Category: Christopher Chantrill

Someone Needs to Sort Out the Tech Idiots on Censorship


If you are a conservative, it is easy to believe that the tech giants have it in for conservatives.  But what if that isn’t true?  What if the “Googlers” and the Facebookers and the Twittites are just idiots and don’t know any better?

I was down in the South Bay Area visiting a young Applite, and it just seemed to me that all these tech guys and the tech H.R. and diversity enforcers are just ordinary mortals, reflexively doing what they think they are supposed to.

After all, unless you were an instinctive contrarian, you would have picked up the default educated-class culture as part of your bums-on-seats progress through high school and college like a fish in water.

And if you ask me, the silly Google Girl, Susan Wojciki, involved in the firing of James Damore sounds like the kind of woman who never has a thought in her head.

So I think the tech higher-ups just think they are doing the lord’s work by doing their bit for diversity and inclusion.

The real relationship between politics and government is the gangster relation: nice little business you got here; pity if something should happen to it.  Most conservatives don’t have a gangster bone in their bodies and really don’t want to get in the faces of good honest businessmen.

Problem is, then all the businessmen in America will end up paying protection money only to the Democratic Party, because liberals do care about power and do want to tell business who is boss.

Unless our leaders throw a bit of elbow, these poor innocent businessmen will continue to truckle to the liberal activist agenda as the path of least resistance.  Then one day they will wake up, like the National Football League, to find out that their customers are leaving in droves.  We can’t let this happen to them!

Lately, it seems that Twitter and Google and Facebook are really starting to bite into conservative muscle with, e.g., curation algorithms designed to shut up “s—– people.”  If you ask me, this could really impact the 2018 midterms and the Trump re-election bonanza in 2020, unless someone up at Trump Tower decides to Do Something about It.

The tech war on conservatives and conservative ideas is one thing and one thing only: it is injustice, straight up, and someone needs to teach those persecuting it that censoring conservatives ain’t gonna fly.  It doesn’t matter that conservatives and Alt-Right orcs are monsters.  Too bad.  We have a First Amendment and freedom of the press, and the whole point of freedom of speech is to allow speech you absolutely hate.

So what do we do? Do we send a policy wonk from AEI down to Silicon Valley to explain the deep philosophical reasons for conservatism and the folly of allowing only one point of view on the internet?  Do we send Steve Bannon down there to “larn ’em” on economic nationalism?  Or do we prompt President Trump to go on late-night TV and do a profanity-laced act like the edgy and award-winning Marvelous Mrs. Maisel?

I doubt if any of that would work.  I realized that at an art museum today after viewing an exhibition of political posters.  Do you know that every one of them was left-wing, from angry workers to angry blacks to angry Occupy Wall Street to oh-so-tasteful climate change?  There was not a single poster advertising a Tea Party meeting. Not even a “We All Knew” poster from street artist Sabo.  Imagine!  Well, of course.  The gay SFMOMA associate curator for political art probably never heard of Sabo, or if he did, he would make sure that Sabo would never be exhibited at the MOMA on his watch.

Every day, the reason we have President Trump becomes more and more obvious.  We need someone with the cojones to take on the liberal hegemony and shake it to its foundations.  We need a president who will send someone from the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice over with plenipotentiary powers to negotiate a deal that will avoid the horror of splitting up Google and Apple and Twitter.

If I were a tech billionaire I would know that the one thing I would want to avoid would be the ignominy of facing my buddies after President Trump – Trump! – had cut up my lovely trillion-dollar baby into pieces.

My feeling is that the tech guys are all political naïfs: they have no idea that the identity liberalism they just picked up as kids because they were Good Little Boys is a monstrous and unjust evil.  Hey, Teacher never told me!

It’s time that someone did tell them.  And it needs to be someone with real credibility, straight from Mr. Big.  Otherwise, the old South Bay Area precinct captains will just say: “I don’t talk to nobody what nobody sent.”

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 are a conservative, it is easy to believe that the tech giants have it in for conservatives.  But what if that isn’t true?  What if the “Googlers” and the Facebookers and the Twittites are just idiots and don’t know any better?

I was down in the South Bay Area visiting a young Applite, and it just seemed to me that all these tech guys and the tech H.R. and diversity enforcers are just ordinary mortals, reflexively doing what they think they are supposed to.

After all, unless you were an instinctive contrarian, you would have picked up the default educated-class culture as part of your bums-on-seats progress through high school and college like a fish in water.

And if you ask me, the silly Google Girl, Susan Wojciki, involved in the firing of James Damore sounds like the kind of woman who never has a thought in her head.

So I think the tech higher-ups just think they are doing the lord’s work by doing their bit for diversity and inclusion.

The real relationship between politics and government is the gangster relation: nice little business you got here; pity if something should happen to it.  Most conservatives don’t have a gangster bone in their bodies and really don’t want to get in the faces of good honest businessmen.

Problem is, then all the businessmen in America will end up paying protection money only to the Democratic Party, because liberals do care about power and do want to tell business who is boss.

Unless our leaders throw a bit of elbow, these poor innocent businessmen will continue to truckle to the liberal activist agenda as the path of least resistance.  Then one day they will wake up, like the National Football League, to find out that their customers are leaving in droves.  We can’t let this happen to them!

Lately, it seems that Twitter and Google and Facebook are really starting to bite into conservative muscle with, e.g., curation algorithms designed to shut up “s—– people.”  If you ask me, this could really impact the 2018 midterms and the Trump re-election bonanza in 2020, unless someone up at Trump Tower decides to Do Something about It.

The tech war on conservatives and conservative ideas is one thing and one thing only: it is injustice, straight up, and someone needs to teach those persecuting it that censoring conservatives ain’t gonna fly.  It doesn’t matter that conservatives and Alt-Right orcs are monsters.  Too bad.  We have a First Amendment and freedom of the press, and the whole point of freedom of speech is to allow speech you absolutely hate.

So what do we do? Do we send a policy wonk from AEI down to Silicon Valley to explain the deep philosophical reasons for conservatism and the folly of allowing only one point of view on the internet?  Do we send Steve Bannon down there to “larn ’em” on economic nationalism?  Or do we prompt President Trump to go on late-night TV and do a profanity-laced act like the edgy and award-winning Marvelous Mrs. Maisel?

I doubt if any of that would work.  I realized that at an art museum today after viewing an exhibition of political posters.  Do you know that every one of them was left-wing, from angry workers to angry blacks to angry Occupy Wall Street to oh-so-tasteful climate change?  There was not a single poster advertising a Tea Party meeting. Not even a “We All Knew” poster from street artist Sabo.  Imagine!  Well, of course.  The gay SFMOMA associate curator for political art probably never heard of Sabo, or if he did, he would make sure that Sabo would never be exhibited at the MOMA on his watch.

Every day, the reason we have President Trump becomes more and more obvious.  We need someone with the cojones to take on the liberal hegemony and shake it to its foundations.  We need a president who will send someone from the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice over with plenipotentiary powers to negotiate a deal that will avoid the horror of splitting up Google and Apple and Twitter.

If I were a tech billionaire I would know that the one thing I would want to avoid would be the ignominy of facing my buddies after President Trump – Trump! – had cut up my lovely trillion-dollar baby into pieces.

My feeling is that the tech guys are all political naïfs: they have no idea that the identity liberalism they just picked up as kids because they were Good Little Boys is a monstrous and unjust evil.  Hey, Teacher never told me!

