got to invent science and capitalism and democracy and central banking and global commerce and got to take all the credit while most of the rest of us were serfs on some lord’s estate.  But I suggest that a better approach involves not conferences about whiteness and fantasies of “racial justice,” but whimsical cultural appropriations like Robert Colescott’s “George Washington Carver Crossing the Delaware.”  Yes, even I can enjoy a painting of black guys in revolutionary uniforms rollicking about in a boat on the storm-tossed waters of the mighty Delaware River in 1776, just as it is good fun to interpret Hamilton as rap.  It’s a lot more fun than the dull recitations of postmodernist pedantry.

But really, has anything changed?  Many of Shakespeare’s comedies were set in Italy.  What was that about, Will?  Weren’t there enough rich, careless Brit youngsters for you to satirize back in the day?  I can’t believe that the only shrews that needed taming lived in far off Padua.

I was dining with an older Jewish couple recently.  She had been reading Parallel Lives, about five British Victorian marriages.  I thought about the limited cultural residue of Jewish life in eastern Europe, which in the popular narrative does not extend too much beyond Fiddler on the Roof, Barbara Streisand’s Yentl, and the harrowing narratives of the Holocaust.  Meanwhile, I, as a transplanted Brit, can happily own the entire Anglo-Saxon cultural narrative, everything from Shakespeare to Dickens to Disraeli, and happily weave it in with my man Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, John D. Rockefeller, and the Wright Brothers while humming “What a Wonderful World” to myself.

Life is hard.  If you came to America directly from a tribal or agricultural world, you don’t have a big civilized cultural narrative to help make you feel important.  And no amount of liberal shenanigans about all cultures being equal is going to change that.  You are going to have to appropriate the Western cultural canon, so why not get on with it?

But there is a problem.  The American national narrative, all the stuff about the Free and the Brave, Manifest Destiny, Go West Young Man, Morning in America, Make America Great Again, has no place for liberals.  You can’t create a post-national politics all about the creative compassion of progressives and their glorious vision of diversity, inclusion, and racial justice until you have divided the nation-state into a dozen petty identities ruled by the conceit of a wise global elite.

Then there is another problem.  The world that liberals want to build has starring roles only for liberals: a wise Latina here, a community organizer there, the world of well educated creatives and organizers of progressive “conversations.”  What has that to do with ordinary people, from the immigrants working hard to find a foothold in the modern economy to the ordinary deplorables navigating the permanent revolution of the workplace, people just looking for a way to get a decent job, buy a home, raise a family, and save something for retirement?

The point of a great cultural narrative is to give everyone a role, to make it broad enough that everyone can find meaning in it.  That is the genius of Make America Great Again.  It is a vision of America open for everyone who calls himself American.

The liberals from Hollywood to Washington, D.C. know nothing but their own miserable arc of history.  There is even this guy profiled in the New York Times who has cut himself off from all media since the dreadful day of November 9, 2016.  He puts on noise-canceling headphones to make sure he doesn’t hear the news.

And these are the people who believe in inclusion and diversity?

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



Source link

Pity a Poor Liberal Activist


If you haven’t noticed in the last week or so, our liberal friends seem to have taught just about every young head full of mush how to do “protest.”  In the liberal universe, activism and protest are the highest forms of human social interaction.  When liberals enact a day of marches, or a town hall full of baying students, this is seen by all as a triumph of the progressive will and faithfully recorded by our modern Leni Riefenstahls.

But is it really such a good idea?  Is all this activism really going to lead to fundamental transformation?  Suppose it leads to a backlash.

“Backlash,” by the way, is a term liberals invented back in the ’60s to stigmatize average Americans who really didn’t like what the Kids and their Movement and their Protests were doing to America.  When you go to Wikipedia, you find that they are a bit vague about it all.  I wonder why.

Over at American Greatness, Mytheos Holt notes that there is a gaping hole at the middle of the current liberal #Resistance.  The Resistance is all about complaint; there is no attempt to paint a glorious picture of what the #Resistance will bring to America.  Yes, I wonder why.

Could it be that the left really doesn’t have vision of paradise – only a mechanical notion of doing activism, any activism, in the blind faith that the arc of history will bend toward justice?  It wouldn’t be the first time that a religion regressed into mindless ritual without thinking about what it all means.

How should we understand the quandary of our liberal and progressive friends?  I’d say their problem is that, according to them, nothing has changed.

The left has spent 150 years advocating for the workers, and guess what: a job is still a job.  Moreover, it doesn’t do to look too carefully at the results of all that pro-labor legislation.  It priced workers in heavy industry out of a job, and now it is bankrupting state and local government.

The left has spent 70 years advocating for women and minorities, and guess what: women and minorities are still hardest hit, even though the landmark legislation banning racial and sexual discrimination was passed 50 years ago.  How could this be?  What kind of vile cisgendered white male conspiracy could make women less happy than they were in the 1950s and make minorities eternally outraged that the cops were cracking down on their home-grown thugs and murderers?  This is all supposed to be the fault of white supremacists.  But if we are all gap-toothed Alt-Right über-fascistic neo-Nazis, how could we possibly succeed in our evil plan against the evolved, educated, activist, woke progressives and their willing kiddies?