It’s time that someone did tell them.  And it needs to be someone with real credibility, straight from Mr. Big.  Otherwise, the old South Bay Area precinct captains will just say: “I don’t talk to nobody what nobody sent.”

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

How Does the GOP Win Back Blue States?


My man Kevin D. Williamson is worried that the Republican Party has nothing to say to blue states like California and New York and that the party feels pretty good about it.  But such an approach leads to disaster, he says:

Writing off half of the country as a lost cause is bad for the Republican soul.  It also will prove bad for Republican electoral prospects, in time.

Well, yes.  On a tactical level, it is important to have something to say to the blue cities and not to write them off as Deplorables.  But that is to miss the wood for the trees.

The reason why California and New York are blue bastions is simple.  On the one hand, all the upper-income residents went to secular seminary and either learned to believe what they were taught or pretend they did.  On the other hand, the immigration policy of 1965 has filled the cities with people that are just off the farm.  They think and act as peasants and serfs, just as the Irish and the Italians did in the late 19th century.

If we want to revive GOP fortunes in the great cities, we are going to do it not by catering to upper-class conceits or lower-class tribalism.  That will only put off the Day of Judgment.  What we need to do get the upper class recoiling in revulsion from lefty culture.  And we need to slowly and incrementally reform the welfare state so that it guides the New Immigrants into the middle-class culture of work and marriage and responsibility.

I do not see how this can be done without a full-on culture war to tu rn the elites from their cowardly kowtow to the left’s cultural mandarins. We need to create an America where everyone knows in his bones that the only “haters” in sight are lefty activists.

As for the New Immigrants, I refer you to the welfare reform of 1996.  Liberals said it would be the end of the world; instead, the welfare recipients calmly went out and got jobs.

But how do we make cultural war on the elites and cure them of their conceit?  Perfectly simple: We declare war on the culture of “activism.”

I admit to being something of a dull dog about this for most of my life until the day a liberal friend told me she had always wanted “to get into activism.”

Lefty “activism” is the central Problem of Our Time, that Good Little Girls from good families are raised and educated to think that marchin’ and protestin’ are the means to bend the arc of history toward justice.  Too many Good Little Boys think that, too.  Little girls and boys are carefully taught that, but for wage and hour laws, civil rights laws, and social insurance, ordinary people would be living in grinding poverty subject to ruthless industrial discipline and racist and patriarchal oppression.  Thus, upper-class kids are doing the “peaceful protest” thing on campus, complete with bullhorns and signs and chants, as the new normal carefully taught by our lefty teachers and administrators.

The Good Little Boys had a point 170 years ago.  Of course, the new capitalists would replace the feudal lords; of course, the proletarians would replace the feudal serfs as helpless victims.  Everybody knew that.  That’s how the dance of power works, according to ancient wisdom and according to Good Little Boy Marx and Good Little Boy Engels.

Only they were wrong. That’s because the capitalists were not that interested in power.  Oil guy Rockefeller retired at age 50 and invented modern philanthropy.  Steel guy Carnegie built libraries and a peace foundation.  Imagine regular politicians like Chuck and Nancy doing that!

In my view, the story of the last two hundred years is that “power” is a dead end, and the horrors of everything from communism to Bolivarianism prove it.  “Price” and “markets” are much better; they get people to peacefully work for each other’s benefit.  But, as with any great transformation, there are those who are desperate to prove that nothing has changed and that only with power can the human race be saved.  Only through activism, the activists tell us, will we save the lost souls, workers, minorities, women, immigrants, Muslims!  Because white privilege.

Lefties make a big deal of railing at militarism, imperialism, and colonialism.  Good point, and the long 19th century was a global experiment to prove that militarism, imperialism, and colonialism were a waste of time and money – and lives.

I have a better idea: that “activism” is a disaster that creates violence and misery wherever it is tried.

It is up to us to teach the educated elite, and every silly peaceful protester, that “activism” is a vile superstition.  Only then will they all instinctively rush to identify with the Republican Party.

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.

My man Kevin D. Williamson is worried that the Republican Party has nothing to say to blue states like California and New York and that the party feels pretty good about it.  But such an approach leads to disaster, he says:

Writing off half of the country as a lost cause is bad for the Republican soul.  It also will prove bad for Republican electoral prospects, in time.

Well, yes.  On a tactical level, it is important to have something to say to the blue cities and not to write them off as Deplorables.  But that is to miss the wood for the trees.

The reason why California and New York are blue bastions is simple.  On the one hand, all the upper-income residents went to secular seminary and either learned to believe what they were taught or pretend they did.  On the other hand, the immigration policy of 1965 has filled the cities with people that are just off the farm.  They think and act as peasants and serfs, just as the Irish and the Italians did in the late 19th century.

If we want to revive GOP fortunes in the great cities, we are going to do it not by catering to upper-class conceits or lower-class tribalism.  That will only put off the Day of Judgment.  What we need to do get the upper class recoiling in revulsion from lefty culture.  And we need to slowly and incrementally reform the welfare state so that it guides the New Immigrants into the middle-class culture of work and marriage and responsibility.

I do not see how this can be done without a full-on culture war to tu rn the elites from their cowardly kowtow to the left’s cultural mandarins. We need to create an America where everyone knows in his bones that the only “haters” in sight are lefty activists.

As for the New Immigrants, I refer you to the welfare reform of 1996.  Liberals said it would be the end of the world; instead, the welfare recipients calmly went out and got jobs.

But how do we make cultural war on the elites and cure them of their conceit?  Perfectly simple: We declare war on the culture of “activism.”

I admit to being something of a dull dog about this for most of my life until the day a liberal friend told me she had always wanted “to get into activism.”

Lefty “activism” is the central Problem of Our Time, that Good Little Girls from good families are raised and educated to think that marchin’ and protestin’ are the means to bend the arc of history toward justice.  Too many Good Little Boys think that, too.  Little girls and boys are carefully taught that, but for wage and hour laws, civil rights laws, and social insurance, ordinary people would be living in grinding poverty subject to ruthless industrial discipline and racist and patriarchal oppression.  Thus, upper-class kids are doing the “peaceful protest” thing on campus, complete with bullhorns and signs and chants, as the new normal carefully taught by our lefty teachers and administrators.

The Good Little Boys had a point 170 years ago.  Of course, the new capitalists would replace the feudal lords; of course, the proletarians would replace the feudal serfs as helpless victims.  Everybody knew that.  That’s how the dance of power works, according to ancient wisdom and according to Good Little Boy Marx and Good Little Boy Engels.

Only they were wrong. That’s because the capitalists were not that interested in power.  Oil guy Rockefeller retired at age 50 and invented modern philanthropy.  Steel guy Carnegie built libraries and a peace foundation.  Imagine regular politicians like Chuck and Nancy doing that!

In my view, the story of the last two hundred years is that “power” is a dead end, and the horrors of everything from communism to Bolivarianism prove it.  “Price” and “markets” are much better; they get people to peacefully work for each other’s benefit.  But, as with any great transformation, there are those who are desperate to prove that nothing has changed and that only with power can the human race be saved.  Only through activism, the activists tell us, will we save the lost souls, workers, minorities, women, immigrants, Muslims!  Because white privilege.

Lefties make a big deal of railing at militarism, imperialism, and colonialism.  Good point, and the long 19th century was a global experiment to prove that militarism, imperialism, and colonialism were a waste of time and money – and lives.

I have a better idea: that “activism” is a disaster that creates violence and misery wherever it is tried.

It is up to us to teach the educated elite, and every silly peaceful protester, that “activism” is a vile superstition.  Only then will they all instinctively rush to identify with the Republican Party.

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

Gentlemen, Start Your Engines for 2018 Midterms


Democrats seem to be over the moon about their 2018 midterm prospects. They seem to think that they will clear the tables and get themselves a Trump impeachment. And maybe they are right.

There is another possibility. By November the Mueller investigation may be even more compromised than it is now by the counternarrative of an administration interfering with the opposition party’s campaign in a way that makes Watergate look like amateur hour. Oh, and the economy will be reaching into turbo mode from the tax cuts. And what will the Democrats do then, poor things?

The economic problem the Democrats are facing is illustrated by a “yes, but” piece in the Atlantic, where Good Little Girl Annie Lowrey quotes center-left think tanks to show that the corporations will spend their ill-gotten tax cut gains on stock buybacks: nothing to see here but corporate tricksters. What Trump shoulda done, she writes, is

to construct a tax plan that would have both cut the corporate income tax and ensured that workers earned more. Pairing the former with an increase in the federal minimum wage and mandatory paid leave for parents would have done so, for instance. Instead, Congress is leaving it up to businesses to benefit workers as they see fit.

Liberals really do live on another planet. The corporate tax cut was not intended as some cheap way to win votes or to benefit employees and voters in the here and now. It is simply an effort to lower the tax rate on corporate income down to generally accepted international levels approved by all card-carrying globalists. (Did they lose your application, Annie?) When corporations buy back their stock as they did in the Obama years they are simply saying that, what with all the taxes and regulations and head-winds from liberal sue-and-settle shenanigans, they have nothing better to do with their profits than buy back their stock.

But that was in the bad old days of a 35 percent corporate tax rate.

The Trumpists are betting that a 21 percent tax rate and expensing of capital expenditures will radically change the behavior of corporations and revive their animal spirits in ways incomprehensible to Good Little Girl liberal journalists weaned on the baby food of center-left think tanks.

So here we are, after a year of Trump, with an astonishing record of reversed regulations, abandoned climate accords, and Surgeon Pruitt busy lancing the boil at the Environmental Protection Agency. And now a major tax cat.

Really, you couldn’t choose a better setup for the 2018 midterms. The Democrats get to wail about Russia collusion and Republicans stealing the silver and #MeToo and gay wedding cakes. Republicans get to talk about middle-class tax cuts and 4 percent growth. Remember the days when Dick Morris taught Bill Clinton to strike terror into Republican hearts with their centrist triangulation between left and right. Today’s Democrats don’t know nothin’ about such pranks.

On the one hand the Republicans are moving away from the dry desert purity of lower tax rates and free trade to the sunlit uplands of a tax cut that benefits the broad middle class and immigration policy that would slow the pressure on wages for the average American worker; on the other hand, the Democrats are playing to the identity politics fringes with moral urgency of metrosexual gender experimentation and an immigration policy that only a global internationalist could like.

And there is the question of what happens when the voters discover in February that they really are getting a tax cut and not the tax increase that the Democrats and the fake news media has taught them to expect.

So the American people get to choose. A lot of people think the 2016 election was a fluke; in 2018 we may get to find out if the American voters really meant it. Gentlemen, start your engines.

Okay, so the gutless Republicans failed to repeal and replace ObamaCare — which would have enraged the Democratic party faithful — while passing a tax cut aimed straight at the middle-class family with children. But the business tax cut that Lowrey brushes off has struck terror into the Europeans and the end of the Individual Mandate has opened a vein in ObamaCare that may end with Democrats crawling on their knees over broken glass begging President Trump to save them.

Again and again, in the last year, I have felt that despite all the sound and fury about President Trump’s tweets, there are sure signs that someone with a strategic mind has been directing Trump administration policy, on matters large and small. I wonder who it is?

I couldn’t be President Trump; why he’s just a second-rate casino owner and reality show host.

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.

Democrats seem to be over the moon about their 2018 midterm prospects. They seem to think that they will clear the tables and get themselves a Trump impeachment. And maybe they are right.

There is another possibility. By November the Mueller investigation may be even more compromised than it is now by the counternarrative of an administration interfering with the opposition party’s campaign in a way that makes Watergate look like amateur hour. Oh, and the economy will be reaching into turbo mode from the tax cuts. And what will the Democrats do then, poor things?

The economic problem the Democrats are facing is illustrated by a “yes, but” piece in the Atlantic, where Good Little Girl Annie Lowrey quotes center-left think tanks to show that the corporations will spend their ill-gotten tax cut gains on stock buybacks: nothing to see here but corporate tricksters. What Trump shoulda done, she writes, is

to construct a tax plan that would have both cut the corporate income tax and ensured that workers earned more. Pairing the former with an increase in the federal minimum wage and mandatory paid leave for parents would have done so, for instance. Instead, Congress is leaving it up to businesses to benefit workers as they see fit.

Liberals really do live on another planet. The corporate tax cut was not intended as some cheap way to win votes or to benefit employees and voters in the here and now. It is simply an effort to lower the tax rate on corporate income down to generally accepted international levels approved by all card-carrying globalists. (Did they lose your application, Annie?) When corporations buy back their stock as they did in the Obama years they are simply saying that, what with all the taxes and regulations and head-winds from liberal sue-and-settle shenanigans, they have nothing better to do with their profits than buy back their stock.

But that was in the bad old days of a 35 percent corporate tax rate.

The Trumpists are betting that a 21 percent tax rate and expensing of capital expenditures will radically change the behavior of corporations and revive their animal spirits in ways incomprehensible to Good Little Girl liberal journalists weaned on the baby food of center-left think tanks.

So here we are, after a year of Trump, with an astonishing record of reversed regulations, abandoned climate accords, and Surgeon Pruitt busy lancing the boil at the Environmental Protection Agency. And now a major tax cat.

Really, you couldn’t choose a better setup for the 2018 midterms. The Democrats get to wail about Russia collusion and Republicans stealing the silver and #MeToo and gay wedding cakes. Republicans get to talk about middle-class tax cuts and 4 percent growth. Remember the days when Dick Morris taught Bill Clinton to strike terror into Republican hearts with their centrist triangulation between left and right. Today’s Democrats don’t know nothin’ about such pranks.

On the one hand the Republicans are moving away from the dry desert purity of lower tax rates and free trade to the sunlit uplands of a tax cut that benefits the broad middle class and immigration policy that would slow the pressure on wages for the average American worker; on the other hand, the Democrats are playing to the identity politics fringes with moral urgency of metrosexual gender experimentation and an immigration policy that only a global internationalist could like.

And there is the question of what happens when the voters discover in February that they really are getting a tax cut and not the tax increase that the Democrats and the fake news media has taught them to expect.

So the American people get to choose. A lot of people think the 2016 election was a fluke; in 2018 we may get to find out if the American voters really meant it. Gentlemen, start your engines.

Okay, so the gutless Republicans failed to repeal and replace ObamaCare — which would have enraged the Democratic party faithful — while passing a tax cut aimed straight at the middle-class family with children. But the business tax cut that Lowrey brushes off has struck terror into the Europeans and the end of the Individual Mandate has opened a vein in ObamaCare that may end with Democrats crawling on their knees over broken glass begging President Trump to save them.