The answer is staring us in the face.  It is that the leftist movement is a Great Reaction back to the past, with its identity politics a neo-tribalism and its welfare state a neo-feudalism.  No wonder everything the left has focused on has turned to stone.  Its ideas and its methods are a return to the grueling days of top-down agricultural hegemony, the era of misery and recurring famines that the ruling-class priesthood thoughtfully attributed to acts of God.

These days, our secular priests in the media blame ruling class failures on the National Rifle Association and modern trends in the design of hunting rifles.

Well, I wish the diviners would look up from their tea leaves and divine this.  How come after all the activism that was put into the working class over the last century, it is dying of despair in the United States?

How come after all the activism in favor of women, they are miserable, and how come blacks are angry, and falling behind other minorities like the Mexicans, who seem to be the only guys building condos and apartments here in Seattle, and the South and East Asians, who are racing to the top of tech?

How could this be?  How could all the activism and all the protest and all the comprehensive and mandatory legislation require the activists to escalate their non-negotiable demands and encourage their willing accomplices in social media to de-platform anyone who doesn’t agree with them?

How come all the administrative state entitlement programs designed and administered by experts and academics are broke, and the educational programs are buried under a bramble of administrative incompetence?

No wonder our progressive friends are switching into witch-hunting mode, lashing out at individual citizens and voluntary associations of patriotic citizens.  It cannot be true, it must not be true that the politics and the activism of the global educated elite are an utter failure.

Really, if our rulers and their supporters were not such a threat to our lives and our jobs and our sacred honor, we could just sit back and laugh at their pathetic antics.

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

If you haven’t noticed in the last week or so, our liberal friends seem to have taught just about every young head full of mush how to do “protest.”  In the liberal universe, activism and protest are the highest forms of human social interaction.  When liberals enact a day of marches, or a town hall full of baying students, this is seen by all as a triumph of the progressive will and faithfully recorded by our modern Leni Riefenstahls.

But is it really such a good idea?  Is all this activism really going to lead to fundamental transformation?  Suppose it leads to a backlash.

“Backlash,” by the way, is a term liberals invented back in the ’60s to stigmatize average Americans who really didn’t like what the Kids and their Movement and their Protests were doing to America.  When you go to Wikipedia, you find that they are a bit vague about it all.  I wonder why.

Over at American Greatness, Mytheos Holt notes that there is a gaping hole at the middle of the current liberal #Resistance.  The Resistance is all about complaint; there is no attempt to paint a glorious picture of what the #Resistance will bring to America.  Yes, I wonder why.

Could it be that the left really doesn’t have vision of paradise – only a mechanical notion of doing activism, any activism, in the blind faith that the arc of history will bend toward justice?  It wouldn’t be the first time that a religion regressed into mindless ritual without thinking about what it all means.

How should we understand the quandary of our liberal and progressive friends?  I’d say their problem is that, according to them, nothing has changed.

The left has spent 150 years advocating for the workers, and guess what: a job is still a job.  Moreover, it doesn’t do to look too carefully at the results of all that pro-labor legislation.  It priced workers in heavy industry out of a job, and now it is bankrupting state and local government.

The left has spent 70 years advocating for women and minorities, and guess what: women and minorities are still hardest hit, even though the landmark legislation banning racial and sexual discrimination was passed 50 years ago.  How could this be?  What kind of vile cisgendered white male conspiracy could make women less happy than they were in the 1950s and make minorities eternally outraged that the cops were cracking down on their home-grown thugs and murderers?  This is all supposed to be the fault of white supremacists.  But if we are all gap-toothed Alt-Right über-fascistic neo-Nazis, how could we possibly succeed in our evil plan against the evolved, educated, activist, woke progressives and their willing kiddies?

The answer is staring us in the face.  It is that the leftist movement is a Great Reaction back to the past, with its identity politics a neo-tribalism and its welfare state a neo-feudalism.  No wonder everything the left has focused on has turned to stone.  Its ideas and its methods are a return to the grueling days of top-down agricultural hegemony, the era of misery and recurring famines that the ruling-class priesthood thoughtfully attributed to acts of God.

These days, our secular priests in the media blame ruling class failures on the National Rifle Association and modern trends in the design of hunting rifles.

Well, I wish the diviners would look up from their tea leaves and divine this.  How come after all the activism that was put into the working class over the last century, it is dying of despair in the United States?

How come after all the activism in favor of women, they are miserable, and how come blacks are angry, and falling behind other minorities like the Mexicans, who seem to be the only guys building condos and apartments here in Seattle, and the South and East Asians, who are racing to the top of tech?

How could this be?  How could all the activism and all the protest and all the comprehensive and mandatory legislation require the activists to escalate their non-negotiable demands and encourage their willing accomplices in social media to de-platform anyone who doesn’t agree with them?

How come all the administrative state entitlement programs designed and administered by experts and academics are broke, and the educational programs are buried under a bramble of administrative incompetence?

No wonder our progressive friends are switching into witch-hunting mode, lashing out at individual citizens and voluntary associations of patriotic citizens.  It cannot be true, it must not be true that the politics and the activism of the global educated elite are an utter failure.

Really, if our rulers and their supporters were not such a threat to our lives and our jobs and our sacred honor, we could just sit back and laugh at their pathetic antics.

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



Source link