Again and again, in the last year, I have felt that despite all the sound and fury about President Trump’s tweets, there are sure signs that someone with a strategic mind has been directing Trump administration policy, on matters large and small. I wonder who it is?

I couldn’t be President Trump; why he’s just a second-rate casino owner and reality show host.

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

Next Up: Make Marriage Great Again


There’s a chin-stroker piece up at American Greatness by John Fonte asking whether conservatives should be a nice well-behaved opposition, as proposed by Yuval Levin, or a revolutionary vanguard, as proposed by Victor Davis Hanson. Fonte reminds us that back in the day it was William F. Buckley, Jr. proposing the radical option with his manifesto of “standing athwart history, shouting ‘Stop!’”

Well, I thought that Donald Trump had decided for us all, that we were not going to be nice any more, but get in liberal faces.

But if we are a revolutionary vanguard, what comes next? The answer is obvious: we go for the women’s vote.

Now according to my theory of male and female culture, gotten from James Bowman’s Honor, A History, men have a Culture of Insult, which derives from the male honor code of bravery, and women have a Culture of Complaint, which derives from the female honor code of chastity.

Brilliantly, Trump herded the white working-class males into the GOP column with his 2016 Campaign of Insult. So obviously the next step is to herd in the ordinary straight middle-class women with a Campaign of Complaint.

Okay, I’m a guy. I don’t have a clue how a Campaign of Complaint would work. I think that is a job for our magnificent conservative wives and mothers.

But here is what this campaign would amount to: Make Marriage Great Again.

A hundred years after women getting the vote, 50 years after the sexual revolution, 40 years after abortion on demand, what do women want? Perfectly simple. They want two things. The first is safety, as in safe spaces. And the second is fidelity, as in the complaint of Mattress Girl that you don’t get to dump me, pal, after a couple romps in the hay, not if you know what is good for you.

So nothing has changed.

It seems to me that there is an astonishing human institution that we are all familiar with, that tries and usually succeeds in accommodating the human female’s deep-seated desire for safety and a committed relationship. We call that institution Marriage.

Forget “I am woman; hear me roar.” Girls just want to be safe, like Salma Hayek who wants to be safe from Weinstein The Monster. Forget the sexual free-for-all. Matt Lauer’s one-time production assistant was still heartbroken when Matt called it off and she realized that she was not the love of his life, but just a nice bit of crackling, as they used to say in Britland in my youth, a Ruby Ruggles to Sir Felix Carbury.

You tell me: what institution protects women that want to be safe in long-term relationships?

Speaking of Carbury, the problem is not just villainous cads like him and Lauer. The whole point of Trollope’s The Way We Live Now, available on DVD, is the utter unreliability of young men where women are concerned. It’s not just the wastrel Carbury but the book’s hero Paul Montague. Even good guy Paul gets himself tied up in knots with too many women to suit the pure and matchless heroine Hetta Carbury.

Here we are after the sexual revolution, the divorce revolution, the abortion revolution and I have a question for you ladies: How does it make you feel? Not good? I thought so.

It’s not hard to see why. The sexual revolution makes it hard to women to test the fidelity of men since it removes her argument for chastity; the divorce revolution makes it hard for women because single women of a certain age are not much in demand; the abortion revolution makes it hard for women to say no when the “partner” in your bed wants to get rid of it.

I was talking with a good liberal woman the other evening and she seemed to think that now we were finally dishing the patriarchy and making it shameful for men to use their power over women.

Well, maybe so, but did men really have their wicked way with women more in the old days, or right now? The testimony of 19th-century authors like Austen, Eliot, Trollope, and Hardy suggests that, contra the feministas, respectable women were usually pretty safe, unlike today, and were usually protected from two-timing cads and bounders, unlike today. Working class women were often characterized in these books as maniacs for “respectability.”

So now that, ding, dong, the wicked Bill is dead, liberal women have discovered that they want the same thing that deplorable women do. But there is one problem. The minds of liberal women are so bollixed up with the 150 years of left-wing dialectics that it will take them a generation to realize that what they want after all is Marriage.

So look for some political genius to gen up a new politics that will, expressed with a proper feminine sensibility, Make Marriage Great Again.

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.

There’s a chin-stroker piece up at American Greatness by John Fonte asking whether conservatives should be a nice well-behaved opposition, as proposed by Yuval Levin, or a revolutionary vanguard, as proposed by Victor Davis Hanson. Fonte reminds us that back in the day it was William F. Buckley, Jr. proposing the radical option with his manifesto of “standing athwart history, shouting ‘Stop!’”

Well, I thought that Donald Trump had decided for us all, that we were not going to be nice any more, but get in liberal faces.

But if we are a revolutionary vanguard, what comes next? The answer is obvious: we go for the women’s vote.

Now according to my theory of male and female culture, gotten from James Bowman’s Honor, A History, men have a Culture of Insult, which derives from the male honor code of bravery, and women have a Culture of Complaint, which derives from the female honor code of chastity.

Brilliantly, Trump herded the white working-class males into the GOP column with his 2016 Campaign of Insult. So obviously the next step is to herd in the ordinary straight middle-class women with a Campaign of Complaint.

Okay, I’m a guy. I don’t have a clue how a Campaign of Complaint would work. I think that is a job for our magnificent conservative wives and mothers.

But here is what this campaign would amount to: Make Marriage Great Again.

A hundred years after women getting the vote, 50 years after the sexual revolution, 40 years after abortion on demand, what do women want? Perfectly simple. They want two things. The first is safety, as in safe spaces. And the second is fidelity, as in the complaint of Mattress Girl that you don’t get to dump me, pal, after a couple romps in the hay, not if you know what is good for you.

So nothing has changed.

It seems to me that there is an astonishing human institution that we are all familiar with, that tries and usually succeeds in accommodating the human female’s deep-seated desire for safety and a committed relationship. We call that institution Marriage.

Forget “I am woman; hear me roar.” Girls just want to be safe, like Salma Hayek who wants to be safe from Weinstein The Monster. Forget the sexual free-for-all. Matt Lauer’s one-time production assistant was still heartbroken when Matt called it off and she realized that she was not the love of his life, but just a nice bit of crackling, as they used to say in Britland in my youth, a Ruby Ruggles to Sir Felix Carbury.

You tell me: what institution protects women that want to be safe in long-term relationships?

Speaking of Carbury, the problem is not just villainous cads like him and Lauer. The whole point of Trollope’s The Way We Live Now, available on DVD, is the utter unreliability of young men where women are concerned. It’s not just the wastrel Carbury but the book’s hero Paul Montague. Even good guy Paul gets himself tied up in knots with too many women to suit the pure and matchless heroine Hetta Carbury.

Here we are after the sexual revolution, the divorce revolution, the abortion revolution and I have a question for you ladies: How does it make you feel? Not good? I thought so.

It’s not hard to see why. The sexual revolution makes it hard to women to test the fidelity of men since it removes her argument for chastity; the divorce revolution makes it hard for women because single women of a certain age are not much in demand; the abortion revolution makes it hard for women to say no when the “partner” in your bed wants to get rid of it.

I was talking with a good liberal woman the other evening and she seemed to think that now we were finally dishing the patriarchy and making it shameful for men to use their power over women.

Well, maybe so, but did men really have their wicked way with women more in the old days, or right now? The testimony of 19th-century authors like Austen, Eliot, Trollope, and Hardy suggests that, contra the feministas, respectable women were usually pretty safe, unlike today, and were usually protected from two-timing cads and bounders, unlike today. Working class women were often characterized in these books as maniacs for “respectability.”

So now that, ding, dong, the wicked Bill is dead, liberal women have discovered that they want the same thing that deplorable women do. But there is one problem. The minds of liberal women are so bollixed up with the 150 years of left-wing dialectics that it will take them a generation to realize that what they want after all is Marriage.

So look for some political genius to gen up a new politics that will, expressed with a proper feminine sensibility, Make Marriage Great Again.

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

Dear Jonah Still Doesn't Get It


I feel for Jonah Goldberg and the rest of the #NeverTrumpers at Conservatism Inc. The awful truth is that their Resistance to the leftward ratchet has failed, and the world has moved on.

So last week Jonah’s G-File is “Against One-Thingism,” complaining that we are becoming like our lefty friends for whom politics is everything, what with Republican and Trump support for Roy Moore, candidate for United States Senator in Alabama and all.

Okay, Jonah, so what is Baldrick’s cunning plan for dishing the left?

Let’s do the Eisenhower thing and make the problem bigger. What do you do when you are faced with a millennarian movement for which politics and power and cultural hegemony is indeed the holy One Thing.

The truth is that you have to come pretty close to your own One Thing. Otherwise you just go under the knout and bend the knee to the One Thingers and their political and cultural commissars, and your children go with the New World Order, as taught by regime thugs in the schools and in entertainment.

That is why the Reformation inspired a Counterreformation, the French Revolution inspired various anti-French Coalitions, the Bolshevik Revolution inspired a movement of anti-Communism, and it wasn’t pretty.

And that is why lefty progressivism has inspired Trumpism. It is no use complaining about life narrowing down to One Thing. We are in another big fight with the left, whether we like it or not.

Moreover, as the first year of Trump has revealed, in many ways we have gone backwards since the good old days of Reagan and Buckley in the 1980s. The Republican President and Congress have failed to reverse the ratchet of ObamaCare, and the pending tax plan is a lot more timid than the supply-side Reagan tax cuts of happy memory.

And then there is the little matter of the corruption of the bureaucracy. Isn’t it interesting that the Trump Russia convulsion is starting to expose the conversion of the FBI and Department of Justice into an enforcement arm of the Democratic Party? These guys rewrite memos to exculpate Dem politicians and scan every word of a Republican’s phone calls against his answers to FBI agents.

Let’s give Jonah Goldberg his due. The movement he represents fought against a post-World War II left that believed in a socialized economy and an accommodation with Communism. That counter-movement won the Cold War and discredited the idea of a government programs as the solution to all our problems.

Now we have a left that hides its socialist policies behind complex subsidy schemes like ObamaCare; it has betrayed the civil rights revolution with the racist and sexist politics of diversity and inclusion, and it wants to replace the nation state with a top-down globalist regime that is merely an oligarchy of power worshippers.

The One Thing on the right against which Jonah rails is a fermenting brew of political and cultural responses to the new lefty threat. It’s messy, it’s crazy, but everyone is trying to answer the same question: what is the best way to excise this new cancer on our glorious western project before it metastasizes all over our body, and what is the best way to rally people to its standard?

Is there a danger that a new One Thing might corrupt us and make us merely a mirror image of our lefty adversaries? Of course.

In fact, this fear is the constant obsession of the left, that some new Fascism will emerge from all the racist, sexist, homophobic hating on the right. Okay, so it might. Except that we on the right don’t believe in racism, don’t believe in occupying the commanding heights of the economy, and don’t believe in political power as a sacrament.

Meanwhile Jonah Goldberg is all worried about corruption by the One True Thing, and Kevin D. Williamson, too, is all worried about the corruption of Roy Moore.

Well, okay, we should be worried, but not to the extent that it prevents us from fighting the war.

The nasty thing about wars is that they get more and more ruthless as each side reaches more and more desperately for victory. The question is: what comes after the war? Does the victor kill all the men and salt the fields, as Rome did for Carthage in 146 B.C., or transport all the factories in East Germany to Russia, as the Soviets did after World War II?

Or do you lend the losers money and help them get back on their feet, as the West did to Germany and Japan after World War II?

My guess is that after we beat the left in this latest war, we will be merciful, or even absentminded. Because at the center of our One Thing is the fact that we righties are not that interested in power.

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 feel for Jonah Goldberg and the rest of the #NeverTrumpers at Conservatism Inc. The awful truth is that their Resistance to the leftward ratchet has failed, and the world has moved on.

So last week Jonah’s G-File is “Against One-Thingism,” complaining that we are becoming like our lefty friends for whom politics is everything, what with Republican and Trump support for Roy Moore, candidate for United States Senator in Alabama and all.

Okay, Jonah, so what is Baldrick’s cunning plan for dishing the left?

Let’s do the Eisenhower thing and make the problem bigger. What do you do when you are faced with a millennarian movement for which politics and power and cultural hegemony is indeed the holy One Thing.

The truth is that you have to come pretty close to your own One Thing. Otherwise you just go under the knout and bend the knee to the One Thingers and their political and cultural commissars, and your children go with the New World Order, as taught by regime thugs in the schools and in entertainment.

That is why the Reformation inspired a Counterreformation, the French Revolution inspired various anti-French Coalitions, the Bolshevik Revolution inspired a movement of anti-Communism, and it wasn’t pretty.

And that is why lefty progressivism has inspired Trumpism. It is no use complaining about life narrowing down to One Thing. We are in another big fight with the left, whether we like it or not.

Moreover, as the first year of Trump has revealed, in many ways we have gone backwards since the good old days of Reagan and Buckley in the 1980s. The Republican President and Congress have failed to reverse the ratchet of ObamaCare, and the pending tax plan is a lot more timid than the supply-side Reagan tax cuts of happy memory.

And then there is the little matter of the corruption of the bureaucracy. Isn’t it interesting that the Trump Russia convulsion is starting to expose the conversion of the FBI and Department of Justice into an enforcement arm of the Democratic Party? These guys rewrite memos to exculpate Dem politicians and scan every word of a Republican’s phone calls against his answers to FBI agents.

Let’s give Jonah Goldberg his due. The movement he represents fought against a post-World War II left that believed in a socialized economy and an accommodation with Communism. That counter-movement won the Cold War and discredited the idea of a government programs as the solution to all our problems.

Now we have a left that hides its socialist policies behind complex subsidy schemes like ObamaCare; it has betrayed the civil rights revolution with the racist and sexist politics of diversity and inclusion, and it wants to replace the nation state with a top-down globalist regime that is merely an oligarchy of power worshippers.

The One Thing on the right against which Jonah rails is a fermenting brew of political and cultural responses to the new lefty threat. It’s messy, it’s crazy, but everyone is trying to answer the same question: what is the best way to excise this new cancer on our glorious western project before it metastasizes all over our body, and what is the best way to rally people to its standard?

Is there a danger that a new One Thing might corrupt us and make us merely a mirror image of our lefty adversaries? Of course.

In fact, this fear is the constant obsession of the left, that some new Fascism will emerge from all the racist, sexist, homophobic hating on the right. Okay, so it might. Except that we on the right don’t believe in racism, don’t believe in occupying the commanding heights of the economy, and don’t believe in political power as a sacrament.

Meanwhile Jonah Goldberg is all worried about corruption by the One True Thing, and Kevin D. Williamson, too, is all worried about the corruption of Roy Moore.

Well, okay, we should be worried, but not to the extent that it prevents us from fighting the war.

The nasty thing about wars is that they get more and more ruthless as each side reaches more and more desperately for victory. The question is: what comes after the war? Does the victor kill all the men and salt the fields, as Rome did for Carthage in 146 B.C., or transport all the factories in East Germany to Russia, as the Soviets did after World War II?

Or do you lend the losers money and help them get back on their feet, as the West did to Germany and Japan after World War II?

My guess is that after we beat the left in this latest war, we will be merciful, or even absentminded. Because at the center of our One Thing is the fact that we righties are not that interested in power.

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

Let's Apply the Precautionary Principle to Liberal Gender-Bending!


A thoughtful reader sent me an important Spiked article about “We Are More Than  Gender.” Author Joanna Williams rotates through the ritual liberal positions on sex and gender that takes for granted all the gender-bending dialectics we have learned to know and love. Then she cautions her readers with the science from evolutionary psychology. Still, she says:

Today, dominant understandings of gender disregard people’s own sense of agency in making their own life choices and shaping their own personality…


Of course, not everyone gets to react to biology and society in conditions of their own choosing, and we might not always approve of the choices other people make.

Do you see what is going on here? The author takes for granted the worldview of the People of the Creative Self, one of my reductive Three Peoples identities. She worries about “dominant understandings of gender” from the point of view of a creative person that wants a world in which she determines her own “sense of agency,” “life choices,” and “personality.” She also covers the lefty victim line that not everyone gets to act “in conditions of their own choosing.”

Quite so. But, because Williams is a Person of the Creative Self she completely misses the notion that there are other people in the world besides creative people and their desire for agency and life choices, and that these other people would not have a clue what she is talking about.

For instance, if you are a Person of the Responsible Self, you just accept that your religion’s cultural rules and the government’s laws are what they are, and that to step outside these guard-rails is not only unthinkable but evil. And for you the meaning of life is to live as a responsible individual inside those guardrails and thus earn your place in Heaven. So, for you, all the liberal gender-bending is the moral equivalent of driving the family car through the guard-rails and over the cliff.

If you are a Person of the Subordinate Self, worker or peasant victim, you don’t think about getting creative; you don’t even think about rules and laws. You unreflectively do just what you need to do to survive another day; your world ends with the family members, bosses, government officials, policemen, and gang members that keep messing you about.

By the way, our liberal friends that are so insistent about us getting creative about sex and gender and the avant-garde in art are notably noncreative when it comes to government programs and the economy. In fact, you might almost call them deplorable reactionaries.

Hey liberals, let’s challenge the “dominant understandings” about Social Security and let the creative types at Vanguard and Fidelity gin up a new one! Let’s junk the whole dysfunctional health care system, get the government out of the way, and let creative souls invent a new one. And let’s let the Internet get creative without “net neutrality” enforcing a dominant understanding.

Oh no, say liberals, like the most bigoted deplorable. Touch health care and you bring down the country. And as for the evil cable guy…

So on some things, liberals are complete subordinate victims; they are terrified by any world other than the world of their archetypal welfare state.

I’ve been reading the Jungian psychologist Erich Neumann recently in The Great Mother, all about the matriarchal archetypal unconscious epoch before the advent of our modern patriarchal consciousness. It is a reminder that our human conscious selves and our beloved reason may be no more than the slime mold on top of a mountain of unconsciousness. Suppose all the brilliant liberal creativeness about sex and gender touched off an eruption of some archetypal volcano in the deep unconscious, of which we previously knew nothing. And like the actual physical super-volcanos, the Yellowstones, the Crater Lakes of which we have heard tell from scientists, any one of these eruptions could completely erase life on Earth as we know it.

Liberals make a big deal about engineers and scientists observing the Precautionary Principle when doing energy projects. But they are utterly blind to the notion that their social experiments might accidentally violate some archetypal coding deep in the human unconscious and lead to the extinction of the human race, the human equivalent of the Mouse Utopia experiment.

Yes, liberals, bend gender all you want. But remember that your froth sits on top of our conscious civilization, and that sits on top of our archetypal unconscious, and that sits on top of the DNA of life. And then, of course, it’s turtles all the way down.

And don’t forget the awful truth known by every serious creative person: she might be barking up the wrong tree, and the whole thing turn out to be a dreadful failure.

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.

A thoughtful reader sent me an important Spiked article about “We Are More Than  Gender.” Author Joanna Williams rotates through the ritual liberal positions on sex and gender that takes for granted all the gender-bending dialectics we have learned to know and love. Then she cautions her readers with the science from evolutionary psychology. Still, she says:

Today, dominant understandings of gender disregard people’s own sense of agency in making their own life choices and shaping their own personality…


Of course, not everyone gets to react to biology and society in conditions of their own choosing, and we might not always approve of the choices other people make.

Do you see what is going on here? The author takes for granted the worldview of the People of the Creative Self, one of my reductive Three Peoples identities. She worries about “dominant understandings of gender” from the point of view of a creative person that wants a world in which she determines her own “sense of agency,” “life choices,” and “personality.” She also covers the lefty victim line that not everyone gets to act “in conditions of their own choosing.”

Quite so. But, because Williams is a Person of the Creative Self she completely misses the notion that there are other people in the world besides creative people and their desire for agency and life choices, and that these other people would not have a clue what she is talking about.

For instance, if you are a Person of the Responsible Self, you just accept that your religion’s cultural rules and the government’s laws are what they are, and that to step outside these guard-rails is not only unthinkable but evil. And for you the meaning of life is to live as a responsible individual inside those guardrails and thus earn your place in Heaven. So, for you, all the liberal gender-bending is the moral equivalent of driving the family car through the guard-rails and over the cliff.

If you are a Person of the Subordinate Self, worker or peasant victim, you don’t think about getting creative; you don’t even think about rules and laws. You unreflectively do just what you need to do to survive another day; your world ends with the family members, bosses, government officials, policemen, and gang members that keep messing you about.

By the way, our liberal friends that are so insistent about us getting creative about sex and gender and the avant-garde in art are notably noncreative when it comes to government programs and the economy. In fact, you might almost call them deplorable reactionaries.

Hey liberals, let’s challenge the “dominant understandings” about Social Security and let the creative types at Vanguard and Fidelity gin up a new one! Let’s junk the whole dysfunctional health care system, get the government out of the way, and let creative souls invent a new one. And let’s let the Internet get creative without “net neutrality” enforcing a dominant understanding.

Oh no, say liberals, like the most bigoted deplorable. Touch health care and you bring down the country. And as for the evil cable guy…

So on some things, liberals are complete subordinate victims; they are terrified by any world other than the world of their archetypal welfare state.

I’ve been reading the Jungian psychologist Erich Neumann recently in The Great Mother, all about the matriarchal archetypal unconscious epoch before the advent of our modern patriarchal consciousness. It is a reminder that our human conscious selves and our beloved reason may be no more than the slime mold on top of a mountain of unconsciousness. Suppose all the brilliant liberal creativeness about sex and gender touched off an eruption of some archetypal volcano in the deep unconscious, of which we previously knew nothing. And like the actual physical super-volcanos, the Yellowstones, the Crater Lakes of which we have heard tell from scientists, any one of these eruptions could completely erase life on Earth as we know it.

Liberals make a big deal about engineers and scientists observing the Precautionary Principle when doing energy projects. But they are utterly blind to the notion that their social experiments might accidentally violate some archetypal coding deep in the human unconscious and lead to the extinction of the human race, the human equivalent of the Mouse Utopia experiment.

Yes, liberals, bend gender all you want. But remember that your froth sits on top of our conscious civilization, and that sits on top of our archetypal unconscious, and that sits on top of the DNA of life. And then, of course, it’s turtles all the way down.

And don’t forget the awful truth known by every serious creative person: she might be barking up the wrong tree, and the whole thing turn out to be a dreadful failure.

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

After Harvey and Al and Charlie, the Left Still Does Not Get It


There’s a lot of people wagging their fingers just now at the 1990s. If you want to understand the 2010s and HarveyFrankengate, they say, it all started with Bill Clinton’s One Free Grope.

How do we solve the problem? Let’s do an Ike and make the problem bigger, with Hillary Clinton.

I haven’t read Hillary Clinton’s majestic political thriller What Happened, but I understand that page 114 contains the following gem:

This has to be said: sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election. Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won.

How could this be, 50 years after the Civil Rights Acts, in a half century where the only thing that liberals cared about was racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Now we know. It turns out that the supporters of Hillary Clinton, in Hollywood, in Congress, in broadcasting, are the most sexist and misogynistic people on the planet! So that’s what she means by “sexism and misogyny played a role!” Who knew!

Sexism and misogyny are what Harvey Weinstein does. And Al Franken. And Charlie Rose too. Because in my book, sexism is getting a girl into a restaurant for champagne and caviar, hustling her out a side door over to the office, and misogyny is bringing her back “much the worse for wear.” Or thrusting your tongue into her mouth. Or parading around naked. Talk about the power of the patriarchy, feminist approved, because “choice.”

But this is very bad. If the liberal champions of the rights of women are nothing but gap-toothed sexists and misogynists then what hope is there for a world in which women are safe and respected?

It gets worse. If women are being harassed six ways from Sunday in the workplace, maybe that means that women are too fragile and helpless to look after themselves without the protection of fathers and brothers and husbands near at hand, especially considering that the police are too busy killing blacks to lend a hand.

It is clear from the actions of the Harveys and the Als and the Charlies that their thing is power. They like power and they like to use it on women. But if this is a problem with liberal notables, imagine how bad the problem must be for poor Julia, faithfully living her Life of Julia consuming government programs. She’s the kind of girl that works in an administrative bureaucracy like a hospital, or a congressional office, or a corporation, in which workers do the will of the organization supervised by administrative power from above. This means that any woman is at risk from any man supervising her. Because power.

The message from the campus rape crisis and sexual harassment in the workplace is that women expect, nay demand, to be protected. And they get very angry if they are not protected, like this snowflake at The New Republic who says that the snowflakers were right all along: it isn’t safe! Therefore:

Really making our spaces safe will require much more, though. It will require a real redistribution of power throughout the workplace, the campus, the economy, the world. Until then, the blathering class is right on one point: There is no such thing as a safe space.

Notice the passive voice. To Sarah Jaffe, “redistribution of power” is something that just gets done, no doubt by government’s men with guns, properly supervised by diversity and inclusion administrators.

So here we are, with the wages of a century of liberals redistributing power and loot:

  • The sexual revolution has made college women into booty calls.
  • Careers for women has meant subordinating them to the slavering Harveys of the world.
  • Blacks are so pissed off that they believe that the cops are trying to kill them.

And the liberal response is to demand more “redistribution of power.”

You know, if Sarah Jaffe got out more she might discover that there is a whole universe of thinkers out there dedicated to the proposition that the problem is power, and the solution is the separation of powers. To these thinkers, the redistribution of power means nothing, just the replacement of one set of thugs by another. But if you separate power, within government and between government and the private sector and religion, then you can set up the bleachers to watch the powerful duke it out with each other. And while the powerful are doing their power thing with each other the rest of us can create safe spaces where people that are not that interested in power can wive and thrive without kowtowing every morning to the local power yokel.

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.

There’s a lot of people wagging their fingers just now at the 1990s. If you want to understand the 2010s and HarveyFrankengate, they say, it all started with Bill Clinton’s One Free Grope.

How do we solve the problem? Let’s do an Ike and make the problem bigger, with Hillary Clinton.

I haven’t read Hillary Clinton’s majestic political thriller What Happened, but I understand that page 114 contains the following gem:

This has to be said: sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election. Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won.

How could this be, 50 years after the Civil Rights Acts, in a half century where the only thing that liberals cared about was racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Now we know. It turns out that the supporters of Hillary Clinton, in Hollywood, in Congress, in broadcasting, are the most sexist and misogynistic people on the planet! So that’s what she means by “sexism and misogyny played a role!” Who knew!

Sexism and misogyny are what Harvey Weinstein does. And Al Franken. And Charlie Rose too. Because in my book, sexism is getting a girl into a restaurant for champagne and caviar, hustling her out a side door over to the office, and misogyny is bringing her back “much the worse for wear.” Or thrusting your tongue into her mouth. Or parading around naked. Talk about the power of the patriarchy, feminist approved, because “choice.”

But this is very bad. If the liberal champions of the rights of women are nothing but gap-toothed sexists and misogynists then what hope is there for a world in which women are safe and respected?

It gets worse. If women are being harassed six ways from Sunday in the workplace, maybe that means that women are too fragile and helpless to look after themselves without the protection of fathers and brothers and husbands near at hand, especially considering that the police are too busy killing blacks to lend a hand.

It is clear from the actions of the Harveys and the Als and the Charlies that their thing is power. They like power and they like to use it on women. But if this is a problem with liberal notables, imagine how bad the problem must be for poor Julia, faithfully living her Life of Julia consuming government programs. She’s the kind of girl that works in an administrative bureaucracy like a hospital, or a congressional office, or a corporation, in which workers do the will of the organization supervised by administrative power from above. This means that any woman is at risk from any man supervising her. Because power.

The message from the campus rape crisis and sexual harassment in the workplace is that women expect, nay demand, to be protected. And they get very angry if they are not protected, like this snowflake at The New Republic who says that the snowflakers were right all along: it isn’t safe! Therefore:

Really making our spaces safe will require much more, though. It will require a real redistribution of power throughout the workplace, the campus, the economy, the world. Until then, the blathering class is right on one point: There is no such thing as a safe space.

Notice the passive voice. To Sarah Jaffe, “redistribution of power” is something that just gets done, no doubt by government’s men with guns, properly supervised by diversity and inclusion administrators.

So here we are, with the wages of a century of liberals redistributing power and loot:

  • The sexual revolution has made college women into booty calls.
  • Careers for women has meant subordinating them to the slavering Harveys of the world.
  • Blacks are so pissed off that they believe that the cops are trying to kill them.

And the liberal response is to demand more “redistribution of power.”

You know, if Sarah Jaffe got out more she might discover that there is a whole universe of thinkers out there dedicated to the proposition that the problem is power, and the solution is the separation of powers. To these thinkers, the redistribution of power means nothing, just the replacement of one set of thugs by another. But if you separate power, within government and between government and the private sector and religion, then you can set up the bleachers to watch the powerful duke it out with each other. And while the powerful are doing their power thing with each other the rest of us can create safe spaces where people that are not that interested in power can wive and thrive without kowtowing every morning to the local power yokel.

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

The Bankruptcy of One Free Grope Politics


As the Moore vs. Franken Trash Olympics continues, liberals like Howard Fineman are going back to the future and renewing the One Free Grope indulgence that once got Bill Clinton out of purgatory, because Al Franken is a “lifelong champion of women’s rights.”

Meanwhile Sean Trende tweets:

I don’t think you can underestimate the degree to which many conservatives have this attitude: (a) we fought a battle over whether character counts, and got our asses handed to us and (b) liberal leaders always circle the wagons around their guys, and ours always cave.

We are past the time for worrying, like former Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, that not enough conservatives have read their Burke or their Russell Kirk.

As I wrote over a year ago: “All I Know is that Gentlemanly Conservatism is Dead.” Or as Gen. Patton said: “Now, I want you to remember that no son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country.”

That’s the reason we have President Trump and Steve Bannon. When no conservative ideas are allowed to microaggress the little darlings in their safe spaces in the nation’s schools and universities, because white privilege, we are not in a frank discussion of the issues any more.  We are living under an oppressive regime that labels our right to petition for the redress of grievances as out of bounds. Okay, we are not exactly in a Reign of Terror, but you’d better watch your step.

Hey, One Free Gropers, Trump in the “Access Hollywood” tapes was only talking about pussy grabbing. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) actually had himself selfied doing the dirty, back when selfies had just been invented! Talk about living on the bleeding edge: so cool! But Franken cares about women’s rights, just like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein, so that makes him special.

The problem for normals is, as Sean Trende suggests, that when you argue that character counts in politics, you open yourself to a flank attack on any question of character, whether you are Richard Nixon defending the Silent Majority from the Sixties Kids, Robert Bork defending originalism from Ted Kennedy, Clarence Thomas defending the right to be a conservative black from liberal sweetie Anita Hill. Next thing you know, George W. Bush gets sideswiped for a DWI, and Donald Trump for a pussy tape.

Why are Democrats reduced to the Politics of October Surprises? I think it must be that the welfare state has nowhere left to turn. It has plundered the economy to hand out loot to its supporters about as far as it can go. It can’t excite workers with visions of retirement sugar plums; it already did that. It can’t excite parents with visions of glorious education for their children; it already did that. It is reduced to promising health insurance to the 30 million in the gap between employer insurance and Medicaid, and to lying about how everybody else will pay less. It is reduced to ignoring black-on-black violence. It is reduced to conjuring up fantastic stories about frying the planet. Or the moral necessity of gay marriage. Only problem is that ordinary people just don’t care about health insurance for the uninsured, or cops mowing down black homeboys, or the wonders of electric cars. These new issues don’t move the needle.

Failing to move the needle with gay marriage and electric cars Democrats advertise their political bankruptcy every day with the politics of personal destruction. Really, what better way to demoralize the bourgeoisie, the middling sort of people, than to accuse its leaders of sexual improprieties? Yes, it’s true, you can successfully gross out college women with locker-room talk and reduce voter turnout among the respectable classes.

Bad boy Vox Day has articulated the tactics needed for the new age. It is: We Don’t Care. The Children? Yeah, we already heard that one. Diversity? That’s racism, straight up. Hate speech? Look in the mirror, pal. Locker-room talk? So what is George Carlin going to do?

Let’s face it: the ruling class wants politics to be about sex scandals because it has nothing positive to offer the American people.

Wake up, ruling class. The politics of the future will be about the injustices you have visited on the middling sort of people: the competition from immigrants, the soaring price of homes, the slave system of college debt, the taxes on labor, the indignities visited on white guys by the diversity SSJW.

And it’s only just begun. Imagine if some political genius got the white working class and the respectable black middle class to vote together. It can’t be that hard. After all, we just elected a man that had never run before for political office. All it takes is a genius or a guy that knows how to hire them.

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.

As the Moore vs. Franken Trash Olympics continues, liberals like Howard Fineman are going back to the future and renewing the One Free Grope indulgence that once got Bill Clinton out of purgatory, because Al Franken is a “lifelong champion of women’s rights.”

Meanwhile Sean Trende tweets:

I don’t think you can underestimate the degree to which many conservatives have this attitude: (a) we fought a battle over whether character counts, and got our asses handed to us and (b) liberal leaders always circle the wagons around their guys, and ours always cave.

We are past the time for worrying, like former Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, that not enough conservatives have read their Burke or their Russell Kirk.

As I wrote over a year ago: “All I Know is that Gentlemanly Conservatism is Dead.” Or as Gen. Patton said: “Now, I want you to remember that no son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country.”

That’s the reason we have President Trump and Steve Bannon. When no conservative ideas are allowed to microaggress the little darlings in their safe spaces in the nation’s schools and universities, because white privilege, we are not in a frank discussion of the issues any more.  We are living under an oppressive regime that labels our right to petition for the redress of grievances as out of bounds. Okay, we are not exactly in a Reign of Terror, but you’d better watch your step.

Hey, One Free Gropers, Trump in the “Access Hollywood” tapes was only talking about pussy grabbing. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) actually had himself selfied doing the dirty, back when selfies had just been invented! Talk about living on the bleeding edge: so cool! But Franken cares about women’s rights, just like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein, so that makes him special.

The problem for normals is, as Sean Trende suggests, that when you argue that character counts in politics, you open yourself to a flank attack on any question of character, whether you are Richard Nixon defending the Silent Majority from the Sixties Kids, Robert Bork defending originalism from Ted Kennedy, Clarence Thomas defending the right to be a conservative black from liberal sweetie Anita Hill. Next thing you know, George W. Bush gets sideswiped for a DWI, and Donald Trump for a pussy tape.

Why are Democrats reduced to the Politics of October Surprises? I think it must be that the welfare state has nowhere left to turn. It has plundered the economy to hand out loot to its supporters about as far as it can go. It can’t excite workers with visions of retirement sugar plums; it already did that. It can’t excite parents with visions of glorious education for their children; it already did that. It is reduced to promising health insurance to the 30 million in the gap between employer insurance and Medicaid, and to lying about how everybody else will pay less. It is reduced to ignoring black-on-black violence. It is reduced to conjuring up fantastic stories about frying the planet. Or the moral necessity of gay marriage. Only problem is that ordinary people just don’t care about health insurance for the uninsured, or cops mowing down black homeboys, or the wonders of electric cars. These new issues don’t move the needle.

Failing to move the needle with gay marriage and electric cars Democrats advertise their political bankruptcy every day with the politics of personal destruction. Really, what better way to demoralize the bourgeoisie, the middling sort of people, than to accuse its leaders of sexual improprieties? Yes, it’s true, you can successfully gross out college women with locker-room talk and reduce voter turnout among the respectable classes.

Bad boy Vox Day has articulated the tactics needed for the new age. It is: We Don’t Care. The Children? Yeah, we already heard that one. Diversity? That’s racism, straight up. Hate speech? Look in the mirror, pal. Locker-room talk? So what is George Carlin going to do?

Let’s face it: the ruling class wants politics to be about sex scandals because it has nothing positive to offer the American people.

Wake up, ruling class. The politics of the future will be about the injustices you have visited on the middling sort of people: the competition from immigrants, the soaring price of homes, the slave system of college debt, the taxes on labor, the indignities visited on white guys by the diversity SSJW.

And it’s only just begun. Imagine if some political genius got the white working class and the respectable black middle class to vote together. It can’t be that hard. After all, we just elected a man that had never run before for political office. All it takes is a genius or a guy that knows how to hire them.

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

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